Is that therefore biblical?

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...

Is that therefore biblical?

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)
Re:

On basis that such was NT practices everywhere in first 300 years (RTC)
Date: 2001, May 03
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

RTC,
My point in this exchange is quite simply this: there is NO normative church model presented to us in Scriptures; I looked in vain in your posts for evidence to the contrary. Hence, it is not a question of right or wrong ecclesiology, it is a question of what is prudent and expedient in furthering God's kingdom and discipling God's people.
It's unfortunate that you see that the churches today offer "little less than a great feeling that we belong to a big IC" and you see "for many like you there is no turning back as it would mean ruffling too much feathers".
Let me summarise my rebuttals for the following points that have been raised:
1. Lord's Supper
The Lord's Supper, like the Passover, is symbolic of God's grace and Jesus' sacrifice. It is this that we are "to do it in remembrance." Such IS being done in the churches. The communal meal is not a necessary part of the Lord's Supper. The bible doesn't teach so. Churches, however, do have fellowship meals.
2. Paid Pastors
Paul worked to provide for himself as well as those with him. This he did DESPITE the fact that "the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" (1 Cor 9:14 KJV). It is the ministry of Pastors that they preach the Gospel, hence, for the Church to support his ministry by paying him is not biblically wrong. Some may argue that this support is for Paul as a missionary but the import of the statement is that those who preach the Gospel, that is, this is their main preoccupation, should be supported. The churches are doing just that. Does paying the pastor necessarily stifle church growth or create a laid-back church? Nope. Sure it happens in some case but it is not necessary.
3. Appointed Elders and Deacons
Though they may be called by various names, elders and deacons in the churches are appointed based on the set of criteria in the bible. The process may be more formal than what has been done in NT times but that does not mean that biblical criteria are not followed. A seminary degree does indicate some competence in biblical knowledge and that is certainly desirable but this is not a substitute for personal holiness. The churches recognise all these.
4. Participation in Church Service
The purpose of the church is "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:" (Eph 4:12 KJV) It is also for corporate worship, as it was during the days of the Temple. The churches have both cell groups for ministering and evangelism, the larger church for teaching, fellowship and corporate worship. All these activities point towards the goal. The degree to which each church achieves the full participation does not invalidate the structure of the churches. Nevertheless, all churches do make it a point to involve as many as possible in their meetings. If poor church growth indicates an ineffective structure, does strong church growth indicate otherwise? No, numbers are not a true indicator.
And now to some specifics:
YOU: ++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:
ME: Indeed, they are very salty, RTC! But what did they say? That EVERY individual must participate in EVERY meeting? In the quote from The Emmaus Journal - where does it say that EVERY individual must participate in EVERY meeting? The article says, "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" and it is the opinion of the writer and perhaps yourself that the churches don't. Every Sunday when I worship God in my church, He IS worshipped in spirit and in truth. And do believers get the right to participate, speak their minds, testify for the Lord - YES!! And TSA is as institutionalised as the Anglican or Methodist Church!
YOU: 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: You mean in a house church, people are constantly interrupted by others who have something to say suddenly? Think about that, RTC, is that orderly? This is the bane of communication!
YOU: 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.
ME: And in the above, in what way have we not followed the principles? Please get the distinction correctly - the principles and the practice. The NT examples of how they met are not normative but the principles are important to follow. So meeting in a church building does not violate any of these principles.
YOU: 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.
ME: I'd like to see that evidence. On my part, I refer the readers to Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, Chapter 2:
"The persecutions of Christianity during the first three centuries appear like a long tragedy: first, foreboding signs; then a succession of bloody assaults of heathenism upon the religion of the cross; amidst the dark scenes of fiendish hatred and cruelty the bright exhibitions of suffering virtue; now and then a short pause; at last a fearful and desperate struggle of the old pagan empire for life and death, ending in the abiding victory of the Christian religion. Thus this bloody baptism of the church resulted in the birth of a Christian world. It was a repetition and prolongation of the crucifixion, but followed by a resurrection.
Our Lord had predicted this conflict, and prepared His disciples for it. "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. They will deliver you up to councils, and in their synagogues they will scourge you; yea and before governors and kings shall ye be brought for My sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his child: and children shall rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for My name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." These, and similar words, as well as the recollection of the crucifixion and resurrection, fortified and cheered many a confessor and martyr in the dungeon and at the stake."
I don't deny that people have continued to meet in homes even when Christianity became legal after Constantine but to assume that they met in homes in preference to building public churches is only an assumption.
YOU: 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.
