Preface
There is a danger in reading this book. The purpose of this book is to explain how the church could and should be more aligned with the original 'ekklesia.' The Christian community was founded by the Apostles, but the real founder of course, is Jesus Christ. The ideas presented here may be uncomfortable to some Christians. But we do not want to discourage any godly servant of God, minister or pastor. We want to encourage faithfulness to God's Word and imitating the Apostles both in their teaching and their traditions.
Another important thing to understand up front is what we mean when we say "we" or "our" in these pages. I am writing this way on purpose. A small part of this book will tell my story and will use "I" or "my", but for most of it, I am speaking for a large body of believers who read the Bible in simplicity and want to avoid institutionalism. I am standing with a body of Christian brothers who look at scripture through a strong desire to imitate the teaching and traditions of the Apostles. Many of these brothers are supporters of New Covenant Theology, but some will agree with us because of our focus on Biblical thinking. We want to see the ekklesia stripped of the heavy institutional baggage. So when you read "we see," think of it as either an invitation for you to look at the raw Bible text right alongside me, or think of it as a statement of what our shared community holds to be true.
Introduction
Jesus is the King of kings. He is the radiance of God's glory and the exact imprint of his nature (Heb 1:3). We are his unworthy servants and he grants us the privilege of serving in his kingdom. Jesus said he would build his ekklesia, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18).
When we look at the New Testament and try to understand the first century, we find a setting that is foreign to the modern religious context. We read of an ekklesia, but it is not a building or an institution. We see a group of ordinary, untrained men who changed the world. We read of a community where every qualified member had the freedom and responsibility to speak, to build up, and to participate in the new covenant community.
As we think about the modern church, we hit a wall of confusion and misunderstanding.
Our view, those of use who look at scripture through the lens of simplicity, honoring the traditions of the Apostles, New Covenant Theology, etc, - see what passes for "church" today is a far cry from the original pattern. Where the early church relied on the Holy Spirit working through common men, the modern church relies on professional clergy, seminary training, 501(c)(3) institutional structures along with a healthy dose of scripture.
If you are going to hear us, your institutional oriented mindset will continually pull you into a bondage that will make you dependent on the system. I know this because I have lived in the traditional church system all my life, and there are some good reasons for it. But over the years, the convictions grew to the point of needing to express our thoughts and to look for ways to step outside of the traditional camp of consumer based Christianity.
Most people translate ekklesia as "church." But in this study we will learn about why some people translate it as assembly, community or various other concepts. Martin Luther translated it "Gemeinde" (community), never 'kirke.' Tyndale translated it "congregation" which influenced his being burnt at the stake. The KJV translated ekklesia as "church" with the purpose of strengthening the institution. So the best simple translation is more in the domain of "community" and "congregation." stackexchange
But since we are so familiar with translating ekklesia as "church", please forgive us for frequently doing the same. For example, Jesus shows his active role in the churches in Revelation 1-3. We could have said the "ekklesias" of Revelation, or the "communities" of Revelation, but I'm sure you can understand the issue of a common, but perhaps not the best translation. In these churches, some are spoken of as conquering and others are failing. Some are more noble than others. What matters is Jesus is looking for behavior and character in each church and each church member. Jesus is in complete control from heaven's throne and is watching us.
What does Jesus mean when he says, "the kingdom of God is in the midst of you," or "within you?" (Luke 17:21) Paul makes it very clear when he says, "Do you not know that you (plural) are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? (plural) (1 Cor 3:16) (But there are other ideas. Behold, He Comes with the Clouds (Rev. 1:7)) God who is all powerful, actually lives in us! As we go about life, Jesus says, "I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:20) Jesus gave us these parting instructions, Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. (Matthew 28:19-20) The task we are given is great. Very few of us are focused on it.
