(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...
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Perhaps it'sYou? Food for thought. 
House Church (again!) (Christopher Yip)
Clarifications (RTC)
The NT Model is not Normative, Not Meant to be. (Christopher Yip)
Not normative? On what basis? (RTC)
And Normative on What Basis? (Christopher Yip)
On basis that such was NT practices everywhere in first 300 years (RTC)
Is that therefore biblical? (Christopher Yip)
Yes it is (RTC)
Holds no water (passerby)
You use wrong cup (RTC)
pick up the same dictionary and please enlighten us what it says about Church(n/t)
Church is building for Christian worship (RTC)
Hee...Hee...Can't you even see the obvious contradictions to your arguments???(n/t) 
Hi Anon, 
biblical?
Let's see if you pass the biblical test (RTC)
Easton Bible Dictionary says...
Thayer's Greek Definition of Ekklesia (Christopher Yip)
Still got more (RTC)
Not Much Point in going further ... (Christopher Yip)
The same point (RTC)
OK, One Last Shot (Christopher Yip)
Missed by a long shot? (RTC)
|
RTC, YOU: What’s the problem? Isn’t Scriptures authoritative? Of course you can choose not to follow these examples, in that sense I am not saying you must follow the norms or face God’s wrath, the consequences are entirely of your own choice. ME: You just don’t see it. We ARE following the examples of fellowship, participation by one and all, body ministry, guarding doctrines, orderliness, etc. We have shown you exegesis from Calvin that we do. You may not agree with our exegesis but it is wrong to say that we are not following the examples. Do you follow Jesus’ or Paul’s or Peter’s examples? If you do, are you going to ensure you die a martyr’s death on a cross because apparently, just doing good works in the pathway of discipleship without following the "norm" is "unbiblical" and the "norm" was that they all died a martyr’s death. Oops – that would be exactness, right club. You really need us to admit that we don’t follow the biblical examples in our ecclesiology, eh?The evidence for your blind spot gets even closer. Now, they are in the same paragraph - one sentence after the other: YOU: "For me it is very clear, the NT has certain practices which though not explicitly commanded as mandatory, were certainly normative for them. I believe these are intended and best practices which if we heed to them we will reap the benefits. And such practices are authoritative in that they were established or supported by the apostles." ME: Not explicitly commanded, not mandatory yet normative (?) and authoritative. YOU: "You see as rules to be obeyed what I see as examples to be followed." ME: They are not "rules" but "examples" yet not following them is "unbiblical". Previously: "But the point is that even though we have denominations and divisions just as the Corinthians had, that don't make us any less a church. Paul still calls the Corinthian Church a church DESPITE divisions or in modern terminology, denominations." YOU: Was that what the issue is all about? I think you really missed it! Am I saying that those in the IC system are any less believers as those in the house churches? Am I saying that those with denominational loyalties are not a part of the Body of Christ? Thats not what I said. I have on many occasions said that those in the IC are my brethren too, in so far as any is a genuine believer. Yes the Corinthian church had their divisions, but there were no where like we have today, institutionalised divisions with registered denominational names! There were divisions but they had no denominations. No doubt some entertained a party spirit, but it was not an accepted way of life like we have it today. If Paul had to rebuke them for such divisions which were not yet full blown, do you think he would use any more kind words on the Christian scene today? Yes the Corinthian church was still a church, but it was a fragmented one that needed a scolding. Are you happy with the current situation? Are you tolerating such divisions today? Paul recognised it but he did not tolerate it but rebuked them for it. What about you? What are you doing about it? Or are you perpetuating it?" ME: Don’t you think you are being exact to say that divisions without a registered denominational name is different from one that is registered? And to say that Protestant denominations today accept the division is quite misleading. We do not glory in our division. My point was that denominationalism is driven by a desire to remain faithful to apostolic doctrine and this is acceptable (not approved) to Paul: "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Corinthians 11:18-19 KJV) It is the same with divorce. God allowed it to the Jews but did it mean He approved it? Sure, Paul rebuked it and the various denominations are working towards unity. But what has this to do with our ecclesiology? You seem to be implying that because we have denominations, so something must be wrong with our ecclesiology? So, corollarily, house churches are united because they practise the correct ecclesiology? What is your point here? What has denominationalism to do with house churches? My point is: Still, Paul