ME: So, just because we build public churches, our church is therefore a place, not a people? What are you talking about, RTC? I find your shifting goal posts rather annoying. Let's agree - the CHurch is the people, the Body of Christ. Whether it is house or non-house church, the Church is always the people. How, by building public churches, have we not followed this definition of the Church being God's people?
YOU: 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.
ME: Where did Jesus say that? And is not "elder" also a title? If you say this is merely a description of his role, then "bishop", "reverend", "pastor" are also descriptions of roles.
ME: 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?
YOU: But you have no NT basis for that. This is what I am trying to say.
ME: Does Scriptures teach a normative ecclesiology? IF it doesn't, why then do I need one? Do I need a basis for catechism classes, do I need a basis for pre-marital counselling, do I need a basis for running halfway houses, do I need a basis for the Doulos? That is the point you are missing, RTC. The apostles laid down no fixed ecclesiology except criterion for office bearers and principles of using spiritual gifts to minister. They met in houses because of persecution of Christianity. They say nothing for OR AGAINST the churches of today.
YOU: 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.
ME: Yes and we believe that the churches do follow whatever principles there are in Scriptures while exercising prudence in those that are not. Whether it is participation, or Lord's Supper, or ordination, the principles are all followed even though the practices aren't the same.
YOU: 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.
YOU: 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: The point is that if it can happen to house churches too, why do you still perpetuate it then?
YOU: 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.
ME: Pattern, exactness, model - how convenient, RTC. NObody is misrepresenting you. You just don't realise that you are being rather arbitrary in deciding which elements constitute pattern, model, whatever, and which elements constitute exactness. One moment you say they ate the communal meal and that is a pattern, then we point out that they ate it with girded loins, and you say that is exactness. What kind of hermeneutics you use, RTC? What about selling all they have and putting them in the common purse - is that exactness or pattern, RTC?
YOU: 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: I am asking you the exact same question.
YOU: 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.
ME: That's right, RTC. NOne of us can read minds, so let us not ASSUME that the NT believers had the opportunity to build something like St Peter's Basilica but they PURPOSELY CHOSE not to because of their theology. That's reading minds, RTC. IF you talk about Christianity after first century, you are even in shakier ground, for the episcopalian church structure was the established form. As early as Ignatius or Irenaeus, churches with one or more bishops was the norm.
YOU: 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: So, it is your opinion that the early church went all way out to show their presence. They could have built big churches even though they were persecuted, but they chose not to?
YOU: 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.
ME: You mean I should swallow hook, bait, line and sinker everything they say? I'm surprised you are so uncritical.
ME: 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?
YOU: 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: Of course we should ask why and we have already answered you. The arbitrariness comes in when you decide what is principle and what is practice, or, in your choice of words - model, pattern, exactness.
YOU: 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: Is that why the money was spent, RTC? You are not interacting with facts but with strawman you create. What about the people who come into the church because they see it is there? What about those attracted to it by the sound of corporate worship? What about those converted in these churches? Indeed, RTC, what kind of 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?
YOU: 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?
ME: The bottomline is this: there are pros and cons of both institutional and house churches, the bible neither forbids nor promotes either one. Instead, the bible says that the purpose of the church is "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:" (Eph 4:12 KJV) As long as the churches do that, they are following the biblical principles. And since you are the one who insists that institutionalised churches do not follow these principles, you have to prove it. And since you are the one also who insists that the house church is the normative way to go, you have to prove that. Otherwise, you are no different from the Roman Catholic who assert that the very mention of the word Tradition in Scriptures actually refer to the Roman Catholic Tradition.
YOU: 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 how is this different for those who go to institutionalised churches?
YOU: And there are choices that have biblical support and choices that are bereft of any biblical support.
ME: There is certainly biblical support for a common purse and until you tell me your house church do the same, you are equally not following the NT model, pattern, whatever.
YOU: 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?
ME: Yup, it's all our own call, isn't it, RTC? Our assessment is that the cell-based churches have the best of both worlds and makes the realisation of extending GOd's kingdom much better. Like I said, it's unfortunate that you cannot see the benefits of the main church. My assessment is that it is the result of not knowing the history of the church. Does it make you feel better to think that we are simply being complacent?
YOU: 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?
ME: We keep it because that is a great way of worshipping God together. We are encouraged by the preaching, by the corporate worship, by the testimonies of others, and by the fellowship meals we sometimes have. We don't throw out something just because it is flawed. By this thinking, you must be saying that the house church is then perfect. I'd sure like to visit your perfect house church.
Christopher