Obeying Jesus and his commands is important, but the New Covenant includes doing everything in love. We are called to more than good behavior. And we are called to more than our neighborhood. Jesus calls us to make disciples of all nations. Influencing America is not enough. Jesus has dramatic world changing plans. Amazingly, he chooses to work through us instead of doing everything himself. It is like a parent wanting to teach a child to do a task that could be done so much easier, but the training has a purpose. In the process of the Christians life, we can be found worthy or unworthy, faithful or unfaithful. (Faithful: 1 Cor 4:17, Eph 6:21, Col 1:7, 4:7, 4:9, Peter 5:12, 3 John 1:5, Rev 2:13) It depends on if we are living like Timothy or living like Demas. The Kingdom advances as the church advances. Our churches do well if we have courage as described of the faithful in the Revelation churches. But if we entertain our life away, we are weakening ourself and the church. Not all fun is evil. Jesus went to parties. But his purpose in everything was pure. Jesus sometimes steps in and prunes the vines. He wants growth. I have seen this in my backyard. All my unpruned trees are completely useless. They are ready to be cut down. My fruit trees are doing nothing. Likewise, you and your local church might be doing nothing even as you promote your great reputation. God knows your deeds and your heart. There is no value in trying to look good.
When I was young, I went to a church that you would not call church. I never went to a church service and I never heard a sermon, but it was probably the most spiritually meaningful time of my life. This "church" was the Christian community aspect of my boarding school life. This is where I read the Bible, learned to love God, and participated in a spiritual community. Two other kids ran away from school. They could not handle the rules. I have all good memories of this time in my life. My boarding school experience was more like the early church to me than our modern day American church life.
When I did go to a proper church service, I did not understand the preacher. He spoke in a language called Kikaonde. Growing up on a mission station in rural Africa taught me that church does not need to be formal. What matters is how early-church-like and relational it is. It does not need to meet in homes, but it does need to be a community something like we have described in the Bible.
The early church in Jerusalem was very relational, a strong witness for God, home-based, city-based, and a whole lot more. My African church experience showed me church did not need formality. If the African church became a bit formal, it was because they were taught to be that way by the missionaries. The natural Zambian way of spending time together is in a circular gathering. The missionaries, however, showed the African's how to sit in pews and listen to the preacher.
Chapter 1 - The Meaning Of Church
The word 'church' is Latin (from Kirk), but the more interesting word is the Greek word 'ekklesia.' "In ancient secular Greek culture, an ekklesia was not a religious building or institution. It referred to a political or civic assembly of citizens called out to deliberate, govern, or handle community affairs." See BDAG, 3rd ed., s.v. "ἐκκλησία"; and Karl Ludwig Schmidt, "ἐκκλησία," in TDNT, 3:513.
Jesus knew the significance of building His Kingdom with the concept of the 'ekklesia' instead of the religious word 'synagogue' (church assembly). The early church knew the word 'ekklesia' well, because there were ekklesias all around. Most towns were governed this way, with Roman rule over the city-based ekklesia authority. Amazingly, the secular word 'ekklesia' perfectly fits the ideas in a very important chapter of the Bible (1 Corinthians 14). The Greek meaning for the word ekklesia does not fit modern church because it strongly avoids anything spontaneous and any kind of open deliberation.
A significant aspect of the ekklesia is its city-state domain. In ancient Greece, the cities were also states. So the ekklesias were city based. The domain of an ekklesia (both in the Bible and in the origins of the word) was the city ('polis'). "In ancient Greece-most notably in classical Athens-the ekklesia was explicitly rooted in the polis (the city-state). You did not join this civic assembly through a broad application, election, or religious initiation. Instead, membership was an automatic right and duty granted exclusively to the adult male citizens of that specific city-state." See Tara Caudle, "The Ekklesia as an Assembly That Invokes Response," Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy 1, no. 1 (2020): Article 12. See Mogens Herman Hansen, The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 125–128; cf. Aristotle, Politics 3.1275a.
So, how do you become a citizen in God's ekklesia? This membership is more significant than any secular honor. Do you have to join in church membership to be part of God's ekklesia? How do you get into God's Kingdom and His Ekklesia? Thankfully, it is simply by faith in Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:27 puts it like this, "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it." Unfortunately, there are many Christians these days that want to restrict church membership and add additional rules of entry, but the Bible is very simple and clear. 1 membership
If modern churches create little churches smaller than the city domain are they diverging from God's Word? Are they diverging from the root meaning and history of ekklesia? The burden of proof is on the ones diverging from scripture and the history of ekklesia. But we will dig into this later. This is just mentioned because church is based on the Greek word ekklesia and the context of ekklesia was always the city.
