More food on the table

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...

More food on the table

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)
Re:

Yes it is (RTC)
Re:

Holds no water (passerby)
Re:

You use wrong cup (RTC)
Re:

pick up the same dictionary and please enlighten us what it says about Church(n/t)
Re:

Church is building for Christian worship (RTC)
Re:

Hee...Hee...Can't you even see the obvious contradictions to your arguments???(n/t)
Re:

Hi Anon,
Re:

biblical?
Re:

Let's see if you pass the biblical test (RTC)
Re:

Easton Bible Dictionary says...
Re:

Thayer's Greek Definition of Ekklesia (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Still got more (RTC)
Re:

Not Much Point in going further ... (Christopher Yip)
Re:

The same point (RTC)
Re:

OK, One Last Shot (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Missed by a long shot? (RTC)
Re:

Perhaps it'sYou? Food for thought. (Christopher Yip)
Date: 2001, Jun 11
From: RTC

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. ++You also don’t see it. Maybe I should ask you, how did the early church go about in their fellowship, participation, body ministry and guarding doctrines? What were their examples, can you describe them? And are you sure that you yourself are not confused between principles (general truth and belief) and examples (something that shows a general rule)? 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? ++See your wrong thinking? You are utterly confused between examples and norms. That early believers suffered for their faith are examples modeled after Jesus who said that His followers will be persecuted and who Himself went to the cross. Church history told us that these martyrs died all kinds of deaths, not just on the cross. This is enough to repudiate your false thinking that I need to find myself hung on a cross. Did the NT teach that every believer should die a martyr? Or did it teach that every believer would expect trials and persecution, even unto death in following Jesus? As believers we do not seek to be martyrs for Christ, we should seek to first live for Christ and if need be, to even suffer for Him. Do I have to live a Christian life and chart it such that I die a martyrs’ death? Don’t make a mockery out of these martyrs’ examples. They lived like aliens on this earth and their lives were so in contrast to the world that the world sent them out of this world. Maybe we are too much like the world? Now that’s food for thought! ME: Not explicitly commanded, not mandatory yet normative (?) and authoritative. ++Do you know what does normative means? It means prescribing a norm, a usual way of behaviour. Now that doesn’t mean that exceptions are by default wrong, it just means that they are exceptions to an established norm of doing things. And we should not make the exceptions the norm or vice versa. We both agree that there are no explicit commands for some of the things they did. But we also know that there are things they did which was very much the same everywhere. And the Scriptures, which are authoritative, wrote about these things. Thus the Scriptures, being inspired and useful for teaching and correction and training in righteousness, should guide how we “do church” today. I’m not saying anything different, these practices are normative in that they were held in many places over the first few centuries, and they were backed by the authority of the apostles who planted these churches and established certain norms of behaviour and practices. You can always argue yourself out of these practices because of expediency or because you simply don’t want to rock institutional traditions laid down by predecessors, it is up to you. Like I said, I am not enforcing these things, I’m just telling you that the Scriptures show a better way. It is up to you to respond to Scriptures. 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". ++How else you want me to put it? If it is not supported in Scripture, then it is unbiblical, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong. In case you are trigger happy and want to say “aha, got ya!” please put on some common sense cap first and look at how the word is being used with reference to the context. I am sure you will ask me whether using computers are wrong since it is not found in Scriptures. You need to distinguish between things that are part of social, political, economic, technological life, whether Christian or not, and those that are not. But I don’t think I need to go through this with you given your intelligence. 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? ++See? Splitting hairs again. All kinds of divisions are frowned upon in Scripture, whether advertised or not. But I would say that it is a division of a greater degree to extol such divisions or perpetuate them by registering them! That would be a full blown version of 1 Cor chapter 1 unchecked! 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: ++Here’s where you err. Does the need to remain faithful to the faith once delivered necessitates the setup of denominations? There are so many denominations, who in your opinion are faithful to apostolic doctrine? Paul was neither accepting or approving of divisions. He was stating the fact that truth is divisive, those who have the truth will be made manifest since they will be divided in accordance to truth, not in accordance to following personalities. In a situation of divisions, which is inevitable because of differing opinions, those who are right will be made known when judged according to sound teaching. BUT such differing opinions DO NOT JUSTIFY the rending of Christ’s Body, which would be a failure to maintain the unity in the bond of peace. 