church

  • what is "natural"?

    Three separate items in tonight's blog post:
    1. "What is natural?"
    2. Modern usage of the word "Church"
    3. Son Jong Nam - inspiring modern-day Christian hero of the faith

     

    1. On the question "What is 'natural'?" - cool quote from http://creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100727a -

    "Materialists can’t have it both ways.  They cannot argue that only particles and natural laws exist, then turn around and blame humans for global warming, pollution, war, acid rain, extinction, or anything else.  Nature is what nature does.  If humans are a part of nature, whatever they do is only natural....

    The only perspective that permits natural/unnatural distinctions is the Judeo-Christian world view.  Sin is unnatural, because God is holy.  Death and disasters are unnatural, because God created a perfect world that was cursed because of sin.  Human beings stand between the natural and the supernatural by having the image of God implanted in their nonphysical souls.  These foundations allow for politics, economics, criminal law, and all the institutions that engage us, including science."

     

     

    2. A thought on the modern usage of the word "church", compared to the ancient usage, and a comparison:

    "church" (modern english term) = "christian community center" (what Bible-era folks might call it if they observed it)

    "small group" (modern term) = "church" (Bible-era usage)

    "What church are you attending?" (modern) = "What Christian Community Center do you regularly attend and drop your kids off at?" (Bible-era)

    "I feel called to be a pastor." (modern) = "I feel called to be the director of a Christian Community Center." (Bible-era)

    etc

     

     

    3. Son Jong Nam  -  modern hero and role model... recent North Korean Christian martyr

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdZrqqz2CUFMIoE9WoGEBDkKU6QAD9GOARA00

    Why would a 50-year old man return secretly with Bibles into North Korea, from which he had escaped a couple years earlier, knowing full well that if he was caught, he would be jailed and tortured to death?

    As far as I can tell: (1) Because Son Jong Nam believed that the Bible's account about Jesus Christ was true (that Jesus Christ really did come, die, and rise again as the Bible relates); (2) Son Jong Nam believed that Jesus Christ was His Lord and so he took seriously the command to make disciples of all nations, and (3) Son Jong Nam loved his own countrymen, and was willing to sacrifice his life (if necessary) to bring them the gospel.

    Son Jong Nam died in some secret dungeon, penniless and unknown to the vast majority of the world.  It would seem that he wasted his life and his efforts to help his North Korean countrymen.

    But his life and death were not in vain.  God saw everything.  And when the King returns, Son Jong Nam's reward will be incalculably awesome.

    For His eyes are upon the ways of a man,
    And He sees all his steps.

    Job 34:21

    And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven." Luke 6:20-23a

    And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on." Mark 12:41-44

    Behold, the Lord GOD will come with might,
    With His arm ruling for Him.
    Behold, His reward is with Him
    And His recompense before Him.

    Isaiah 40:10

    "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done."
    Revelation 22:12

     

     

  • more thoughts on the coming distress (especially in USA)

    Regarding the "crash" (collapse of peace and economic prosperity in the USA and beyond) which some people (including myself) see on the horizon...

    underlying cause:
    - millions of individual unsaved Americans, a collective nation turning gradually further from God (we were never God's chosen people, and we were only a "Christian nation" in the sense of being composed of a high percentage of people espousing Christianity or judeo-christian morality (e.g. one might just as well say that we used to be a "Caucasian nation" or some other such originally shared characteristic), and not in the sense of possessing a divine national charter)

    proximal causes:
      ==>> abortion (twenty thousand precious unborn humans murdered per week in America)
    -> recognition of homosexual 'marriages'
    -> abandoning Israel
    cultural factors leading to the decline
    - divorce, homosexuality and the breakdown of the family
    - removing the Bible from the public square (especially schools) and requiring secularistic science teaching
    - affluence --> laziness (engineering school enrollment, etc)
    - feminism (more girls now going to college than boys, divorce epidemic, etc, cf. Mohler articles such as http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/10/23/feminism-unfulfilled-why-are-so-many-women-unhappy/
    http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/09/newsnote-where-are-the-young-men/
    http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/05/newsnote-masculinity-in-a-can-fight-club-at-church-and-the-crisis-of-manhood/
    http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/10/28/the-divorce-divide-a-national-embarrassment/)
    - media evil: Hollywood movies, tv shows, pornography, etc