Being a member of an ekklesia was significant in other ways. As a citizen of the city, and a qualified member, you had value based on your participation. Keep in mind your freedom of deliberative participation in your church as you hear this description of participation in the ekklesia. "In the ancient secular Greek world, a true citizen was defined entirely by his voice and participation in governance: 'He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state.'"Aristotle, Politics 3.1275b.
But how did the ekklesia manage participation by all its citizens? How could a man speak to the assembly and maintain order? What was done to ensure good and decent order for the speakers? Keep in mind, this relates to the very significant chapter in the Bible on church assembly order, 1 Corinthians 14. Amazingly, the secular ekklesia put a lot of effort into allowing an open opportunity for any qualified citizen to speak. "The democratic nature of the assembly ensured that elites could not monopolize the platform: "The herald... does not exclude from the platform the man whose ancestors have not held a general's office, nor even the man who earns his daily bread by working at a trade; nay, these men he most heartily welcomes, and for this reason he repeats again and again the invitation, 'Who wishes to address the Assembly?'" Aeschines, Against Timarchus 1.27. Did you catch the significance of that? The common man was encouraged to participate and speak in the assembly. This is exactly the model in the early church in 1 Corinthians 14. Unfortunately, this model is prohibited in our modern churches. "In the secular Greek ekklesia, order was maintained not by dictatorial rulers, but by designated chairmen like the epistatēs (the daily overseer) and the proedroi (the committee of front-row presiders)." See Mogens Herman Hansen, The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 140–141, 250. In our modern churches only the ordained can speak. This is an Old Testament concept where priest were ordained. The New Testament is different, where elders were appointed, but the New Testament doesn't say how the elders were supposed to maintain order in the church assembly. We only get some general guidelines in 1 Corinthians 14 and we assume the elders would be expected to ensure these rules were followed. We can get more clarity by learning about the ekklesia along with 1 Corinthians 14.
The idea of ekklesia has always been clear. Men were allowed to speak for the benefit of the ekklesia. What is the situation in our modern day ekklesias? No one can speak. Today, no ordinary man, even if he is a church member, is allowed to speak. We have turned the New Testament ekklesia into an Old Testament tabernacle along with an ordained orator. Perhaps it is not that bad, and perhaps it doesn't matter. Why does it matter if it is all about worship? worship On the other hand, there may be some reasons that guided the Apostles. I have strong reservations about what we are doing. Both the secular and biblical ekklesia had overseers. But the secular ekklesia overseers were different. "Rather than dictating policy or silencing citizens, these secular overseers exercised a non-invasive, procedural stewardship, safeguarding the legal order of the meeting so that every eligible citizen could freely exercise his democratic right to speak."Cf. Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians 44.1–3. "This structural role directly parallels the New Testament model of the elder or overseer (episkopos), who stands before the congregation to protect the relational peace and order of the community rather than to dominate individual voices."See P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 530–533.
The secular 'ekklesia' is the concept that Jesus chose for building His Kingdom. The background of how the ekklesia worked, directly translates into a properly functioning New Testament church. And God's church is a core idea of his Kingdom. Jesus is described as head of the church. (Eph 5:23, 1:22-23, 4:14, Col 1:18, 2:19) And our Christian behavior in the church matters greatly. Paul says it like this, that "you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15) So now, let us look at how the Bible describes what I will call the 'beautiful church.'
Chapter 2 - The Beautiful Church
I am glad to be part of the modern church, even with its flaws. I love to go to church, make friends, sing songs of joy, celebrate the Gospel of Jesus Christ and be encouraged. But I also want to dream about the Bible's idea of the church of Jesus Christ. I think we need pictures and visions of the ideal and the perfect. God's Word paints a picture of an amazing church, one that you may never see, but the picture is still painted. Our modern church problems should not stop us from dreaming.
