On basis that such was NT practices everywhere in first 300 years

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

On basis that such was NT practices everywhere in first 300 years

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

House Church (again!) (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Clarifications (RTC)
Re:

The NT Model is not Normative, Not Meant to be. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Not normative? On what basis? (RTC)
Re:

And Normative on What Basis? (Christopher Yip)
Date: 2001, May 02
From: RTC

ME: Are you saying ALL the churches fail to carry out ANY of the intent of those principles? And even when they did indeed fail, is it BECAUSE they were "institutions"? Don't you think this is the same argument as the bible cannot be the only rule of faith since we have 28000 interpretations? ++I said churches have largely failed to carry out the intent of those principles, not that they have failed to carry out any of those. And certainly institutionalism has been a major, if not the only, cause of it. Just think about the Lord’s Supper. We both noted that they took it in the context of a social meal when they gather in the Lord for a church meeting. Obviously they could, like us, do away with all the lay-chayness and just bring some crumbs and a tiny bottle of liquid. Then they can get the Lord’s Supper over and done with in 30 seconds flat and proceed to hearing a sermon. However that wasn’t what they did. The meal together is one of the key things that families do. It speaks a lot about how these people view themselves when they sit down with one another and fellowship over a common meal. Do you know that even eating with fellow believers can even be an act of worship (Acts 2 where they ate with glad and sincere hearts)? Institutionalizing the church has meant stripping away the family setting of this and reduce it to mere ritual. Only a skeletal meaning is retained and the word “Supper” really is but a snack. Who are we kidding? ME: You haven't answered the question, RTC. There are definitely pros and cons of house churches and modern churches but is that your complaint? Then it has nothing to do with NT model or biblical exegesis, right? ++I’m not arguing pros and cons here. I’m talking about institutionalism affecting church life the way it was supposed to be. And it certainly has got to do with exegesis. ME: Then we are back to the same issue. Does it mean that because Paul worked with his hands, pastors too must work with their hands? ++Then what do you make of Paul’s words in Acts 20:34-35 where he said “You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me. In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” Again I am not comfortable the way you put it in a “must” kind of way as I am in no position to enforce any such actions. All I can say is that Paul himself set the example for us to follow. My question is, “why don’t pastors want to do that?” If you take this argument, don't forget that elders were appointed, so shouldn't all house church leaders be appointed too? ++You need to understand what is the nature of such appointments and how it is being done. If you think the apostles just come into a house church and point fingers or to see if there is a halo over a candidate’s head you are most wrong. Vine’s dictionary tells us that this is not ecclesiastical order in action. It is the confirmation of those whom the church has already recognised as functioning in the capacities befitting of someone worthy to be an overseer. The scenario is like this. Paul raised up a house church, spent a few weeks or months with them teaching them to know Christ, leaves them, come back months or years later to visit them, and by that time certain people would have stood out among them as matured and seasoned believers which the church acknowledges. Paul or his delegate then confirmed these people as leaders by laying hands on them. Contrast this with the way we do things today. We go by seminary qualifications or those who think they have a call and we send them to seminary to get a qualification. Where is the testing ground before the appointment? Rather we appoint people then we test them. Worst still, we judge the suitability of appointment by how good he preaches a sermon before a panel. I think you misread me. I did say that I think it would be good if pastors can support themselves and this works only if the congregation shares the ministry. But the point is that if the congregation decides to pay the pastor so that he can concentrate on doing a good job well, is it wrong? Yes, you can say that it wasn't in the NT practice but is it wrong? And why is it so? Simply because it wasn't done then? Is that the criteria? ++Like I said, it’s a matter of man’s ways versus Scripture. The apostles gave us the Scriptures. If you think our way of doing ministry work is good, I will say the Bible’s example is best. Think about it, paying a pastor means that you are hiring him. This is a hireling whether you like that