    factors in the predicted coming economic collapse of the USA and subsequent one-world government
    Global:
    - sovereign debt (of many nations, e.g. Greece, Spain, Ireland, Britain, and the USA...)
    - oil dependency - for transportation, food growing and transporting, manufacturing, energy, etc
    - nuclear Iran (dilemma: if pre-emptive attack of Iran, risk losing 'world goodwill', if wait/sanctions, risk nuclear war and/or an EMP-bomb attack against Israel, Europe, USA, etc) http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-time-to-act-against-iran-is-fast-approaching/?singlepage=true
    USA:
      - national sovereign debt - $14 trillion and growing - now equal to 100% of the 2010 GDP
    - continued expansion of government entitlement programs like welfare, unemployment, disability, medicare, etc
    - social security collapsing due to borrowing - e.g. paying out more than it takes in, starting 2010 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/539411/201007061804/Are-Overdue-Reports-Concealing-ObamaCare-Impact-On-Medicare-.aspx
    - the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - approximately $1 billion spent so far
    - the subprime mortgage crisis due to Clinton-era FreddieMac/FannieMae intervention - http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/09/29/who-caused-the-biggest-financial-crisis-since-the-great-depression/
    - 12 million illegal immigrants taking up millions of dollars in local services
    - high personal credit card debt, $8000 average per household
    - the Obama $700 billion 'stimulus' bill of 2009
    - the national healthcare bill of 2010, taking effect gradually over the next 5 years
    - Bush tax cuts expiring in 2011

    Predictions
      - something will trigger a global economic meltdown
    - runaway money-printing / inflation will occur in USA and the dollar will lose most or all of its value (cf. Argentina, Zimbabwe)
    - some level of national turmoil will occur, especially acutely in the cities with riots when gas and food run out
    - Christians will experience major persecution

    At some point, the world will transition to a one-world Islamic government and everyone who accepts the new world leader will receive an implanted RFID microchip allowing them to buy and sell.  However, the timing of the transition is not known... the USA meltdown might occur many years before the world transition, or within a few weeks or months.   God might grant many more years to the earth before bringing the final end of the age.

    Recommendations
    - http://tim223.xanga.com/722854326/preparing-for-the-coming-distress/ (Rejoice in Jesus Christ all day long!    and prepare in a few prudent earthly ways)
    - Pray for revival in the USA...
    - More ideas: www.transitionus.org  ,  www.postpeakliving.com

     

     

     

  • Most churches have no idea what to do with spiritually mature men in their 20s

    Quote: "Most churches have no idea what to do with spiritually mature men in their 20s, so they wrongly direct them to seminary or to a ministry with kids, hoping these guys will rub off on the youth and keep them coming to church and out of trouble."

    This is an extremely fascinating and thought-provoking article!  http://online.worldmag.com/2010/06/02/mishandling-twentysomethings/   What are your thoughts on it?

    I have lots of thoughts... too many to categorize.  Here goes an attempt anyway:

