More

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...

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:

This Should Be My Last Post for now. (Christopher Yip)
Date: 2001, May 08
From: RTC

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. ++I have given much reasons why there is a NT pattern which was common in the churches Paul established. 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? ++In talking about the form, I can say that the house churches have a biblical basis compared to the IC. 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. ++I don’t think this is a strawman at all. You can ask around why churches are not having the Lord’s Supper as the central feature of their meeting and I am sure the reason given will be the typical pragmatic kind, with the rationalisation that it is the principle being followed, not the practice. But then somehow they feel that they need to give some sort of pattern/practice to the principle by having a bread and a cup to pass around. 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. ++Without demanding an explicit statement, we find that the fact that the early church had the Lord’s Supper in the context of a real meal in their gatherings more than tell us that it was intentional. And certainly to do so otherwise has diluted whatever biblical intention claimed. 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. ++Why do you say Paul’s example is not normative when he already said that he has set the example for the elders to follow in Acts 20? And certainly those who follow his example is following apostolic practice and this certainly makes it more biblical. And certainly the church will be better off in not having to divert money from other uses to pay the salary of a pastor who can actually be supporting himself in the work. 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." ++So then are you agreeing with me that what Paul meant by living by the Gospel is NOT what we mean today? Who was Paul referring to with regards to those who preach the Gospel? What kind of support was Paul referring to? 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. ++How have I twisted Scriptures? Rather it is you who have not done a proper exegesis of the text. I am simply telling you what Paul meant by his words. 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. ++Yet it still does not justify relegating the church to mere spectators. And IC structures, whilst retaining denominational distinctions, are a testimony to division, not unity. ME: 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. ++If not everyone participate because they have nothing to share in particular (maybe shy or new but hopefully not stay in this condition for long), that is understandable though it should be that our life in Christ should be one that is overflowing with things to share. But if it is the very format of the meeting that suppresses participation, then it certainly negates 1 Cor 14:26. 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. ++It’s not my strawman but rather your denial. Effecting a name change has no effect at all. You will probably replace “main speaker” with another term and the practice will continue. And it is not the case that not everyone gets to share in the house church. It is the case that not everyone would share given the setting that everyone is encouraged to participate freely. This is far different from the IC setting. As to hogging the meetings, the point still stands that participation is limited to the pre-selected few. When the church comes together, is it only the worship leader have songs to lead but not the rest? Or that only the pastor have a word to share and not others? 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? ++By spontaneity is not meant you come with nothing to share. By spontaneous is meant that there is free participation by everyone. Granted not everything that is actually spoken is edifying (neither does a sermon necessarily edifies right?), but that the freedom to participate constitutes every part of the body being encouraged to function, and that leads to the edification of the body. 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. ++By fostering the spectator-actors mentality. ME: Can I know who Gonzalez is and how he got his references? I'm sure you know Philip Schaff. ++Justo Gonzalez wrote The Story of Christianity. Jesse Hurlbut wrote The Story of the Christian Church. And they say the same thing regarding persecution of the early church. It is going to be very difficult for me to tell you how he got his references. Surely you are not expecting me to list verbatim all the reading references at the end of the books, are you? But you can do it yourself by getting hold of them, if you can. 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. ++Simply because they were living it out. Today we have to argue about normative models because other non-biblical practices have entrenched themselves in today’s church to be the normative way of doing church today. ME: 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. ++Can it be just reduced to a colloquial usage of the term? I don’t think so. Ask any pastor where his church is and he will direct you to a building, not a people. This is no strawman. This is fact. I can also ask you the same question and you will tell me the address of the church. But what will I find, a people? Or a building? Our lips say “church is people” but our understanding is at the same time and more commonly is “building is church”. 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. ++This disparity in theology is in the IC, not in the HC. We do not use words like “where do you go to church” or “do you attend church” or “where is your church”. Our usage is consistent with theology. I can’t say the same for the IC. You only rationalise it away by saying it is mere colloquialism. 