If we know the good, we can help someone else. If we are immature, we can easily hurt. Hebrews says, if we are "unskilled in the word of righteousness" we need the "powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." (Hebr 5:13p,14p) An important work of the Christian is to "spur one another on to love and good works." (Hebr 10:24)
This applies to the church also. We can help build up those in the church or we can tear down. Ephesians says, "Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body." (Ephesians 4:25) And Ephesians 4:29 says, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." The clearest picture of the church gathering is 1 Corinthians 14 and it is focused on this idea of building up, encouraging and comforting others. This is the beautiful church.
The idea of the beautiful church is pictured for us in the New Testament in many ways. One of the most famous is the case in Acts, "Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common." (Acts 4:32) This is an absolutely wonderful case of caring through sharing. The Christians were overcome by amazement at God's gracious goodness and his power in raising Jesus from the dead, so sharing their possessions was a natural response to their joy. We call this the beautiful church.
But experts will tell us that this story in Acts will never happen again. The idea is that this was an unusual time for the church, and we should not expect to ever see anything like it. Perhaps. But I have hope that there might be glimpses of the 'beautiful church' here on earth. I will dream and hope that I might see aspects of the beautiful early church described in the 1st century. And I am not blind to the fact that the 1st century church had problems. But the problems sometimes help to show the beautiful church more clearly. I get some of the most interesting thoughts about the beautiful church from Corinthians, even with its many problems. So for this reason, I really like the books of 1 and 2 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 11 has the clearest picture of an early church meeting with the Lord's Supper meal. If the Corinthians had not made a mistake, we wouldn't have such a clear picture of the full-meal Lord's Supper. So the problems can vividly help us see aspects of the 'beautiful church.'
The church is called the body of Christ, and as members of this body, we are expected to love one another. But the Christian faith is ultimately a call to love God and each other to the extreme. Paul says, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Phil 1:21) And, "If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Cor 15:19) But we have hope, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor 15:22) And on the love theme, Paul says, "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." (1 Cor 13:4-7) This is the good kind of dying.
God is serious about our behavior. John says, "for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother." (1 John 4:20b-21) This is very tangible and plain in Paul's 1st letter to Timothy. The practical instruction for providing for relatives and advice for widows and how the church should be burdened or not burdened, is fascinating. (Ref: Include in footnote, 1 Tim 5, much of it)
The modern church has changed over the years and has become very institutional, formal and linked to the government. The church has experimented with small groups and mega-church, and it is not done trying things. There are online connection groups and there are alternatives to the traditional church. Many of these experiments and alternatives have issues. We need to show the issues so you can see the need for change. Even though the Reformers claimed the church is "always reforming" ("ecclesia semper reformanda"), they stopped short of restoring the biblical ekklesia. They failed to follow 1 Corinthians 14:26 multi-voiced open forum and instead replaced the priest with the preacher. They continued to monopolize the assembly voice, leaving the ordinary believer to sit quietly in a pew and consume a sermon rather than actively participate. They continued to tie the church to the state in Germany, Switzerland and England for protection and enforcement. So the goal is really to be always reforming by the Word of God. To honor the headship of Christ, the church must continually re-examine its traditions with the traditions of the Apostles. There is a need to examine the invasive, controlling structure and look to the beautiful, non-invasive ekklesia model that Jesus envisioned. Allowing every qualified member to freely function in the ekkesia meeting is a foundation of the church.
Jesus pictures the beautiful church in John 17. In order for there to be unity, there must be some change from the current situation of complete disunity. It is hard to imagine a more disunified church that what we have today. The unbelievers notice. The church is only true and beautiful if all true Christians are united like in Corinth. Modern Christians can learn from the failures of the church in Corinth. They also were tempted to divide. I am not talking about uniformity. Christians should not try to be without zeal or not not use your mind or to avoid testing (1 Cor 14). Obedience to Christ begins with a single visible church at the city/town level, so unbelievers are not utterly confused.
Chapter 3 - Church and State
Currently our churches are linked to the government more than most people realize. Americans know about the separation of church and state and we think we are separated. This is a point of confusion. It is true we are not organized into a "state church" like in the Reformation in Germany, Switzerland and England. But our churches are tied to the IRS 501(c)(3) rules and the "14 part church guidelines." These are very invasive rules.