called all of them "churches", ekklesia. That is the point. So, in the same way, Protestant denominations are ALSO churches, ekklesia. We are divided due to the difference in understanding the non-essentials of our faith but we are ekklesia and we are working on unity. The fact of the matter is that the situation with the house churches is the same. House churches are also divided in doctrine and they too have descriptive group names. YOU: Vine defined heresy as "an opinion," especially a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects, such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preference or the prospect of advantage. It is up to you to look at current church practices and evaluate them in the light of this definition. I should then ask you also - are you tolerating the divisions in the house churches? And what are you doing then about these divisions? Would you need to abandon the house church model because of such divisions? For instance:The Agape Anabaptist House Churches of Christ says the following: http://www.house-church.net/index.htm"As true followers of Christ, we are Anti-Ecumenical and Noncharismatic Christians. Our local churches are house churches. We are neither Protestants nor Roman-Catholics. In theology we reject all five doctrinal points of Calvinism. We are in contact with other Christians who also share with us the Anabaptist ideals, described in the list of Anabaptist beliefs." And the house churches of Steve Atkerson's New Testament Restoration Foundation says the following: http://www.ntrmin.org/beliefs.htm"Beliefs We are thoroughly Reformed and Evangelical in our theology, and the essential tenets of the faith to which we subscribe are identical to those found in the doctrinal statement of any sound Evangelical institution. If you'd like to know what these specific beliefs are, you may obtain a doctrinal statement from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL." Both are house churches yet both are divided on the Reformed doctrines. What's the difference between such "divisions" and those of the Protestant churches, say, the Methodists vs the Baptists? Shouldn't such divisions (perhaps we can call the first group the Agapeists and the second group the Restorers) also make the house church model as impotent as our churches? Or must these groups register their names as Agapeists and Restorers? Is that exactness? Or perhaps you say they are nevertheless united in the essentials – sola fide and sola Scriptura but aren’t the Protestant denominations united as such too?House churches are not only divided in doctrines, they are also divided in the way they organise themselves and in their relationship with the established churches. Some have no link with churches, some have; some do not even link with other house churches, while some form networks. How is this qualitatively different from our churches?! Perhaps you do not accept the following as house churches but read carefully. This is yet another house church group. They fit every description of a house church, yet they work with the established churches: http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~summit/homepage001.htmThe Summit Fellowships ~ Portland, Oregon
The term "summit fellowship" refers to the style of meeting in which all present are free to participate and contribute within the scope of their gifting and comfort level (1 Corinthians 14:26). Other terms that reflect a similar style include "open church," "cell," and "home church." Such congregational life has been practiced in one form or another since the first century, often becoming prominent during times of renewal in the church. The Wesleyan revivals are a good example of such a resurgence. We have borrowed the term "summit" from a movement among institutional church leaders called "Pastor's Prayer Summits." In these gatherings, pastors from diverse backgrounds and traditions, go away together for a four day, no agenda, prayer time during which they worship, pray, minister to one another, and share meals together. (For more information check the "Links" page). Many who have attended such gatherings report that their understanding of the church is being transformed by the experience. "Summit fellowships" translate that "open church" dynamic to a congregational life that encourages the free participation of every member as part of the priesthood of all believers, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, or gender (Galatians 3:28). We do not recognize a system characterized by a clergy/laity distinction. Summit-style gatherings typically include a shared meal, friendship, informal discussion, prayer, and worship. In addition, there may be a formal teaching, group ministry, and "reunion gatherings" where several fellowships assemble for a larger group celebration. Sharing the covenants of communion and baptism are also a part of life in and among the groups. Look at the Mission Statement of the Summit Fellowships: http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~summit/homepage003.htmMission Statement By the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ who has promised to be in the midst of those who gather in