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. ++You can deny it all you want. BTW, doesn’t an ordinary church goer knows who the pastor is? So why does he have to put the “pastor” in front and call him Pastor this and pastor that? Even pastors when speaking to the church calls themselves “pastor this and pastor that”. What for? Isn’t it a way to tell people to “know your position”? It's only titles, don't get too hung up on that. ++The hung up is with the IC, not me. The IC is the one who is doing the very thing Jesus forbade, not me. I’m pointing out to you the problem which you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge. 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? ++Are you saying that what the early church did mean nothing about what they believe? Evidence is abundant concerning the Lord’s Supper and the homes they meet in. You don’t have to be told something you are already doing it all along. Get the point? 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? ++It is not a matter of majority. Any church history book will note the departure from a plurality of elders to a bishop monarch. BTW, the early church are house church advocates by their practices. Even better still, the NT Scriptures were organic churches in expression, all non-institutional. Consider the following quotes from Emmaus Journal: “Ecclesiology,” says University of Basel professor, Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “is simply Christology.” He argues that all sociological attempts to explain the church are futile because the church can only be explained by its link to the person and work of Christ. The church is the body of Christ, and Christ is the head of the body (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; cf. 1 Cor. 12:12–13, 27). These metaphors stress the unity of Christ and His people, and the term head specifically stresses that He is leader or ruler over the church. He exercises a position of power and authority over His people. The early church witnessed to the headship of Christ by recognizing no individual man as the head of the church. Leadership was always invested in a plurality of leaders (first apostles and soon elders). This was true of the universal church and of the local church, which is a replica or a miniature of the universal church. The primacy of Scripture in its teaching that Christ is the sole head (“Chief Shepherd,” 1 Pet. 5:4) of the church was denied in practice soon after the death of the apostles. A plurality of elders gave way to a monarchical bishop, and the institutional Church was ultimately ruled by the Supreme Pontiff, i.e., the Pope, in Rome. Even in the Protestant churches the pastor as an officer over the flock is a firmly entrenched tradition — a tradition that denies to Christ His place as head of the church….As clearly noted by Lightfoot, in biblical times “elder” and “bishop” were synonymous terms. It was not until the rise of sacerdotalism in the second century that bishops took the places of the apostles and presided over groups of elders. And all those Roman Catholic practices are all extrabiblical and contrabiblical. You do not know where to draw the line: ++So if the pope lays no claim to infallibility, then it is OK? And why not universal jurisdiction? If you can have jurisdiction over all the cell groups in your church, why forbid a wider jurisdiction? And concerning indulgence and purgatory, you still have not shown that the Bible expressly teach there must be no such things. I am not pro-RC but just to point out to you your problematic way of arguing. It is a case of not seeing your own flaws in reasoning. 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. ++Yes, as far as their practice conforms not to the Scriptures, they have departed. But this is more pronounced after 300AD, by then which the apostles were no longer around. If you cannot see the difference between normative (prescriptive) and descriptive acts in the bible, you will never understand what we are asking for. ++I can certainly appreciate the difference, but I do not just stop at saying “this is prescriptive, that is descriptive.” Some things are prescribed because of departure from norms, can you understand 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. ++You still have not given a reply concerning the point about the earthly king system. Unbiblical can either mean without biblical basis or violating a Biblical command. I will make it clear which is which. So in regards to church practices, I am usually using it in the sense of practices without biblical basis eg salaries, buildings, order of service, token Lord’s Supper, and sometimes to a violation of a biblical command eg, hierarchy and titles. And if you choose to depart from a practice is Scripture, why? 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. ++Your reason is not acceptable. The NT church met in homes in Acts 2 and Acts 4 way before any imperial persecution. It was an acceptable religion, received by many though unwelcomed by the Pharisees and the high priest. It was tolerated by the Roman authorities, as can be read in Acts. 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? ++The Bible surely teaches that meeting in homes were the usual places for church meetings and the phrase “church meeting in the house” surely speaks of something that is familiar and well understood. If we are to let Scriptures be useful for teaching, then we ought to let out practices be guided by them. 