term or not. He becomes indebted to the church to provide a service in return, and the church demands their money’s worth. Then you need to monitor his work so that he is not skiving or having a fun time outside. You will then require him to be at your beck and call, to report to church office and work 9-5PM, apply for leave, work hard for a promotion, get fired if the church don’t grow, and all other attendant issues that relate to any employment. And because the church pays him, the church sits back and let the poor pastor runs the show and give a good service every Sunday. You may say the church don’t teach such a thing. But I say that this is exactly what is happening in many churches all over the world. But rather than think the system needs to be revamped, many try to alleviate the problem by trying to get the laity more involved by coming up with more programs and activitites planned by the board. They are not aiming at the root of the problem. ME: I agree that every meal should reflect our theology. Did you know that is precisely the reason why The Salvation Army doesn't have Lord's Supper? We believe that every meal, eaten at home or at work, should be taken in remembrance of God's grace, including His greatest gift. ++It is commendable that everything should be done with gratefulness. But we should not do away with the Lord’s Supper as a distinctive mark of the fellowship of believers when they come together. Otherwise we rationalize away a biblical imperative when Jesus called us to do it as often as we can in remembrance of Him. And this is not in the context of saying grace before meals, but in the context of believers in a church meeting. On right and wrong, I thought that was what you have been arguing with Frank, et al. Perhaps I read you wrongly. So you agree that while what we do today may be different from what the NT church did, it is not biblically wrong, right? So it is a matter of prudence and expediency, right? ++No, that’s not what I mean. I hope you can see the distinction between being biblical and being morally right or wrong. It is certainly not morally wrong to have only one man speak throughout a church service and relegate the church to mere spectators. But it is not biblical practice and it will have adverse effects on the church. Can you appreciate the distinction? ME: Again, we are talking only about what was done in Paul's time. RTC, no one is arguing against these facts - that they met in homes, that they had small groups, that they ate a communal meal, that they perhaps was spontaneous. The issue is that you say THEREFORE to be a biblical church, we MUST follow this NT model. Perhaps you didn't say that, but I believe that is the implication. If we have inferred wrongly, then we can end this discussion since it no longer is a case of biblically right or wrong to have house or modern churches. ++To be a biblical church, we should follow NT church practices. Think about what Paul would think about when he steps into a Sunday service. Would he recognise it as a church meeting? And this is not about living in different times. By seeking to be NT, I am not asking that we live in the past, but that we understand why they did the things they did and to retain these distinctiveness. And we all agree that house churches are still very much alive today, so your point about Paul’s time is not valid. You said I am confusing the what with the how but wasn't it you who complained against the use of order of service? Did I miss something here? ++You said the traditional churches have preaching, worship, sacraments and that these are 1 Cor 14:26 in action. I disagree. The way these things are carried out in 1 Cor 14:26 resembles nothing like the standard format we have today in services. ME: Ah, so what you are saying is that in every house church, in every place and country, EVERYONE participates. So if you have a group of 15, you ensure that ALL 15 contribute at EVERY meeting. Is that it? Is that what is meant by 1 Cor 14:26? It appears to me that you are now going into the "what" rather than the "how"! ++Nope. What refers to the teaching, sharing, singing of songs, revelation. The How it is being done is that everyone take turns to do it. If you ask what is being done, then you talk about songs, psalms, teaching, sharing. If you ask how these are being done, then it will be everyone taking turns. Get the point? I don't argue for passive participation, RTC. As I have pointed out, the Church does not have only the Sunday service. It also has cell groups. How many people participate actively on occasions varies and you think that is a contradiction to 1 Cor 14:26? I have yet to find a commentator worth his salt who interprets the text this way. ++If I am not mistaken, John Drane in his Introducing the NT laments that very thing. Gordon Fee also made similar observations. Surely they are considered very “saltish”. I also found some stuff from The Emmaus Journal where in one of the articles (arguing that NT practices are normative for today ) it