Most people know about the IRS 501(c)(3) but do not know about the IRS "14-Point church guidelines." Some Christians want their church to be free from government interference. This is the only way to be sure you can freely follow the Apostlic guidelines. I will compare the 14 part IRS guidelines with how it would impact the church in Jerusalem (of the 1st century). The Bible is our golden standard of understanding God's will for the church. Any compromise or interference by the IRS with the 14-Point church guidelines is not acceptable. How would the rules affect the Jerusalem church?
Rule #1: Distinct legal existence: This rule would conflict with the Jerusalem church, in Acts, because the Jerusalem church had no legal recognition. It was viewed by the Roman Empire and local authorities either as a sect of Judaism or as an illegal, unauthorized assembly.
Rule #2: Recognized creed and form of worship: The church in Jerusalem held a clear faith: Jesus is the resurrected Messiah, expressed through breaking bread and prayer. But there was no formal creed requirement. The form of worship was participation by men in homes and a full-meal Lord's Supper, very different from our smooth and crafted sermon-based form of worship.
Rule #3: Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government: This is not the same today, but is not in conflict. The Apostles guided the church and began the appointing of elders which is what we have today.
Rule #4: Formal code of doctrine and discipline: This would seem to not conflict, until you look at the details of modern church bylaws and the independent groups in each town expressing differing doctrines. The early church in Jerusalem held to a unified doctrine because the Apostles were still alive and involved. Today, there is a wild variety of doctrines by each independent church in town, and this idea does conflict.
Rule #5: Distinct religious history: This rule is of little significance.
Rule #6: Membership not associated with any other church: This would be a huge conflict with the Jerusalem church. Membership in the church in Jerusalem was based you being a Christian and living in Jerusalem. The modern church concept of "church hopping" did not exist in Jerusalem because it was all one big church in the city. So the conflict is our splitting up into a whole bunch of little groups in each city/town.
Rule #7: Organization of ordained ministers: This would be a conflict with the Jerusalem church because there was no clergy-laity distinction in the early church. Any man was permitted to address the assembly and elders were appointed, but not ordained as the Old Testament priests were separated from the ordinary people. The ordination concept goes back to the Old Testament, but the New Testament has the priesthood of all believers. In the New Testament, leaders were not supposed to be monopolizing the assembly (1 Cor 14:23) or calling themselves "teacher" (Matthew 23:8) but were to be humble like a child (Matt 18:3-4).
Rule #8: Ordained ministers who completed prescribed studies: This rule would conflict with the Jerusalem church because there were no ordained ministers who had completed any formal studies. The Apostles were famously noted by local authorities as being "uneducated and untrained men" (Acts 4:13). They had no formal academic credentials.
Rule #9: Literature of its own: This rule would conflict because the church in Jerusalem had no literature of its own. It had the Old Testament and the words of the Apostles. The oral teaching of the Apostles was eventually written down and shared with other churches. There was a common set of literature. The early churches did not have individual sets of particular or unique literature.
Rule #10: Established places of worship: This rule would conflict because the early church did not own real estate or dedicated church buildings. They utilized borrowed public spaces (the Temple courts) and private homes.
Rule #11: Regular congregations: This rule does not seem to contradict, but the gathering into assemblies worked in very different ways. They met in homes and probably gather very locally so they would often be neighbors. Our modern churches tend to ignore locality because we can easily drive 30 minutes to a church 2-3 towns away. For us this is normal. So the way they met for the "Regular congregation" differed greatly, but both had regular congregations.
Rule #12: Regular religious services: This rule also does not seem to contradict. But the Jerusalem church was more regular, sometimes meeting "day by day."
Rule #13: Schools of religious instruction of the young: This rule would conflict because the church in Jerusalem had no schools for religious instruction of the young. Formal "Sunday Schools" or youth ministry departments are a modern invention (dating primarily to the 19th century). Children in the 1st century were educated in the faith structurally through family units and the house based church gatherings.