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? ++Very different! ME: Mindset is individual. i don't have a problem thinking that the church is the building. ++Sure you don’t, just as the buddhist don’t have a problem listening to the sound of one hand clapping! It is simply a situation of living in self-contradiction, which if you don’t think so much into it, does not bother you. 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. ++But you first have to know why the common purse was there in the first place. Do you know why? 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. ++Do a proper exegesis of 1 Cor 16 and tell me what it says, whether I am right or not regarding the weekly collections. 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. ++Certainly to have all things in common should be a normative trait among believers, should it not? We should be willing to forgo personal luxuries towards aiding a brother in need. And we should always be reminded that sharing things (contrary to human selfish nature but part of God’s nature) is what Jesus said about being more blessed to give than to receive. The NT church certainly is a good example for us to emulate. Tertullian said that they really shared everything except their wives. They really thought of themselves as God’s stewards, not owning anything. This is a constant indictment against us today (IC and HC included) who are so prone to think otherwise. 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. ++What do you mean by work within the established churches? And you are right that bad experiences have led many people into the house churches. But you have to understand that the bad experiences are more of the organisational nature than people-related. Tensions and conflicts are organisational. For example, one brother shared to me that all he did was to ask a simple question “what’s the basis for spending so much money on a church building” and the next moment letter were circulated that the church has come under spiritual attack. He confronted the pastor, who later apologised, but the damage was done and not retracted. Subsequently this brother just left the fellowship silently. Many times nice Christians act unChristian because of the system or mindset. For example, the typical hierarchical setup may cause leaders to require that church members submit to their authority when church members feel that something is amiss, yet to not follow will cause them to be labeled as rebellious or divisive. 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. ++Think of how the church will not be fragmented without the IC. Heresies are still here with without the help/hindrance of the IC. In HC, heresies may be limited to a few bad hats affecting small pockets of people. In the IC, one bad teaching will be taken in by a large mass of people. If you say there are checks and balances in the IC, then HC also have that too. And think about the proliferation of Word of Faith books to be found in some of the major church stores. Who is really examining them, the leaders? Those who voice out concerning them are shot down and labeled. ME: I sometimes wonder if the house church came from cell or the cell from house churches. ++The cell group is an extension of the IC. So the cell group did not come from the House church. In fact, the cell group borrows the workings of the HC and incorporates into the IC, thus enjoying the limited benefits of the HC and suffering the limitations of the IC mentality as each cell operates with its hands tied behind it. 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. ++So is there any reason why churches do not allow the cells to be independent on their own? If you are the SP of a church, and you know about house churches and their pros, what would prevent you from allowing them to be churches on their own without coming under your “covering”? In closing I quote the Emmaus Journal again: From its earliest days, the Christian church has moved from simplicity to complexity as it has drifted from a spontaneous living organism to a more settled institution. This ever dangerous institutionalism arose simultaneously in the second generation of many widely separated churches. No more vivid example exists than that of the second-century church which developed strong ecclesiastical traditions as it came to view the “bishop” as the successor to the Apostle. This trend progressed into the fourth century, causing the church to enter more and more into an era of “speculation on the law and doctrine of the church.” The rise and development of sacerdotalism, with its elevation of clergy to the status of priests, in effect, made the minister an instrument of the saving grace of God as he participated with God in the salvation of human beings. This development of the threefold ministry of bishops, elders, and deacons represented a serious departure from simple NT ministry. Independent groups are a final source of biblical ministry patterns during this period. As Gunnar Westin points out, “The process of development which transformed the original Christian congregations to a sacramental, authoritarian Church took place during the latter portion of the second century….This change did not take place without protest.” Many church historians have dismissed as “heretics” those churches that opposed the institutionalized church—a campaign often called “The Free Church Movement.” Though some of these groups struggled with doctrinal purity, a closer look reveals that the heretical label in most cases was primarily due to their unwillingness to be loyal to the received tradition of the fathers, not to significant doctrinal weakness. As the church of the NT passed through its early centuries and became the official or organized church, it frequently departed from simple NT patterns. Nonetheless, strong voices both inside and outside this church called for a biblical ministry.