His name, The Summit Fellowships exist... To facilitate the multiplication of small, simple and committed communities of faith which co-labor with the church in the region for the sake of the gospel To nurture members toward obedience to Christ's commands; To invite participation of all according to the spiritual gifts of each without emphasizing one gift over another; To encourage one another toward the loving exercise of servanthood and discipleship. In this way, we will strive to make Jesus' life and teaching incarnate among us, and to make Him known in the city. Furthermore, we exist to facilitate alliances within the Body of Christ, and to discern where our Lord is at work so that we might join Him there. What’s my point? My point is this: this summit-style house churches worked WITH the churches, alongside and do not call, as you do, for the abolition of the "institutional" churches! In addition to the above, read the following to see how this Summit Fellowship house churches were conceived. Dan Mayhew’s testimony is every bit your testimony but see how different he goes about it: http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~summit/homepage005.htmA Brief History of The Summit Fellowships It could be said that in January of 1990 The Summit Fellowships were conceived. I was attending a four day "Pastor’s Prayer Summit" with about 60 other pastors from the Portland area. I was burned out, tired of oiling the machinery and designing the programs that made up the frantic world of church. Moreover, I was concerned for the lack of depth that I saw in much of the Christian world. I sought the prayers of the brethren regarding whether I should leave full time ministry and return again to the high school classroom to resume my teaching career. The answer to that prayer was clearly, "No." Though I felt certain that I was not to return to teaching, my misgivings about the ecclesiastical system persisted. I began to ponder what might be called "essential church." What was really needed to be the church? Pews? A Building? No. Choir? No. Youth program? Pastor and paid staff? Not really. After the final cut, what was really essential was people gathered in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The rest might be helpful, but it was not crucial. In fact, much of what we had come to accept as essential was sometimes even a hindrance to the relationships through which flowed the gifts of the Spirit. The next weeks were given to prayer and imagining what Jim Petersen of the Navigators called, "a church without walls." What came out of that period was a vision of a church that was primarily relational and not structural; fundamentally, participatory, pluralistic and non-hierarchical; organic and not organizational. In essence, the vision was for a gathering of friends who shared a common heritage of faith in Jesus Christ and expressed it in the simple acts of praying, speaking of the things of God, and sharing a meal together. Ministry was to flow from relationship and not relationship from the ministry. I outlined these ideas and presented them to the elders of New Song Church, where I served as associate pastor. Within a month or two, the elders gave their blessing to "The Summit Fellowships," a network of small, functionally autonomous, voluntarily interdependent, home-based churches. (Chris: notice that Mayhew worked with his "institutional" church and got the blessings to start that but he did not propose that the New Song Church go under) The name for the community of tiny churches was taken first, from the "Prayer Summits" where the initial inspiration for it began. Secondly, a passage of scripture, II Peter 1:18 embodied our desire for each gathering: "This voice we heard from heaven while we were with Him on the holy mountain." Since 1990, the learning curve has often been steep. Without the structural pattern that most of us were used to, many of the familiar road signs for success were gone. It wasn’t until the "summits" had been in existence for nearly two years that we discovered that we weren’t alone in this business. We found that there were other "house churches" and "home church networks" elsewhere in the country. Books had been written. Others had embarked on similar adventures and were willing to share their experience. Nevertheless, nearly all of the forty or so charter members eventually returned to more traditional churches where gatherings were more predictable and the future more tangible. Eventually, new people began to appear. Disenfranchised churchgoers, new believers, tired Christians looking for a more relational church life. This gave us confidence. We looked at the New Testament with renewed conviction that what the Summit Fellowships had set out to do was not only biblical, but part of a renewal stream in the church in America. Dan Mayhew, 1998 Now, THIS is the kind of thing I am talking about, RTC. Let me at this point answer some particular comments of yours:YOU: If there’s a norm or some usual way of behaviour which we can discern from the NT, then it means logically that there is a guide for us to look at and follow. ME: Agreed. YOU: It also means that there is a consistent