Rule #14: Schools for the preparation of its ministers: This rule conflicts as the church in Jerusalem had no seminaries or Bible colleges. Nor was there any sign of interest in this formal kind of training. Ministry preparation was entirely based on an apprenticeship and mentorship model (e.g., sitting under the Apostles' daily teaching and working under the authority of an Apostle.)
So the early Jerusalem church differed greatly and there are significant conflicts with the IRS 14 part guidelines.
Chapter 4 - My Story
Let me tell you more of my African church story. I grew up going to church in Africa, often attending missionary led prayer meetings as a child. On Sunday, I would sometimes hear preaching in Kikaonde, a Zambian language. I would attend Sunday School with other Zambian children. But my most foundational thoughts about God and His church happened at boarding school. At boarding school we never "attended church." But it often felt like we "lived church." Each day was school, play and this kind of "church." On many days we had a small group singing time with a British-lady teacher. At the end of the day, a man would lead a Bible reading time in the boys dorm. We regularly ate together in a hall. There was an official "quiet time", where we had to read the daily "Scripture Union" devotional. But during a forced midday quiet time, I found myself interested in reading a KJV Bible. Reading the Bible was not required during quiet time, but they wisely "did not allow cell phones". There was nothing to do, so the Bible, at first occasional, became a serious interest during this time. I recall getting spankings for talking, so that was not allowed. I was about 9, and by 10, I had covered much of the Bible. The New Testament was particularly interesting to me. I developed a love for God and His Word in these years.
The Zambian church was started by missionaries and was very simple at the time. In fact, I recall the full Bible being translated into Kikaonde around 1975. One good thing about the church in this part of Zambia was the unified church. The church was probably much more influential because it was so unified. This is similar to the church in Jerusalem that was also unified to begin with. Later, there were conflicts with the Judaizers and the Apostles had to boldly lead to maintain a unified church. But the model seems to be a clear design for all time and confirmed in 1 Corinthians 1.
After 50 years, now, I am sharing my thoughts about the church. I want the Bible to be the source of these thoughts, but I will be biased by my own perspectives. I learned to love the church and the Apostles when I didn't "go to church." I started to develop concerns when I did "go to church." Ever since 1977, and the move back to America, I started to attend quite a few American churches. My father was a missionary builder, so he often visited churches supporting the mission. I had the privilege to visit many churches. During most of my teenage years, our family attended a small "Bible church" in Pennsylvania. We also visited larger "Baptist" and Evangelical Free churches in New Jersey where my parents had deep connections. These experiences helped me to think and evaluate how scripture and the rural African churches related to the modern American churches. I began to observe the ways, traditions and behaviors of the modern American churches. At the little "Bible" church, we normally attended Sunday morning, Sunday School, and a Wednesday prayer meeting. Regular church attendance was a part of our home life.
The most important time for me was reading God's Word on my own. This was my foundation for living and thinking about life. I had very few friends at church because the church was so small. I had very few good friends at school because I could not find Christians. My two brothers and I were the main part of our "youth group." Our little churches tried, but it was hard being so small. There were very few young people at the Wednesday prayer meeting. Overall, church was a duty and a grind, but it was also good. Church was not fun, but it was good. We prayed about the usual personal issues and peoples relatives suffering from illnesses. We did not have well crafted prayer-plans like I have seen in some churches. Small churches often struggle. It was hard, but it was good. It taught faithfulness. There is much good when things are hard and you struggle through it.
In these early years of the American church I did not hear much about "church membership" but it was mentioned on rare occasions. I recall a few rare occasions attending business meetings of the little church where "members" discussed church business. This part of the church was strange and foreign to my understanding of biblical church behavior. It felt like a following of secular business models and wondered if it could be handled some other way. Why did the government 501(c)(3) have to be part of the church? What did the church building and the pastoral support arrangement have to do with the Bible that I read each day? The two had very little in connection. This whole area was strange to me. We will discuss this later.
Jumping to today, I just returned from a wonderful church morning at our local church. This is a large church of about 500 people in Pennsylvania. The church used to be Evangelical Free, but changed. Three of us attended the main church service, with beautiful singing, meaningful prayers, and an excellent sermon in Ecclesiastes. The overall experience and conversations were good. It was one of those perfect Sunday mornings. We like church.