    • First, the author (Anthony Bradley) raises lots of good points.
    • Why send men away to seminaries so they can become full time vocational "pastors" (as in a full-time "clergy job") in the first place?  Is this Biblical?
    • If it is necessary to train men for future ministry, why not train them within the church?  Why send them away?
    • The article presupposes that there are "youth groups" (collections of kids whose parents have dropped them off for some form of age-segregated training) that need extra "helpers" to take care of all the kids.  Why would the parents abdicate their own responsibility to spiritually train their own kids?  Why regularly separate the kids from the parents for their weekly teaching/spiritual edification in the first place?  Is this Biblical?
    • Fascinating phrase-quotes from his article: "...church communities were confused about what is normal for men in the church..."  and  "the whispers of church people who confuse spiritual maturity and vibrancy in young men with a “call to ministry.”"   Well said.  The problem is not "ministry" (service) in the literal sense, but in the cultural baggage of the word "ministry" as meaning salaried "clergy" work.   It may not be "normal" in churches for young twenty-something plumbers, electricians, landscapers, and computer technicians to be fervently concerned about the kingdom of Christ and about edifying and teaching their brothers and sisters, but it ought to be normal!   Paul's description of the "normal" church in 1 Corinthians 14 says that "When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation."  Not just the 'professionals.'
    • Quote: "When a younger brother says to me that “he feels called to ministry,” I usually understand that to mean that he craves and needs validation and would like to use the church to make him feel good about himself.   Ha ha.  Understandable.  Reminds me of a graduation charge I once heard.  The speaker got right to the point quickly, saying something like this: "Your parents and friends are all telling you these days how wonderful you are.  One of the most important things you need to learn to do as part of graduating and growing up is to stop believing their compliments."  That is, to have an accurate understanding of oneself, neither too high or too low, and to focus on God's opinion rather than humans' opinion.  Bradley is correct that there is a big danger for young and talented twenty-somethings to experience too much praise and commendation by their church acquaintances, and to become proud.  "craves and needs validation"... yes... don't we all...
      But I think the solution is not to avoid putting young men and women into ministry, but rather to provide more mentoring for them.  For example, Barnabas mentored Mark in the Bible, taking him along with him on their missionary trips.  Mark bailed out once, but Barnabas patiently took him along again on a future trip.  Eventually his patience was rewarded as Mark became a mature and strong Christian man.
      One thing Bradley didn't mention was the all too common experience of a young twenty-something encouraged into "ministry" who ends up falling into public sin, such as fornication or heresy.  The Bible talks so much about this, from the requirement that overseers be "not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil... These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach" (1 Tim. 3)  to the warning to "Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others..." (1 Tim. 5).
      Also, the Bible talks about those who have fallen... and the need to "restore" them!  Don't just write them off.
      In summary as I see it: if you see a new Christian or young Christian who seems to have lots of zeal for God, (1) understanding the depth of human depravity, expect them to be full of latent evil (like King David! and others), (2) by all means put them into service in various ways (like Mark, and like 1 Cor 14 "each one"... no exceptions!), (3) put godly older mentors by their side, constantly probing and asking them and challenging them to grow in Christ and keeping them humble and accountable, (4) don't be surprised if / when they fall into sin and failure, and (5) be ready to continually encourage them back to Christ and back into (appropriate) service afterward....
    • One other reason in favor of having young people get involved in youth work is that sometimes they honestly don't know what their spiritual gifts are, and sometimes putting people in various service roles allows them to 'try out' various things and discover their gifts.  When Bradley talks about people "working in vocations that they originally set out to do before they were misdirected by the whispers of church people", he seems to be warning more about the problem of telling young people who already understand their own gifts to instead go into youth work or seminary/clergical work because of their evinced fervent love for God.  I personally know some people who do not know where God wants them / what gifts He's given them, so for these people, trying out various avenues of ministry might indeed be helpful.   However, as mentioned above, intentional mentoring seems extremely important.

    Your thoughts are welcome.

     

  • on "earning the right to be heard", Part 1

    Jesus gave Christians the task of "making disciples":

    "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." -- Matthew 28:19-20

    Sometimes it is said that before sharing the good news about Jesus Christ with their friends and neighbors and coworkers, Christians need to "earn the right to be heard".  This is also said of youth group leaders, foreign missionaries, etc.  The concept is that one needs to first earn respect from one's colleagues and peers, or endear themselves somehow, after which one can share about Christ.

    To what extent is this true?

    If it is true, how long does one need to wait?  What if the 'respect' and 'endearment' and close friendship never occurs?  What if no one ever asks you "the reason for the hope that is within you"?  Do you just keep quiet about Jesus Christ the rest of your life, waiting for that moment?

    cf. 1 Peter 3:15, 2 Cor. 2:14-17, 5:18-21... what other Bible passages apply?