said of 1 Cor 14:26: “The issue before us is how far we should follow the type of worship seen here in 1 Corinthians 14. Should our worship be allowed the liberty and spontaneity that is seen at Corinth as long as there is no disorder? The first thing to note is that what we have in Corinth is a church established by the apostle Paul, taught by the apostle, and guided by the apostle in its worship and ministry. If the type of worship established at Corinth by the apostle Paul (apart from excesses) is not meant to guide us in our church practice, then we have to conclude that there is no New Testament guidance whatsoever. The manner of a church’s worship is purely a matter of human contrivance. Each one is to do that which is right in his own eyes and worship God in the manner of his own choice. Much of church liturgy and the order of services has been derived in this way. Some comes from the Old Testament tabernacle and temple worship. Some is even of pagan derivation. The test of any type of worship is in nature whether God is worshipped in spirit and in truth (John 4:23) and in practice whether it allows believers to have the liberty and privileges which are seen as rightfully theirs in 1 Corinthians 14:26. The fact that this type of service seems “completely strange to our ideas” and ordinary Christians do not come prepared to take part in this way shows a failure in our contemporary practice.” You see, RTC, the fact that many don't participate is not the fault of having an "institutional" church. Is there any church, except perhaps the RCC, that says that laity cannot participate in the service? Or could it be the individual's reluctance? ++Think about it, if your service time is only 2 hours, and the pastor is preaching, who would want to participate by saying something without the usher hushing him up or a brother asking him to let the pastor finish and ask him afterwards so as not to disrupt the meeting? In fact, the whole 2 hour is sacred and cannot be touched without the officiating person allowing for that. And even if he does, it is the exception and not the norm as he wants to finish his sermon. ME: But again, you haven't proven that collection MUST ONLY be for that two purposes. Sure, it was for that two purposes in NT, but does it say it has to be the same throughout the history of man? ++Like I have mentioned, I am talking about the NT being a model for us. If you don’t think you must follow it, it is entirely up to you. I am not advocating a “must” as I am in no position to encroach on your freedom. But I am telling you that we should heed to the NT examples. Now, if I were to follow your example strictly, I shouldn't also give to any charitable organisations like NKF, should I? Because it says to alleviate the poverty of BELIEVERS. So, ALL Christians should henceforth refrain from giving to any charity except Christian ones and ONLY if they use the money to help BELIEVERS. ++If you were to follow my example strictly you would take heed of Galatians 6:10 where it says to do good to all (believers and non-believers included), ESPECIALLY to those in the household of faith. This has been my position all along if you care to verify that in my many exchanges with Frank. The LOVESINGAPORE movement, although I have many problems with it, is doing community service by washing cars, baking hot buns, etc. for the community in order to penetrate the community in its evangelism. Heck, we should stop all these since the NT did none of these! ++Rather than stop it blindly, we should ask ourselves why the NT church did not do it the way we did. I offer a thought. The NT church was more concerned with good works as a way of living and not good works to remove the offense of the cross so as to make “taking the city” easier. They did their good works without publicity and pomp, and they did it “in secret”. They see themselves doing acts of charity, but do not see or make themselves known as charitable organisations or setups. ME: The NT model is your creation, not mine. We'll use your definition. Correct me if I am wrong. I asked you before - was Christianity a legal religion before Constantine? ++Legality had nothing to do with it. During that time, religion wasn’t something to be legalised. You can have any religion you want as long as you do not disrupt the political climate. You can come from another place and bring all your family gods with you. Evidence is that in times of relative peace (organised and widespread persecution of saints in the first 250 years is a myth, it was localised and sporadic) the believers met in their homes. Wasn't Jesus condemned as a common criminal? Weren't Christians thrown to the lions and burned during the first two hundred years? Do you really think Paul could have said, come, let's build this magnificient big church in the face of the Romans? Could he, RTC? ++He would not even have thought of it. Whether it was persecution or not, his idea of what a church is will be the same. Why? Simply because his theology about the church was