Yes it is

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...

Yes it is

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)
Re:

Is that therefore biblical? (Christopher Yip)
Date: 2001, May 04
From: 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. ++And mine is that there is a normative church model which was around in the first 300 years. When Constantine came on to the scene and institutionalised the family of God, this expression continued to exist outside the Roman-Protestant church history right down to the present day. 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. ++This is where we differ. And I have to say again that it is about being biblical in our understanding of the church. 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. ++And I say that the only reason why you would think this way is because the church today find it a logistical nightmare to have it as an integral part of the meeting with a few hundred or thousand people. Thus it can only be seen as a peripheral thing. Yes I agree we do attempt to remember the Lord by having this Lord’s Supper conducted. But I lament the fact that we have lost much of its impact and intention which the early church had in having the Lords’ Supper. And this is certainly due to the institutionalisation of the church. The early church met to break bread, we meet today to hear the pastor, certainly a departure from NT practices. 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). ++You still did not answer my question of what to do with Paul’s words in Acts 20. What do you think Paul meant by 1 Cor 9:14, bearing in mind other Scriptures that throw light on this verse? To say living of the Gospel means to draw a salary is to read back to Scriptures. 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. ++In a sense we are all to make preaching the Gospel our main preoccupation but no one would argue for paying every believer to do so. Furthermore, paid pastors spend more time preparing for weekly sermons and attending to non-preaching business rather than out on the streets preaching the Gospel to non-believers. Is that your definition of preaching the Gospel? Rather we should look at what Paul meant by those who preach the Gospel. He was referring to the example of himself and others who have left home and relatives to go about preaching the good news. These are the people whom the church at large should freely support. 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. ++Well, the many books on church and how to get the laity involved surely does not make it sounds like a laid back church is only “some cases” or a handful. 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. ++Maybe you can tell me in your experience how does the appointment takes place and where is the place for the testing of the would-be leader by the church. The degree to which each church achieves the full participation does not invalidate the structure of the churches. ++Yet it is the very structure of the church that impedes participation. ME: Indeed, they are very salty, RTC! But what did they say? That EVERY individual must participate in EVERY meeting? ++Certainly they did not say that, but are you going to be petty with this? Then how about being petty with 1 Cor 14:26 where your “everyone” appears? 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! ++No, I am not talking about rudeness here. If you understand house church dynamics at all, you would know that because no one is the main speaker, everyone gets to share, and no one hogs the meetings as each would limit himself to let others participate too. And when someone is speaking, the rest listen. What you have is a situation where a lot of deference is given to one another, and a lot of patience and self-control too. In fact, Paul further talked about how that spontaneity is to be worked out, he said that gifts were to be exercised with each taking turns. All that is to be done for the edification of the body. Chaos is not of God. And if chaos did surface, as in Corinth, then self-imposed restraint and consideration is required, rather than abolishing the spontaneity. If you say that the church does not expressly teach that spontaneity is not allowed, then at least recognise that neither is it being expressly encouraged in the meetings. 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. ++But the way you practice the principles speaks volumes about how well that principle is being lived out. 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: ++Gonzalez’s Story of Christianity tells us that for the first 200 years, persecution was there but it happened in some places and not in others. It was not uniform and organised, but sporadic and localised. Christians were not systematically sought out, though those who were discovered were brought to the courts and being forced to recant. The Roman empire exercised much toleration. Persecution was more repressive than preventive. 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. ++And it is an assumption based on sound theology! And what is your assumption based on? How, by building public churches, have we not followed this definition of the Church being God's people? ++By the very fact that we call a building a church. You are a very intelligent person, surely you know how logically contradicting it is to call both a physical building and a people by the same name “church”. And the way we say “which church you go to? Where is your church” undermines the idea that the church is the people. 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. ++Elder is not a title. It is the person. And please don’t patronise me by saying “ok lah, you don’t want to see it as title, then see it as roles.” If you agree with me these are roles, then why the need to brand it in front and make it into titles? Why the fixation to give titles to man? Isn’t it a form of elevation of individuals above the others? Is that consistent with being servants of God? 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. ++You have confused the church with the work. The church is the people. When the church comes together, they do so for mutual edification and exhortation. Doulos, helping the poor, preaching the gospel, are the varied expression of the same ministry given to the saints, the ministry of reconciliation. 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? ++What do I perpetuate? Pray tell. 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? ++The kind of hermeneutics I use allows Scripture to interpret Scripture. If you want to argue right down to the girded loins (the passover was a Jewish thing) you have to show that the Gentile church were also told to do so. I only argue where the similarities seems to end. And concerning selling all, you have failed to apply the proper hermeneutic of looking at other Scripture texts. A proper reading will show that they sold something which they possess, not that they sold even their basic living homes. If they were to do that, meeting in houses would be something that is impossible and you would be making Scripture self-contradicting when Paul talks about the church that meets in the house! Surely you can do better than that. 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. ++Which many Bible teachers see as a departure from the Apostles teaching. If you do not see it as departure, then why do you argue so much against the pope? Did the Bible say you must not have Pope? Did the Bible say you cannot sell indulgences? Did the Bible say there is no purgatory? Do you see how far your way of thinking can go? If TYH picks up on your way of arguing, you have not much of a case, do you? 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? ++Yes, the early church was not thinking of building comfortable places for their meetings, put a signboard and tell the pagans around them “Look you have temples we also have. Come join us!” That would have made them no different from the pagans. They were concerned in preaching the good news, not with building complexes to meet in. 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. ++No, rather I’m surprised that you seem to show no prior knowledge of the kind of answers I would give, as it would not be too different from what you have read. 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? ++Like I’ve said many times, I have no doubt that there are good things going on in the IC, but still that does not justify unbiblical structures. King David was a good king, are you then saying that the earthly king system embraced by the Israelites was justified? I have yet to hear someone give a good reply to that. 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 still have not answered my question. BTW, the Bible only knows house churches, or the church that meets in the house. Do you agree on this point or not? Without denying that the early church in Acts 1-4 was Jewish, and therefore have some freedom to meet in the Temple since it is a strategic platform to preach to a wider audience, we find that for the Gentile churches, they meet in their homes. And when the temple was later out of bounds for Jewish believers, they continued meeting in the homes. Meeting in larger crowds were the exceptions, not the norm. That’s what I mean by normative. 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? ++It’s the mindset, not just the place, and the place plays a big part in cementing the mindset. 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. ++The reason for that collection was towards the relieving of the poor among them. It was not a weekly collection to fund salaries or maintain real estate. If there is a needy brother among us, we will try to relief him of his needs as a church. These are ad hoc collections, not regular systematic collections. Even Paul’s asking the Corinthians to set aside money was so that when he came to them later on he would not waste time on admin work to bring money to the Jerusalem church experiencing some needs, probably due to the famine. 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? ++I’ve been in the IC long enough to see for myself what the IC can or cannot do. Like I have told Frank and others, the typical arguments you give would have been the same ones I would use also on a house church advocate. And it is not about being complacent, it’s really about knowing (and you are right) what happened in church history that has brought us to the present circumstances. It is a departure from Biblical practices AND principles most sharply seen around 300AD. 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. ++No the house church is not perfect, but I dare say that it is the best form to express the life of the church. And the cell churches recognise that too, but they are probably not willing to relinquish control of these cells to the Lord to let them function as full churches.