At the same time, I have concerns and I am bothered by so many things at church. I don't think the complaints are with people or their service to God. The issues are not with the church in particular. All the churches are similar and the church we attend is our favorite in the area. But if I think about the Bible, I soon start to think that everything is wrong with the modern church. I can't help but get bothered with almost every aspect of it. My spirit is provoked as I compare it to what the Bible says. I am forced to question it. I wonder about the building-temple concept, the role of the pastor, the singing, the conversations. I question everything. I can't talk about it with anyone, but I question everything.
I have no intention to ever stop attending the modern American church. I have no plan to ever stop attending church. I enjoy church. And of course God calls Christians to go to church. So what is this frustration I have? Why am I bothered and concerned about everything? Why do I love church and yet get bothered about it? Why can't I talk about it with anyone?
The issue may lie in the subtle teenager questions I had in the 1980s. My background in knowing the Bible from youth and my experiences in Africa, along with the modern traditions of American churches may be rather significant. As I read my Bible, and had more questions. As I pondered, I wondered. No one seemed interested in the thoughts I had. Finally, after I had finished college and was on my second professional job, I met someone who was different. His name was Dan Holsopple and he was interested in talking about Christian things even at the professional job (at appropriate times). I think he eventually mentioned a ministry called NTRF. Dan was very different from most Christians in a good way. His ideas about the church were different. He was more into discussion and home based meeting and more relational interests than the usual guy. He loved people and was more into the home oriented church relationships than most Chrisitans. He was not perfect and he recently died, but I have good memories of Dan.
As I read NTRF's book by Steve Atkerson, I started to see an author who had solutions for many of my teenager-years bible reading thoughts and questions. His book was constantly looking to the Bible and the Apostles traditions for how to do church. Steve wrote like a passionate man on a mission who wanted to restore the New Testament church to the original ways of the Apostles. He was a pastor, who had gotten into house churches and many biblical ideas going along with it. This led me to read other somewhat "forbidden books" on the topic. These books are not generally avoided by most Christians and are generally not appreciated by modern church leaders.
So there was a house church movement that began, but I was not part of it and didn't like some of it either. I soon discovered that a large segment of the house church movement, was too much into the movement. They wanted everyone to have happy-happy home share talk meetings. I don't know how to describe it. But they were into things that bothered me. They tended to be either Charismatic or feminist. Very few of these house churches were conservative enough in following the Bible. I want to honor the literal Word's of Jesus, and many of these groups follow American culture. I eventually rejected the house church movement.
Gradually, my friend Steve Atkerson softened his approach, losing that cutting edge biblical tone that I first discovered in him. He started to promote "small churches" instead of house churches. He apparently wanted to mend relationships with the many Southern Baptist small churches that he knew and had grown up with. But he still kept writing, carefully and thoughtfully. And perhaps for him, this was wisdom, to make friends, as Jesus would say. To keep a positive encouraging path forward for the many small churches he knew.
Among the "forbidden books" there were writers like Jon Zens and Robert Banks. D.A. Carson mentions these writers in the footnotes of his "Showing the Spirit." As a scholar, D.A. Carson reads, but among Christian friends, these are "unwanted/forbidden." They challenge the status quo. They ask hard questions about how the church follows the Bible. In church sermons, I have heard warnings about "bloggers." But you can find these "forbidden books" and blogs on YouTube. Christians will get interested in many dumb social media obsessions but when it comes to serious questions about the church, they generally have no interest. To me, these authors are a continual source of both encouragement and frustration depending on their approach. It often comes down to what they are saying and do they honor the literal Words of Jesus. At times, some of these authors are brilliant. At other times they are deficient. Some YouTube authors are dangerous of course. This is where dialog should happen. But instead, with a blanket warning on "bloggers" we have no dialog based analysis or consensus.
An interesting YouTube discovery was finding Tom Wadsworth a few years ago. His YouTube 7 part "worship" series was quite interesting. He soon found the "house church movement" interested in what he had to say. And his channel grew in popularity. But the egalitarian house church perspective gives me great concern and I am not going to be part of it. I only support the approach to scripture that honors the literal words of Jesus (and his apostles).