spot on. The church is not a place. She is the people of God. She is a pilgrim people. If you question if I can read Paul’s mind, then yours is equally questioned as well. As Howard Synder has said, church buildings testify to our immobility, our inflexibility, and also our pride. And about titles, some of the churches with long histories simply retain the terms such as bishops, canon, rector, etc. ++Whatever history it is, it is still not to be done. Jesus was against the use of religious titles among His people as it violates the idea of brethren and equality. Keeping cell groups small is also a key strategy in cell ministry. As I have said, many of the principles of house church are the same as those of cell groups except the latter come under the bigger umbrella of the church. THey get their resources from it and every week, they all come together for corporate worship. I know the NT church didn't do that but is it therefore biblically wrong? ++But you have no NT basis for that. This is what I am trying to say. ME: No, RTC, you are shifting here and there. In an earlier post, when I followed through the implications of your literal interpretation, you said it's the principles. Now you say it is principles and practices. If practices, then why not stop giving to charity, why not take the Lord's supper fully dressed for a marathon, why not stop women from talking, why not take unleaven bread - these ARE the practices, RTC! ++Practices flow from principles. There are practices that fully express the intention behind the principles and practices that are a pale patronising of the principles. ++Model is different from principles, don’t confuse them. In any case, you may well be using the same terms but give those terms a different meaning as originally intended to mean. Principles can be easily mouthed off but the practices will undermine it. ME: It can happen to anyone, even house church advocates. ++But that shouldn’t give you any justification to perpetuate it, does it? At most it should help us see our own weaknesses, but it shouldn’t be “if you can’t do it, then I am well justified in not doing it as well either.” ME: OK, so what then are you arguing? You said the Corinthians ate the Lord's supper as part of the communal meal, so we should do likewise. Isn't that so? Isn't that exactness? ++That’s pattern. The exactness you guys talk about borders on the kind of food in the meal, right down to how well done the meat is. That not what I mean, which you guys always do a good job of misrepresenting. As I have said, the acts of the apostles are not all normative. THey are history, not doctrines. The apostles didn't photocopy their writings, they were handcopied - shouldn't we do the same? Isn't photocopying far far off the scale? ++See what I mean concerning photocopy? You confuse a pattern of church life with the technology of the day. And which kind would you consider normative? No doubt Acts is descriptive, but you also agreed that there was an underlying theology behind what they did. ME: And you can read their minds on this? I certainly don't find in Scriptures that because of the imminent return of Christ, they therefore PURPOSELY ensure that they met in house churches. ++But certainly the expecting of Jesus’ coming wouldn’t spur them to purposely build complexes to meet in! And please don’t talk about reading minds, none of us can do that. You are just as incapable as I am of reading their minds. If that is how you want to argue, then any understanding of Christianity is hopeless after the first century. Instead, I read persecution, believers afraid of the Romans finding out their faith, and in history, actual martyrdoms. I am not surprised they met in houses to avoid the law. ++On the contrary, the public sharing of the gospel in the temple grounds and in synagogues more than refute the point that the believers were afraid of sharing their faith. The early church expected persecution from their proclamation and radical way of living, as predicted by Jesus. But do we? And please, I’m not talking about being anti-government. ME: RTC, I happen to be a supporter of house church myself. I too own Steve Atkerson's Towards A House Church Theology. I may not be an authority on it but I know what house churches are. ++Then it perplexes me to know that after owning some of these resources you still use the same arguments like any person who have no idea what house churches are all about. Do you see your arbitrariness? It was you who go along this line - arguing on the basis that this is not what the NT church DID! Remember? It was all about what the NT church did and did not do. Please don't jump your own ship. YOu said they ate a communal meal (that's what they did), you said they gave to missions and to poor believers (again, that's what they did) and you say this is what we should do as a church. Am I wrong? ++No. That’s what I am saying. How arbitrary is that? Shouldn’t we go beyond what they did and ask why? And then use that kind of understanding to guide our own