and usual expression of the principle behind the form. ME: Agreed. YOU: Like I said, there are some forms that best expresses the principles and I believe the NT has shown us what they were. ME: Agreed. That is why we have cell groups.YOU: Of course you don’t NEED to or HAVE to follow them if you don’t WANT to. In no way do I make it mandatory for you. I also don’t think that the NT make it mandatory for me to follow their expression. ME: Right but let us not get ambiguous here: the freedom we have is with regards to the FORM, not the PRINCIPLES which we maintain ARE being observed in the churches. What this means is that although we do not follow the NT FORM of having ONE meeting WITHOUT elaborate LITURGY, we DO follow the NT PRINCIPLES of body ministry, praying for one another, priesthood of all believers. How do we do that? Again, we do not follow the NT FORM because life today is more complicated than then, instead, we have multiple meetings each for meeting some specific objectives. The Sunday Service for corporate worship and exposition of the Word. The Cell Meeting for body ministry, praying and sharing the Gospel, etc.YOU: It is not necessarily a right and wrong thing, which is just what you are wanting to see, but it is also about bad, good, best practices. ME: Wrong, RTC. It was not me who wanted to see a right and wrong dichotomy, it was what I, and I believe the others too, gathered from your use of "normative" and "not supported in the bible" and "authoritative". Whether you like it or not, these are the connotations and unfortunately, until now, you still can’t see the blind spot. If there is no right and wrong, then what’s the big deal about "institutaional" churches continuing their existence, especially those which have already adopted cell groups? If you are saying that the biblical principles of church life are not observed by these churches, then I refer you back to Calvin’s words. For nearly 2000 years, this form of liturgy has existed and has continued to produce saints and disciples and holy men. Ya, it doesn’t mean it will continue to be effective, hence, churches are continually renewing themselves and de-layering and should the day come that there is absolutely no benefit of having such churches, I am quite confident they will self-destruct.YOU: I do recognise one thing, that the early church had a consistent practice that flowed out of their life with Christ and this persisted for the first three centuries and beyond by those meeting outside organised Christianity. My point of sharing is this, the NT lays down the "best practices" and that even if such practices are not rules to be followed, that if we choose to follow them, we reap the resultant benefits. ME: Why do you make such a false dichotomy? You mean only those who met "outside organised Christianity" continued to enjoy the deep spiritual life with Christ? If you say no, then where is the problem? If you say yes, then how do you account for the saints and holy men that the "institutional" churches continue to nurture and produce? As for "best practices", they are time based. Take the national quality awards around the world – the Malcolm Baldrige, the SQA, the JQA, etc. These are frameworks for business excellence built on principles that are gathered from recognised world class organisations. For example, in the SQA 2001 standard, we find a new principle added – Systems Perspective. The standard now tells us that world class organisations take a systems perspective in the way they look at the processes in their business. Now, this was not in the SQA 2000 standard. Does it mean that SQA 2000 was not based on best practices? And with the addition of "Systems Perspective" principle to the framework, does it mean that SQA 2001 has stopped being based on best practices? The answer is obviously no.In the same way, established churches have thrived on their ability to continually adapt to the needs of the community while at the same time guarding against heresies and working towards unity. Churches are quickly recognising that cell meeting is that new or if you like, neglected, principle of their best practice ecclesiology. YOU: If I were to ask you to evaluate between the two options (a) choose one man above the rest as the bulwark of truth (b) elders to refute false teachers, which would you think is biblical? ME: I think both are. Calvin has already expounded that. But if you ask me which is better, I would say this is another false dichotomy. Just as James’, a single elder, presidence over the church at Jerusalem, does not mean he alone guarded doctrines, a church that has a bishop or pastor does not mean he works alone. In the same way, the early church fathers understood Peter to be the figure head of the church. St Ambrose (d. 397 A.D.) states that ‘where Peter is, there is the Church’ (Commentaries on the Psalms 40, 30). Does this mean Peter alone guarded doctrines? YOU: It is one thing to have abled people (whom God has raised up as gifted people to the church) defending the doctrines, it is another to set them up (which is what man did) as a special defender of truth, and after they have long been laid in the earth, to become a