December 19, 2009

• House Church, chapter 4, "Congregational Consensus", reading notes

  Chapter 4 - "Congregational Consensus", 12/19/2009

  In this chapter the authors develop some thoughts on church government.  They start by discussing the greek word "ekklesia", translated "assembly" or "church".  They mention that it was the same word used of secular political assemblies, or 'town meetings', when all the citizens of a city would come together to discuss issues and make decisions.

  They share their thoughts that the elders are to be facilitators, not rulers, over the assembly.  They talk about the differences between "consensus rule" versus "majority rule", with the emphasis in consensus-rule being to get everyone on board before making the decision (if possible), not just 51%.

  They raise some very interesting points about Hebrews 13:17, which says "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you." 
  The more common word for "obey" (Gk "hupakouo") is not used here, but rather the Gk word "peitho", which means "be persuaded by".   Then, the more common word for "submit" (hupotasso) is not used, but rather the rare word "hupeiko", which connotates "yield" as a pinned wrestler would "yield" to the victorious wrestler at the end of their struggle.  Thus the verse actually paints a picture of extensive dialog and 'consensus-building' before finally 'yielding' where necessary, not simply submitting unquestioningly to elders. 

  This seems to fit well with Peter's directions in 1 Peter 5:1-3:
  "Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock."

  One thing they said seemed problematically oversimplified to me: on page 76 they wrote: "There are limits to what a local church, as a decision-making body, should decide.  Certain topics are out of bounds.... No historical church has license to redefine the historic Christian faith.... The elders are to rule out of bounds the consideration of harmful and heretical ideas.... This is because the church at large today, and throughout time past, already has consensus on certain fundamental interpretations of Scripture (such as which writings make up the Bible, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the Gospel message, the Trinity, the future bodily return of Jesus, etc.)."
  
  Unfortunately, this is the same argument the Roman Catholics (and the Eastern Orthodox, and various other denominations) use to try to force people to accept their views (since they allegedly represent 'the true church tradition, while all other churches have "gone astray").  Much could be said about this discussion, but in my opinion there really is no good way to apply "human-tradition guiderails" to doctrinal investigation.  Everything must be weighed by God's word.  Yes the elders should guide the church into truth/orthodoxy, but they should do so by appealing to God's Word, not the Westminster Catechism or a papal bulletin or the writings of church fathers or some alleged "orthodoxy" of some sort or other.  I'm not saying that "trajectory theology" is correct (cf. modern evangelical feminism, emergent/missional/postmodern/'God-is-still-speaking'rhetoric, etc).  But I am saying we need to follow Jesus' example of holding to "the commandments of God" rather than "the traditions of men" (Mark 7:5-13).  Elders also should be prepared to defend their belief in the closed canon of Scripture, and the other things the House Church authors mentioned - the Trinity, etc.  It seems unwise to allow elders to just handwave and say "The Church has always believed such and such".
  I'd agree with them that each house church does not NECESSARILY need to 'reinvent the wheel' theologically.  They don't have to 'throw everything out' and 'start from scratch' each time a new house church is spun off... rather they can assume a common body of doctrine until questions arise.  But when questions do arise, they should be properly answered...

  In summary, this chapter seems to present some common-sense practical thoughts on church leadership and consensus government.   Your thoughts are welcome.
  

  • 11:03 pm
  • 2 Comments