practices as well? ME: AH, so it IS about right and wrong after all, RTC! You mentioned doctrines of the church. I've said it before, you list all the things that the NT church did and then conclude that this is the ONLY legitimate and biblical way. But did the apostles say so? No, so your position is far from being proven from Scriptures. ++Yes I mention it is about doctrines of the church. More importantly it is about the practice of those doctrines. ME: I think people see that a small price to pay for the benefits of meeting in a public church. ++Is it really a small price to spend millions on a 30 year property (compare that to the $1.2M we tried to raise with the LS walk yesterday), to maintain it, to formalise a family setting, to foster the clergy-laity distinction, etc? What kind of a mindset would think like that? ME: Yes, a statement to that effect. Why not? Are you not implying that the modern church has gone away from a normative NT model? Or are you simply saying we are different but it's ok? You need to show more than just that the NT did this or that, you must show that they actually laid down those things they did as normative for all Christians. Is that too much to ask? ++If we are to go by this unreasonable request, then almost everything is up for grabs as it can be argued that they are not normative since there is no explicit statement to that effect. Is that how you approach Scripture? Where does it say that Timothy was to return to Paul? Paul did ask Timothy to abide in Ephesus, didn't he? Didn't Paul charge Timothy to take care of Ephesus? Could he do it from a distance? ++2 Tim 4:9. We don't call 1 & 2 Timothy the "pastoral" epistles for nothing, RTC. ++Certainly the cause of many who mistook Timothy as an elder or pastor when he was not. ME: But RTC, aren't you employing double standards? When we say we go to church, that the place we meet is called a church, you make us look ridiculous by saying that you have never seen the church as a building. And now, we use the same argument against you. You call meeting in homes a house church - so how is it that the kitchen or bedroom is the "church"? ++What double standards are you implying? Certainly my house is not a church and neither do I nor any of the people who gather here call it such. The people who meet in my house is a church. The home is a place for our meetings and it does not take on a sacrosanct life on its own. ME: ANd so it is not wrong ecclesiology to have modern churches. It's just that in your opinion, house churches do a better job. I submit that the cell group ministry of the modern church can also fulfil the same roles and motivate the same mindset. But certainly we do not need to dismantle the whole church to do that. ++It’s not modern churches, it’s institutional churches. House churches are just as modern, the difference is that the understanding of the church is not institutional or organisational. ++The baby (the people) should remain. You should use different water, maybe even different bathtubs! ME: So it is a matter of choice. ++And there are choices that have biblical support and choices that are bereft of any biblical support. Are Judea and Jerusalem the same? In any case the point was that heresies was not settled at the local level but was referred to another locale. Anyway, this is not very important. ++The Holman Bible Dictionary defines Judea as a geographical division always including Jerusalem. That’s why it made sense in Acts 15:24 to refer to those who went out from among them. And the case is not about having to settle heresies at different locales but to settle it where it first originated. ME: OK, so we have the cell churches, we can also still keep the public churches where we can have Gospel rallies, corporate worship, bible studies, seminars, etc. You claimed that the cell group fails to function like a church - we can improve it, no problem but there is no need to tear down the corporate church. ++It’s your call concerning what you want to do with the Institutional Church. My assessment is that what was once meant to be organic churches have went the way of institutionalism and for many like you there is no turning back as it would mean ruffling too much feathers. And what sort of improvement are you talking about in the cell groups? If you are talking about the experience of body ministry, I can agree that the Sunday service cannot offer much but then, is that ever the purpose of corporate worship? No. That is why even cell groups are catching on with the Roman Catholics. But there is no need to dismantle the institutional churches. ++Here you are trying to maintain something that has no purpose and offer little less than a great feeling that we belong to a big IC. It has taken on a life of its own and many just want to keep it the way it is despite the obvious flaws and limitations. The whole idea of coming together in the Bible is always mutual encouragement in body ministry. If it is not serving its function, then why keep it? Sentimental reasons?