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. ++Let me ask you, how do you work towards unity and still maintain denominational names and divisions? Such endeavours are set up for failure right from the start! In the end you only have organisational cooperation which is only skin deep. Likewise, God allowed the IC to exist, but does it mean God approved the IC? Do we always like to push the boundaries by treading on what God permits, or as some may say, God’s permissive will? 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? ++And how is the implication wrong? Are you saying that NOTHING is wrong with your ecclesiology that perpetuates division in the body? As far as I know, house churches that refuse to be known by distinct names not only have the right understanding of what it means to be the church in this respect, they even practice it out. Not all house churches go all the way (some are still institutional in a small setting or are IC in the beginning stages) but those who do make in effort to avoid the use of denominational or sectarian names to differentiate themselves from the others. That doesn’t mean that NO division (whether difference in opinions or finer points of doctrine) exists at all but that they do not form the basis of dividing the Body of Christ organisationally. 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. ++Then all the more we should exhort each other to abandon sectarian names! Not all house churches have group names but ALL IC have them, and need them. We should all be provoking each other towards the Biblical ideal, attaining to the unity in the Body of Christ, and not saying “look you also not there, so I also can be happy here.” Let’s not mouth unity on our lips but act inconsistently! Not only is the world watching, God is also watching! 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? ++The house church model is the NT model, and such it does not need to be abandoned. Do you abandon marriage because divorce rates are happening with other people or do you work on your own marriage and teach others the same? I do likewise, the church that meets in my house, or whoever’s house, will start from our own. We don’t throw down the gauntlet just because there is some that do not share the same view. We have started with ourselves and shared with others, what about you? If you need to pick examples, don’t choose “bad” ones, otherwise you are simply being defiant in your attitude. 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?! ++FYI, any links or networks by house churches are truly voluntary. Surely you are not having the mindset that a house church must be networked with every other house church in existence? Do you know of any house church that has ZERO relationships with other house churches, fellowships or Christians? 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! ++Read again properly, it is the house churches that are proactive in forging links with the IC, knowing that the IC is here to stay. Note that this summit group is not working with IC in the sense that they endorse the system, but that they recognise who God’s people are, inspite of the system. They are willing to form alliances within the Body of Christ and support any work they deemed to be furthering the work of the Gospel. Those in the house churches do not frown upon the people in the IC, though “we do not recognize a system characterized by a clergy/laity distinction.” 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. Now, THIS is the kind of thing I am talking about, RTC. ++Well done, I must say. Dan has certainly taken a radical step towards less institutionalism and a more relational-organic church. Anyway I do not know details of this network, whether Dan left NSC and pioneered this network or is this network coming under the umbrella of NSC, in which case it may be a cell church. But from what I see, this seems to be pure house churches in action without any IC characteristics. I am familiar with some of their reading references. Robert Banks’ books are good and available from SKS. Whatever alliances there may be, I think it is more towards decentralising IC rather than the kind which you might think of. 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. ++Then what about the IC? Is it the form that best expresses the principles and were shown to us in the NT? 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. 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. ++Well said, you talk about life being complicated now, but have you thought about how much more complicated we have made it out to be? Instead of a weekly meeting of interactive church meeting in a small group, complemented by voluntary associations outside and occasional large purpose-specific meetings, we end up asking believers today to commit to Sunday meeting, Friday prayer meeting, Saturday music practice, Saturday youth meeting, follow-up meeting, over-night prayer meeting, midweek cell meeting. If this is not complicated, then what is? I don’t think it is an issue of complicated lifestyle as much as wanting to hold on to the institutional mindset. 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. ++What blind spot? I think it’s yours, not mine. Normative means normative, not supported means not supported. It is our own distaste for being examined that lead us to see any questioning as fault-finding. If you have been sensitive and read more into it, then you have to deal with it. 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? ++I knew you’d say that. If the Bible is truly useful for teaching and training in righteousness, then it is a big deal. Cell groups are a step towards solving the problem of apathy and lack of involvement in the church and in that direction that has been a great help. But cell groups, while trying to solve one problem, leave others undone. What about the clergy-laity distinction? Or the hierarchy found in the church? Or the denominational names? Or the huge amounts of money tied up in real estate that could have better use? 