     

  • House Church reading notes, ch10-20

    House Church Reading Notes, finishing up the series of notes on this book (edited by Steven Atkerson)


    Chapter 10 - The Ministry of Elders -
    In this chapter the authors discuss the importance of having elders in house churches.  These are officially recognized positions of leadership, not simply old people or people who have attended the group for a long time.
    When many people think of house churches, they think of 'splinter groups' of 'theologically wayward people', because there have indeed been occasions of house churches going astray theologically.  This is why elder leadership is important - to 'refute' those who oppose sound doctrine (Titus 1:9).
    The authors discuss congregational consensus leadership, Biblical characteristics of elders, the plurality of elders, and the working together of all the elders in a city.  They raise some good points.

    Chapter 11 - Full Time Ministers
    Here they discuss Acts 20:32-35, 1 Cor 9:14, 1 Tim. 5:17, etc in the question of whether church leaders should receive a salary for their work.  They suggest that generally, elders/leaders should be in a position of giving rather than receiving from the church, although there are certainly times in which the church would see greatest benefit in supporting a particularly gifted teacher financially so that he could devote more time to ministry... especially if his family was going through some kind of financial struggle.  Also, they discuss the difference between giving "financial gifts" to the elder versus formalizing a "salary" (a "hireling clergy").  They suggest that the salary is dangerous, wheras the giving of gifts is fine. 
    A quote from page 155: "If someone feels called to a ministry which prohibits him the time to earn money from other employment, then he can well trust the Lord to provide his needs.  It will, of course, be through the freewill offerings of the Lord's people, but nothing must be done by the one called into full time service to ever procure money because that would transgress scriptural teaching that all ministry is free of charge."
    This seems interesting and worth pondering further.  They are surely right that we don't see salaried church positions taught in the NT, and that these didn't arise until after Constantine.  Does this imply that God's ideal for the church was in working jobs on the side to provide for family and in voluntary financial provision in the form of gifts?

    Chapter 12 - The ministry of evangelism
    Is church primarily for believers or unbelievers?  The authors suggest that the NT pattern is that church is primarily for believers.  Evangelism in the NT took place either in public settings as evangelism-gifted people publically proclaimed the gospel (e.g. Paul in synagogues, marketplaces, riversides, Stephen in various venues, Apollos, etc), or, in daily life and conversations with unbelievers as believers rubbed shoulders with them ("Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of every opportunity.  Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned as it were with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person." Col. 4:5-6)

    Chapter 13 - Ministry households, key to healthy churches
    In this chapter Jonathan Lindvall discuss the importance of the family in church life.  Not only the family, but the united, close-knit, well-functioning, biblical, mission-minded/focused on fulfilling Jesus' great commission  family.  They discuss hospitality, elders' families, the problem of missionary boarding schools, and NT ministry households.

    Chapter 14 - The ministry of giving
    Here they reiterate some points in earlier chapters on the greater proportion of finances that can be devoted to directly helping missionaries and poor brethren in the house church paradigm compared to the traditional large-church-building paradigm (with its huge facility costs, staff costs, etc).

    Chapter 15 - The City Church
    This chapter first discusses the question of whether the NT's references to churches was primarily speaking of one church in each city, or multiple house churches in each city.  They suggest that in some cities, as in Corinth, the church may still have been small enough to actually meet in one home wheras in other cities, like Rome, there were three subgroups (probable house-churches) named.   They discuss the situation in Jerusalem (where all the believers met every day in Solomon's portico near the Temple), and argue that this was a unique and temporary situation, because thousands of people who were visiting Jerusalem for the Pentecost feast had suddenly become converted and were needing training before going back to their home countries.  They also discuss some problems with the concept of the "city church", as in - who determines who is included and who is not included (cults, etc).  If instead a decentralized house church paradigm is adopted, then each house church can decide with what other groups it has true biblical fellowship.

    Chapter 16 - Church Discipline 
    They discuss the pattern of church discipline laid down in Matthew 18.  Good thoughts.

