This Should Be My Last Post for now.

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...

This Should Be My Last Post for now.

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)
Date: 2001, May 04
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

RTC: 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.
ME: Looks like you will continue to assert the same thing even though you cannot show any evidence for a normative church model from Scriptures.
RTC: This is where we differ. And I have to say again that it is about being biblical in our understanding of the church.
ME: And we continue to tell you that the churches of today ARE biblical. Not all of course but can you claim the same for house churches?
RTC: 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.
ME: If this strawman makes you feel more secure in your belief that the churches today are wrong in their ecclesiology, be my guest.
RTC: 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.
ME: And you haven't proven that 1) this was the intent, 2) that churches cannot have the same biblical intent because of its structure. And hearing the pastor in a church is no different from hearing a fellow christian in a home as far as the intent and result.
RTC: 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.
ME: Already told you that Paul worked to support himself and his colleagues. Good example but not normative for all christians. Those who follow his example are not in any way superior, better off, more blessed, holier, more enlightened, more biblical, whatever than those who don't. I didn't say that living of the Gospel = drawing salary but that "the import of the statement is that those who preach the Gospel, that is, this is their main preoccupation, should be supported."
RTC: 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.
ME: So only those who left home are considered preachers? Please, RTC. I haven't thought of you as someone who twist Scriptures but I am beginning to see something like that. As I have said before, it's rather arbitrary the way you assign one element to principle and another to practice. The principle here is that those who preach God's salvation should be supported. The preceding verses refer to Levites in the temple getting their income.
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.
RTC: 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.
ME: There are also many that are doing just fine too. Are ALL house churches dynamic and growing?
RTC: 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.
ME: In TSA, a person is not accepted into full time officership until 4 years later after his initial decision. He spends 2 years preparing himself - working part time in the church to get exposure to the various work and saving for his own expenses. Then he goes into training college for his training before he shepherds the flocks. The interview for the candidate is not simply, "You have call?", "Yes", "OK you're in." It involves various aspects of his ability and personality. And no one coming from nowhere suddenly says he wants to be a pastor with TSA gets accepted. He should be already active in the church and known by both the leaders as well as the congregation.
The degree to which each church achieves the full participation does not invalidate the structure of the churches.
RTC: Yet it is the very structure of the church that impedes participation.
ME: It is also such structure which promotes growth, corporate worship and unity.
ME: Indeed, they are very salty, RTC! But what did they say? That EVERY individual must participate in EVERY meeting?
RTC: 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: But you are the one who claimed that, RTC! It was YOU who denied that in the church service, "everyone" participates because in fact only a few lead each week. YOU implied that house churches are different! So obviously the church order of service and structure do not negate the teaching of 1 Cor 14:26 just because NOT everyone participate in EVERY mtg.
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!
RTC: 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.
ME: OK, how are these not observed? First, no main speaker. OK, so we will stop calling our sermon preacher the "main" speaker. Second, everyone gets to share. As said, not EVERYONE gets to share even in house churches. The same goes with our churches. Third, hogging the mtgs. I wonder if you have been to the churches before. YOu speak as one from some ulu kampong! WHo hogs the meeting in our churches? There is the worship leader, testiomonies leader, bible reader, preacher, the offering guy, etc. - they all need not be the same. What hogging? ANother one of your strawman.
RTC: 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: Is spontaneity the driving force here in this passage? You mean we should not come to meetings prepared? Is there something about spontaneity that without it, no one is edified? Is spontaneity the cause for edification or the proper use of spiritual gifts? You LIKE spontaneity but that does not mean it edifies. The proper and effective use of spiritual gifts edifies. Furthermore, the cell meeting is usually less formal because it is a smaller group and there, more spontaneity can be expected but again, this is not the cause of edification.
RTC: But the way you practice the principles speaks volumes about how well that principle is being lived out.
ME: And you haven't shown in what ways the churches have failed to practice the principles.
RTC: 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.
ME: Can I know who Gonzalez is and how he got his references? I'm sure you know Philip Schaff.
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.
RTC: And it is an assumption based on sound theology! And what is your assumption based on?
ME: Equally sound theology! (since assertion is the way to go, I might as well join in!) Strange that the fathers did not say anything about this normative model of ecclesiology.
RTC: 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: RTC, you are going back to the same argument a few posts before. I am beginning to see even clearer your shifting goal posts. I have already told you before that we call a building a church just as a colloquialism. The church is the body of CHrist, the people of God. If you can quote me a pastor, reverend, a creed, a catechism, or a constitution that declares a particular building as the church, I will concede defeat. Please don't create your own strawman. To refresh your memory, you call meeting in homes a house church - so is the sofa where they sit the church? or the tiles the church? I'm sure you find this ridiculous but given your intelligence, it surprises me that you can use the same argument for the established churches.
RTC: 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: What fixation? You imagine a group of people spending days and nights arguing over titles. I think the fixation lies with you. Giving titles merely tell you something about what the person does. Perhaps I really should start patronising you given the way you see things. You have such a distorted picture of what we do in churches. I'm sure there are some like what you described, perhaps the last church you attended, but hey, we are not talking about abuses, we are trying to find out if there is a normative model which is binding for churches today. And the conclusion is there is none. By the way, there are also those who call themselves servant of the servants of God and yet show no signs whatsoever of that servanthood. It's only titles, don't get too hung up on that.
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.
ME: Yes, but the apostles didn't do all that. I would assume that they COULD have done all that but they CHOSE not to, hence, it is normative example for us. That is how YOU argue, RTC. Again, you are being arbitrary.
RTC: What do I perpetuate? Pray tell.
ME: The same thing you said we perpetuate in the churches.
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?