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. ++Calvin’s confidence is misplaced. In fact, with the current cell structure, we see even more layers! And if the trend persists, we will see more mega-churches on the rise offering a plethora of consumer goods to attract members into their fold. 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? ++How do I account for them? Simple, the same way these people are found outside the IC, God raised them up. Did the IC produce the people or did God raise up these people in spite of the IC system? You really ought to expand your reading horizons. If you haven’t read “The Pilgrim Church”, I encourage to lay hold of one. 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. 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. ++If best practices are time based, then why are churches going back to the idea of small groups? Which is the addition here, the small groups or the IC system? BTW, the church is not a business to be run like one. 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. ++I want to see how YOU defend that from Scriptures. 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? ++That false dichotomy is one of your making. I never ask which is “better”. In any case, I am of the opinion that if one is biblical it is surely better, since it is God’s way, unless you are of the opinion that you can improved on what God has done. James was not a single elder or a senior pastor. That’s reading back into Scriptures modern church practices. Whether a pastor works alone or not is not the point, the point still stands that proper exegesis does not allow for a hierarchical distinction between pastor and elder. If the early church fathers took Peter as figure head of the church, then what kind of head is Jesus? Nominal head? I hope you can understand how false the statement “Where Peter is, there is the Church” is. 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. ++It is clear that you are trying to evade the force of the argument. I agree that the bishops were not the ONLY ones to guard doctrines, but the fact was that they were specially looked upon to defend doctrines, to be a visible point of church unity. Today is the same. I have come across pastors who looked upon themselves as sole custodians of church doctrines over the churches they pastor. 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. ++Thank you. I have been to this website before. But I wonder if you have read it yourself. I don’t know what’s your point. If you are talking about networking, I’m all for it. But being inward looking is not a problem reserved for house churches. IC can also be inward looking, in a big way! And Dan suggested going to the IC Sunday service to better appreciate the intimacy of house church life, not as an endorsement of the Sunday service meeting. As for attending house church conferences, it is true that disagreements do exists and I know of instances whereby people in the IC who entered into such conferences just to create “trouble”. The key is not the total absence of disagreements, but the biblical way of handling them. Family squabbles are fine and should be handled well, in a family way. But institutional squabbles are handled differently, and at times by being fired! All in all, Summit Fellowships is not an institutional church, it is a name used to designate a network of house churches. 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. ++Wise and insightful words indeed! If you think the house church I am part of is defined by being against the IC, you are wrong. We have better avenues to channel such energies than to come together and sulk about the IC. What I am doing here is purely a personal initiative. And it is not to get people into my house, I’m not here for a recruitment campaign. If we are really here to affirm Jesus Christ, then let’s have a church whose Builder is Christ. Our master-carpenter has told us in the NT how His church looks like, and it is a people whose fellowships are expressed in an organic-relational way. Homes do not define them, but the expression of their fellowships are lived out in the homes of believers naturally. In this church there is no class distinction, no official organisational affliliation, no sanctuaries and no temples, for they are the Temple of God and members one of another. My belief is this, if Jesus Christ is really central and Head of the Church, and people are gathered together around Him and for Him, what you have will be the expression of a first century church, not the IC. Think about it, try it. 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. ++What are your arguments? Isn’t it a boiling down to expediency? I hardly find myself arguing over Scriptures with you. The arguments you proffer falls mostly, if not all, under pragmatism and expediency. BTW, seems like expediency is another sacred cow to be kicked over! 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. ++Everyone claims to do exegesis, but we need to arrive at proper exegesis. And this will require time and reflection. You can challenge mine and I will also take you to the task. And I am not saying that the IC is incapable of proper exegesis at all. There may be instances of faulty exegesis even in ecclesiology which can be pointed out by people in the house church, and vice versa. In doing so we are all propelled towards a purer doctrine, and hopefully a purer expression of the church. The worst thing is to say “we have always done it this way.”