    Chapter 17 - Church families -
    This short chapter is similar to chapter 13 but written by a different author.  He shares thoughts on the importance of the whole family experiencing church together as opposed to being separated into various youth classes.  Interesting thoughts.  This is a very important area, it seems, and there seem to be pros and cons to the different types of teaching time.  How can teaching be imparted that fits all the biblical criteria: it is applicable to all age groups, it is by men only (at least for the combined time), it is by all the men, and yet somehow it is deep and thorough...?  It seems that deep/thorough teaching would take longer times to convey (perhaps 10 minutes at least?) and that if all the men did it and then "judged"/commented upon each other's teaching, it would take a long time... during which the young kids would be bored.  Also, teenagers would often have skeptical questions which would take thorough time to answer.  Perhaps this "main assembly time" could be staged somehow?  Deepest/most-"theological" teaching first, followed by discussion by the men (during which the little kids color or play quiet games or whatever) followed by teaching aimed at younger folk/everyone?  Or the deep theological stuff which is judged to be necessary but not edifying-enough-to-everyone-present could be relegated to another time?  A separate 'apologetics discussion for teens' could be hosted at a different point in the morning/evening, with participation from both boys/girls as it is not part of the 'main assembly' that Paul discusses only men leading in 1 Cor 14?

    Chapter 18 - Divine Order
    The authors first discuss various spheres of authority - God (Father, Son, Spirit), Family, Government, Church.  Then they discuss in detail two views on the 1 Cor 11/14 women silent in the church passages.  The first view is that the women are "silent in judgment" - that is, that they can address the whole assembly, but they are not to participate in the judging/discussion that follow each prophecy/teaching.  The second view is the "silent in public speaking" view - that is, that women are not to address the whole assembly, and the 1 Cor 11 "praying or prophecying" is at other times and places (e.g. at home), not in front of the whole church.  The various authors of the book hold to one or the other of these positions.  Very interesting discussion.  www.ntrf.org is referenced for further discussion.  I'd also add www.cbmw.org  .

    Chapter 19 - Growing pains - getting too big
    This chapter discusses various ways of growth in traditional churches (build bigger buildings, add more services) and house churches (split into two house churches, send off a small delegation to a second geographically-separated house church, other ways). 

    Chapter 20 and Conclusions
    These chapters recap the book.  They stress that house church is not a "model", it's the "real thing"... it's not something to "toy around with", but something to invest heavily in, if and only if God leads you and your family that is is the right paradigm to invest in at this time.  Some stressed keys for success: love for God, love for God's Word, and love for God's people.  A final thought is shared - people will probably look at you askance if you go to a house church instead of a traditional church, because for thousands of years (since Constantine) Christians have been going to traditional big-building/paid-staff churches.  But as the book points out, we must please the Lord, not anyone else, in the ultimate sense.  Only His opinion of us really counts.

    I'd love to hear more thoughts from others of you who have read the book, or if you have more thoughts on these things in general.

  • House Church reading notes, Chapter 9

    House Church Reading Notes, Chapter 9 - "Preaching and Teaching Ministry"

    Much of this chapter's contents was covered earlier in the book.  The gist is that while preaching and teaching is important, it was not the central purpose of the weekly New Testament church gatherings and thus should not be our central purpose today.  The authors recommend that special 'teaching meetings' be held from time to time on other days of the week so as not to replace the regular house meetings.

    I am curious to see what this would look like.... whether teaching would quickly fizzle out without a pre-planned 'main speaker' each week, or whether house congregations would quickly rise to the challenge and begin mutually contributing with gusto.

    The question of to what extent women should participate in the meetings is also still extant, given the extreme differences between 1 Corinthians 14 and contemporary American church life.