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.
ME: And the kind of hermeneutics we use also allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. It was YOU who argue that we must eat the communal meal with the Lord's Supper, and I have been asking you to do exactly the same thing since the first post - "to show that the Gentile church were also told to do so"! Were we told to eat the communal meal with the LOrd's Supper, RTC? Were we told to continue meeting in homes even though we can now build big public churches, RTC? Why don't you try and prove that instead of going off tangents?
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.
RTC: 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: How many bible teachers? If you put all the Anglican bishops and Methodists bishops together, I think that already outnumber the house church "bible teachers"! By the way, the church fathers are part of the Christian CHurch history. Can you find house church advocates amongst them?
ANd RTC, you obviously are out of touch with the roots of our faith. Protestants would simply be silly to see organised churches and bishops as a departure. What was the departure is Rome asserting her primacy of universal jurisdiction, that is, Rome alone is the representative of Christ on earth. Like Irenaeus, Ignatius, Tertuallian, Augustine, et al we see the church evolve in accordance to expediency! And all those Roman Catholic practices are all extrabiblical and contrabiblical. You do not know where to draw the line:
- pope: if pope here simply means a bishop of a church, then it is fine but the Roman pope claims infallibility and universal jurisdiction - this, like YOUR "normative" model of NT church, is simply not taught.
- indulgence: this is for remission of sins, the bible declares that by faith alone, once-for-all our sins are forgiven by Christ's death, this contradicts the bible
- purgatory: the bible declares that after death is judgement, there is no second chance, also, Christ paid for all sins
How is my way of arguing a problem, RTC?
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?
RTC: 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.
ME: And so, as incredible as this sounds, you are saying that all the church fathers in their tacit endorsement of the various public churches, have departed from normative church ecclesiology? This is incredible but given a choice, I'd rather believe them than you.
If you cannot see the difference between normative (prescriptive) and descriptive acts in the bible, you will never understand what we are asking for.
RTC: 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: Perhaps from this exchange, you will realise that house churches are not THE answer, the panacea for all ills. Hence, I think for the sake of extending God's kingdom, and the institutional churches have done that for a long long time successfully, both the main and the cell church needs to be combined for best results.
RTC: 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: Of course not, RTC, but that is begging the question, especially when you use "unbiblical" to mean contrabiblical. The fact is that you have not shown that it is normative to meet in homes, to have the communal meal, to have no order of service, etc. So how can you conclude it is unbiblical? IF you say order of service is not found in the bible, sure, but must it be found before we can use it? That throws open a WHOLE range of things not found in the bible! I have a feeling that we are going back into the principles-practice loop soon.
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.
RTC: 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.
ME: I have already said it many times. I agreed that the NT met in houses. I also told you why they did - because Christianity was not an acceptable religion then.
Now I see why. Normative is not used here as norm or what is common. Perhaps prescriptive would be better? Does the bible teach that meeting in homes is the way for Christians to meet?
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?
RTC: It’s the mindset, not just the place, and the place plays a big part in cementing the mindset.
ME: Mindset is individual. i don't have a problem thinking that the church is the building. I don't have a problem meeting my brothers and sisters in a public building. And I am quite sure many who knows this also don't have a problem. Just as people who meet in homes do not know how to relate to one another unless they are taught, people who meet in churches also need to be taught about the body of Christ. This is not a necessary consequence of the IC.
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.
RTC: 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: But that is not what it says. It clearly says they had all things in common:
"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."
So do the house churches have all things in common and when necessary, are the cars, computers, handphones, etc. be sold to alleviate the poor? The principle is sharing and the practice here is pooling all resources into a common pool. I can go on with the benefits of this practice - there is building of character (the more you give the less attached you are to things), there is no unfairness, each gets what he needs rather than what he wants, etc. I can come up with a list of why pooling is good. Can I then say, hey, that's the biblical model - principle and practice - that all churches should follow? Can I do that? Or don't you think it is reasonable for my opponents to require me to show evidence that this pooling was prescriptive, normative for all Christians? That we have been given a normative example, rather than simply an example.
RTC: 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: Perhaps you have missed the blessings. I enjoy both corporate worship as well as cell group. Both are expressions of the body of Christ. For nearly 1000 years, first in the tabernacle, then in the Temple, God's people have corporately worshipped Him. I don't think the abolition of the sacerdotal system means the abolishment of this corporate worship. What was abolished was indirect access to God, forgiveness of sins through animal sacrifices, but God's people corporately worshipping Him is not. But for deeper fellowship and body ministry, the cell group is excellent.
Typical or not, the arguments remain and you have not shown that it is normative. If you approach the matter differently, I'm sure you won't get these reactions. And if you remove the blinds, you also will not react this way. If you say the house churches have these benefits and try and work within the established churches, you will be better received. Don't forget, behind each house church advocate's theology is usually a bad experience. There have been many scandals in the States and this has provided fuel for a better model.
Try imagining Church history without the institutional churches. Think of the heresies that would have perpetuated and spread if each house church went on its own way and its own way only.
RTC: 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.
ME: I sometimes wonder if the house church came from cell or the cell from house churches. THere you go again, attributing what is more likely an expedient decision to one of spiritual immaturity. No, RTC, it is not that we are unwilling to relinquish control to the Lord, this kind of thinking only makes you feel better about your own choice.
We have come very far but I am going to stop here. I am a house church fan myself but I have not found their arguments for a normative NT church model compelling. There are many good points in their theology and it is my belief that the cell group can learn many things from these. At the same time, I believe the established churches have a role to play in building unity, in guarding doctrinal fidelity, and in corporate worship and evangelism. The goal is the same - extension of God's kingdom and discipling of nations.
Christopher