perpetual institutional role for someone to fill. ME: You are misrepresenting what we do in the churches and it is clear you are arguing your own straw man here. The bishops of the early church were not the only ones to guard doctrines. Justin, Mathetes, Origen, Tertullian, Theognostus (whom Athanasius referred to have used homoousios), Jerome, Bede, John Damascene, Thomas Aquinas weren’t bishops but they certainly defended orthodoxy.Irenaeus defines that a teacher is a father, and a disciple is a son (iv, 41,2), and so says Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, i, 1). A bishop is emphatically a "father in Christ", both because it was he, in early times, who baptised all his flock, and because he is the chief teacher of his church. But he is also regarded by the early Fathers, such as Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian as the recipient of the tradition of his predecessors in the see, and consequently as the witness and representative of the faith of his Church before Catholicity and the world. And it is this concept that has been continued for centuries.You will benefit greatly by following the links below. Read the articles and you will see that everything can co-exist. I end with some thoughts from Dan Mayhew for you. http://www.church-at-home.org/Seeking Outside Connections By Dan N. Mayhew, Portland, Oregon Summit@wa-net.comOne of the challenges of being the church together in a small, relational group is that we actually start liking each other. So what could be so bad about that? Nothing, except that we can sometimes like each other so much that we forget to connect outside of our merry little band. In a short time we've gone from an open to a closed group. Moreover, we begin losing our creativity; the sharpening quality of relationships begins to fade because we aren't getting input from others.This process of growing stale is a strong argument, I believe, for networking with other groups of similar focus and nature. Freestanding home fellowships aren't necessarily bad, but the dangers of becoming over familiar with one another-becoming a clique-looms ever present. Here are some suggestions for avoiding that pitfall of small group life.
There are other ideas for adding variety to a group that is growing stale. The important thing is that small groups should be alert to the need for expanding relationships and sharing with others outside of the fellowship. Networks of home churches make it possible for groups to share resources, spiritual gifts and ministry opportunities. Such interactions help groups stay open to new people and avoid becoming cliques. ---------- Perhaps to you, these are pseudo-house churches. Houses churches are not a replacement for the "institutional" churches. They both meet the same set of objectives only in different degrees in specific objectives.Dan Mayhew said that "Church@Home Newsletter encourages small group churches everywhere to define themselves, not by what they are against (i.e., the "traditional church"), but by what they affirm, namely, Jesus Christ." Wise and insightful words.It’s time you start actually listening to what we say and start really examining our arguments instead of thinking you have "kicked at some sacred cows". That’s house church zealots’ rhetoric. Christopher P/S: On Calvin’s exegesis, I hope you see that there was indeed exegesis which is what you have been claiming otherwise for the churches. It’s exactly what I said – from the principles of preaching the word, guarding doctrine, order and discipline, etc. Calvin, as well as the Church Fathers, did not see that their form of ecclesiology was "unbiblical". They saw that the churches were consistent with biblical ecclesiology and yet are dynamically responsive to the needs of their day. Today, we need both cell or house churches and the larger churches.
|
to:
Messages
Outline:
More food on the table by RTC, 2001, Jun 11
Your Food is Giving Me Indigestion :-)) by Christopher Yip, 2001, Jun 12
That's because you are not chewing! by RTC, 2001, Jun 14
Nope. It's Because Your Food Is Indigestible - Too Much Imagination. Will Stick With The Bible. by Christopher Yip, 2001, Jun 14
If you really stick to Bible, you won't get the IC today! by RTC, 2001, Jun 15
We stuck with the Bible and we got BOTH the IC and HC! by Christopher Yip, 2001, Jun 15
Only by twisting and turning, not by sound exegesis! by RTC, 2001, Jun 15
Here's Yet Another One of Your Blind Spots! by Christopher Yip, 2001, Jun 15
That spot already cleared, the blind spot is in your position by RTC, 2001, Jun 17
House Church (Again)! by PARROT, 2001, Jun 19
Something else for you to Parrot by RTC, 2001, Jun 20
Awck! Awck! RTC! RTC! PARROT KING!, 2001, Jun 26
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page
Summit Fellowships are a community of small-group churches in Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington. Typically numbering about 12 to 20 persons, they meet in neighborhoods, businesses, college campuses---wherever a small group of people can congregate. Each small group is a functionally autonomous congregation that is voluntarily interdependent with other fellowships of similar vision.