    Two interesting quotes from the chapter:

    p.132 "...the push was always for mutual participation; for lots of people to share something, including a short teaching, rather than for one person to predominate..."  - from 1 Cor 14, as discussed before.

    p. 135 "It is unhealthy for believers to exist exclusively in one isolated house church.  Each house church, properly speaking, is a part of the much bigger city church in whatever town it is located.  Though they may never all meet together in one place, and though there is to be no outward ecclesiological authority controlling them, all the congregations in a given area constitute the one body of Christ.  We are to cultivate an attitude of oneness, acceptance, love, concern, and cooperation with all the other believers in our city."      ---  I have myself experienced this "city church" experience rather by accident than by plan, and I have found that it is wonderful... to fellowship as regularly as possible with multiple 'spheres' of Christians within one's city...   However, how can this be done in conjunction with attending regular house church meetings with a consistent group of people, to facilitate strong fellowship and trust and sharing?   Probably more than one gathering per week is required.   Perhaps two or three or more....

     

     

  • "House Church" reading notes, Ch. 7 & 8

    notes from the book "House Church" by Steve Atkerson


    Chapter 7 - Children in Church

    In this chapter, the authors discuss the presence of children in house churches. 

    - The scriptures are silent on children and church - nothing said about Sunday Schools (nor the lack thereof), etc.  Only Acts 21:5 mentions wives and children, escorting Paul and company out of the city on their journey.

    - The traditional church practices segregation... children are grouped by age and taught separately from the adults for the duration of the church meeting.

    - Their recommendations for house church practices:
      1. Relax - children will be somewhat unpredictable and noisy sometimes no matter how much their parents try to keep them quiet - just accept that and move on.

      2. All the adults can help keep tabs on all the kids.
     
      3. Try to find creative ways to keep the kids involved in the main assembly - occasional kid-focused lessons, etc.

      4. No problem with occasional special separate events for the kids, with games, videos, or whatever.  Just not every week.

      5. Hosts can feel free to make clear a set of house ground rules at the beginning.
     
      6. If infants are too noisy / fussy, parents can be encouraged to take them to a different room / etc.
     
      7. Try not to let the meeting become too boring / stagnant, for everyone's sake, but especially the kids' sake.
     
     

    My thoughts on this -- I like the idea of reducing the segregation of kids from their parents and other adults.  This reintegration would seem to promote better connections between kids and parents.  As one of my friends recently said, when kids graduate out of the high school youth group, they tend to drift away from church because of the sudden "disconnect" between participating in the fun game night with interactive youth-focused lessons to the sudden "dry, boring" (feeling) time of silently listening to lectures in pews or prayer time.  But if all of church was small intimate group time, and if kids were used to participating (at least from high school on), there would be no disconnect.

    I do think there will likely be 'difficulties' with younger kids - at least until everybody gets adjusted to it.  Many young families looking for a church will probably not initially choose a house church because they're looking for the convenience of nurseries and kids' programs.  Your thoughts are welcome.

    Also, I wonder how to integrate the "women keep silent in church" principle (of 1 Cor 14 and 11).  I assume that boys would naturally be expected to keep silent in church until they reach 'adulthood' (age 12 for Jewish boys... cf. Jesus in the temple...) and even then to wait for their elders (cf. Elihu in Job), and I guess girls would keep total silence and ask their own fathers at home or talk after the 'assembly' with others about their questions (e.g. other older women, etc).  But it would seem productive to me to have times when the girls could participate verbally too... perhaps not in the 'main assembly' but at some other before/after time?  And the young children?   Our culture tends to put kids on a pedestal of honor, and it is also a very feminist culture, so these differences would be painfully obvious at first.  After time, though, this pattern (women and kids quiet during assembly/teaching/worship time, but participatory at all other times) might come to feel quite normal, as it was through the ages of the Jewish synagogues, etc.

     

    Chapter 8 - "Thoroughly Biblical Church" - "What are the irreducible requirements for a church to be biblical?"

    They suggest 5 basic Biblical church practice patterns (covered earlier in the book in more detail) -
    1. They met on the first day of the week
    2. They met in houses
    3. Their worship was open and spontaneous with "no one leading from the front" and every (male) person sharing
    4. The Lord's supper was a full meal, each time they met
    5. They used non-hierarchical male plural leadership (indigenous, functional/not-positional, consensual)

    They mention that item 1 and 2 could be modified if necessary, as the situation demands, but unless extenuating circumstances were present, there would be no need to deviate from that pattern. 

    Also they say (p. 125) "But let me make it clear as well that I do not by this mean that everything has to be in place from the word go... Of course the Lord's Supper as a full meal ought to be in place from the very start as there is just no possible reason for such not to be the case, but eldership, for example, would normatively arise much later.  And it is often the case as well that someone might take an initial lead in the corporate weekly gatherings until the others learn how to begin playing their part.  But the thing to grasp is that it should nevertheless be quite clear where the church was heading..."

    My thoughts--  I basically agree.  I also think that the transition from modern American traditional church to what they're suggesting is so radical that there would definitely be a lot of struggle and difficulty at first.  But it may well still be worth the change...

  • House Church, chapter 6

    Reading notes on Chapter 6 , of "House Church" edited by Steve Atkerson

    The author of this chapter (Stephen David) presents 10 reasons for house churches.

    1. "One another ministry" - i.e. everybody ministering to everyone else as in 1 Cor 14, not just a few clergy ministering to the lay people

    2. "Intimacy and accountability" - i.e., it happens best in small groups, not large church settings

    3. "The Lord's Supper" - as a full meal.   The author says "It is difficult to have the Lord's Supper as a family meal in a large impersonal gathering and formal structure."   I'm not sure if I fully agree.   I've been to church potlucks that have more than 100 people present, and it's possible to have good fellowship with the small group around your particular table.  But I certainly agree that the "sit-in-your-pew-and-silently-drink-the-little-plastic-cup-of-grape-juice-and-little-cracker" thing as is more typical of Lord's Supper observation is pretty far removed from the full-fellowship-meal paradigm of the NT.

    4. "Simple Church" - far less money and time-overhead is required to maintain the church meetings, and it is far easier and cheaper to multiply house churches than modern/expensive/separate-building churches.  Also he mentions the difference he's seen firsthand between overseas church-planting that relied on incoming international donations to build church buildings in the cities to be reached, vs others that were self-supported and met in houses.  The ministries supported by foreign money were viewed with more distrust by the locals and were targeted during times of unrest.

    5. "Bi-vocational leaders" - He mentions that apparently the NT house church elders were mostly bi-vocational (having some job other than church leadership which provided for their families).  Exceptions included Paul once in a while, but he was more of a church-planting missionary than a church elder rooted in one city, and even Paul worked as a tentmaker many times.  The author suggests that elders are worthy to receive voluntary financial gifts from the people they minister to, citing 1 Tim. 5:17-18 "The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages.""  He suggests that "traveling elders" who minister to a large area as special teachers (or missionaries, going into areas in which there are no churches) would be most suited for full financial support.
    He also quotes Acts 20:33-35 where Paul is talking to the Ephesus elders: "I have coveted no one's silver or gold or clothes. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me. In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'""

    6. "Ease of access for unbelievers" - i.e. unbelievers feel more comfortable coming over to a home for dinner and discussion than they would feel going into a "church sanctuary".   I'm not sure if I agree that all unbelievers would feel more comfortable... :)   Some might want to sit unnoticed in the back!  But surely the friendly fellowship of a home environment would be a good and helpful dynamic for unsaved visitors.
    The author reminds that we, the people of God, ARE the sanctuary of God nowadays (1 Cor 3:16, 1 Pet. 2:5-9, etc).

    7. "Persecution" - i.e., church buildings are an unnecessary "target" in hostile lands.  Houses are lower profile.  For example, there are some 80 million Christians meeting in house churches in China these days.

    8. "Nourishment and Multiplication of churches" - i.e. it's easier to plant new house churches than to plant big building-based churches.

    9. "Discipleship and multiplication of leaders" - the author notices that discipleship in traditional large-building churches is often relegated to specialized "leadership training centers or bible colleges".  On the other hand, "quality mentoring and overseeing is manifested more in such small gatherings [of house churches], thereby identifying and motivating more potential leaders." (p. 107)   I agree that it COULD work that way, but I think the mindset of the leadership is key in either large-church or house-church settings... i.e. if leaders are actively looking for younger folk to mentor and disciple, then either large- or small-churches could be effective in this, and vice-versa: even in house churches, mentoring doesn't happen automatically.  But small churches / house churches are probably an easier setting for discipleship and getting to know people.

    10. "The poor, the needy, and missions" - related to some of the earlier points about money, and quoting many scriptures from the NT about the importance and practice of the CHURCH helping the poor and needy.   Obviously, if there is no church building costs and maintenance costs, and fewer or no staff salaries, all this money could go toward supporting missionaries in places where there are no churches, and toward helping the poor ("especially those of the household of faith" Gal. 6:10) in one's local community.


    Overall, a good roundup of reasons, in my opinion, why the house church paradigm is actually "better" than the large-church-with-separate-church-building paradigm in most cases.   I like part of his ending summary on page 109 -- "There is so much good to speak about the modern day church.  Yet a reformation is needed to help God's people function more effectively and biblically.  Gathering in houses is not a perfect solution wherein we don't have any problems at all.  It is only a better and more effective approach.  In saying this, I mean it has more advantages and less disadvantages.  Of course the problems that occur, based on different situations, places and culture, must be dealt prayerfully and wisely according to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit and with the counsel of experienced godly people."


    (next chapter:  "Children in Church"   !  )

  • House Church, chapter 5, "House Church Theology", reading notes

    Chapter 5 - "House Church Theology",  12/19/2009

    This chapter and the next chapter (Ten Reasons For House Churches) overlap quite a bit.

    One point that's made is in response to the question "Why meet in house churches instead of traditional large church buildings?"  The authors respond by turning the question around - If everyone agrees that the NT church met in houses, why should we do things differently than they did?

    The authors discuss a couple reasons postulated by traditional big-church proponents for why the NT church met in homes: They were too poor to build church buildings, persecution prevented them, or that it was indeed God's plan for the church to progress out of its 'infancy' (house churches) into maturity (large church buildings).  They present a few reasons why each one is unsatisfactory.  I think they make a mildly good case, but not super-strong... their strongest point to me so far seems to be simply that the NT church met in houses, so in the absence of any other clear direction, there's no need to change - might as well stay with the same pattern.

    Ah, but then (p. 86-88) they present (a summary of) reasons for why house churches are better.  (And in the next chapter, another author makes his own list of ten reasons, with some overlap to this chapter)

    1. Community/fellowship is stronger in small groups/house-churches.  This includes the weekly Lord's Supper full-meals, and the fellowship/sharing time before and after.  Likewise accountability (p.87 #4) is really only possible with small groups, in which one can really get to know others.

    2. Participatory meetings really require small groups to function well, and 1 Cor. 14 clearly expects church to be participatory.  Seems pretty clear to me.

    3. (p.87 #5) The consensus-rule described in the NT only works in small groups.  (they don't cite Acts 6 and 15, but weren't they cases of consensus-rule in HUGE (~10000-people) church settings?  But one could say that Acts 15 was a small-group situation of elders-only..)

    4. (p.87-88 #6&7) House churches are low-cost and much easier to reproduce themselves as growth occurs.  The money saved on buildings/salaries can be given instead to missionaries.   They mention "surveys" of US churches that say 80% of money goes to buildings and salaries on average, with 20% going to missions, and with house churches those numbers can be reversed.   This is a significant point, it seems to me.  Points 1, 2, and 3 above could fit the current popular US church model of a large central church with dedicated building, coupled with small groups that meet throughout the week.  But in this traditional large-church situation, the money is still funneling into the central-building/central-salaries...

    At the end they discuss some logistical questions, parking, upholstery damage, child control, rotating to avoid wearing people out, the problem of "not enough space", etc.   These questions are also discussed in more detail later in the book.

    Overall this chapter seems to be a summary of the preceding stuff in some ways.  I think the next chapter (chapter 6) is also somewhat summarizing.   Your thoughts are welcome.

  • 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.

(I use 'tags' and 'categories' almost interchangeably... see below)

Recent Comments