On the topic of egalitarianism and complementarianism, I discovered Zachary Garris on YouTube. He was kicked out of his PCA association and I found his discussion with Doug Wilson was interesting. He revealed the recent "complementarian" shift toward egalitarianism that has been taking place. I realized that I can no longer consider myself complementarian since that term has moved toward the egalitarian understanding of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. But Zachary's ideas of church were also very traditional. He has clarity on some issues, but is blind to others. He would expect any man speaking in church to be ordained which is not the idea that Paul is getting at in 1 Corinthins 14.
On the topic of ordination, I recall years earlier, listening to the "White Horse Inn" podcast, discovering John S. Hammett, buying his book on "Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches", and finding someone who also questioned the idea of "ordination" in principle. This is something Steve Atkerson, in his younger years, had articulated quite well. Steve's friend Eric Svendsen questioned both ordination and the modern seminary system. Steve has softened by not including such controversial ideas in his recent books. But the question is still very much alive.
Now, I have said some things that may trigger the average reader to walk away from this conversation. But how important is God's church to you? How important is it to obey the literal Word of God? How do you base and justify your view of God's church? I encourage you to hang in there. I am not trying to force my way on you. Each of us will stand before God someday, and we ought to listen to each other. Think of it like this. I have spent 50 years listening to preachers and teachers in the church and now before I die, I want to say some things. When you get older, you may want to teach some things to others also. You may discover something important and say, "Hey. Listen. There is something in the Bible that I found that is interesting."
Perhaps I have mentioned egalitarianism/feminism and you may love egalitarianism (Christian feminism). Perhaps I may have mentioned the Charismatics and you may love that movement. So, we may not agree on these things, but a fundamental idea in the Bible is love and striving for like-mindedness. We will never have these if we don't listen to each other. In the midst of the most controversial topics in 1 Corinthians, there is chapter 13 on love! And Philipians 1:27 and 2:2-3 are powerful for encouraging Christians to pursue a like mind. So, I agree the church is divided on so many things and I agree we are all passionate about our beliefs, but one idea in 1 Corinthians 14 is the granting of a chance to speak for the building up of the body. I want that. After 50 years of attending church I think an old man should have an opportunity to speak. In the early church the old man would have had a weekly opportunity to speak. But with modern church, all men are silenced. So I choose to express myself with a book or website since I know of no other way.
There is one more thing on the house church movement that I must say. I would rather continue attending a traditional church with a male eldership and a silent laity rather than attend an egalitarian house church model. I have a strong literal view of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and the traditional church silences everyone. But I would rather continue to stay silent along with the women, rather than compromise my conscience's understanding of God's Word. I know that many Christians today are egalitarian, but I hope this does not offend you. However, my only goal is to be faithful to the text of scripture as my conscience is led. I read the scriptures consistent with my reading of them in the 1970s, according to the plain reading of God's Word. I am not swayed by the modern arguments. This is where I appreciate Zachary Garris and his book on honoring the Reformed church 'Fathers.'
Chapter 5 - The Modern System
The church system that we will talk about is just the modern church expressed in many traditional familar forms that has been evolving over the years. It may be a Baptist or Presbyterian or Evangelical Free church, or countless other denominational or non-denominational churches. Probably 95% of the Christians we know attend one of these traditional modern churches (the big box church with the pastor and the sermon). About 4% of Christians skip the traditional church and either visit online churches or attend a house church. Finally, there is a very small group of Christians who see the problem with the modern church system and also see the problem with most of the alternative groups. They are walking in a very narrow way. They may attend a traditional church or an alternative group, but they are not accepted by either. They are aware of the dangers of the modern church system. They are trying to follow the literal words of Jesus and trying to imitate the traditions of the Apostles. (Ref: Good: NTRF) (Ref: OK: Living Waters, Ray Comfort: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmFKfNu7Ips) (Ref: OK: CWOWI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShVlIoEGYxM) (Ref: Off: DesiringGod, Piper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMc85qqoXpA, "nothing is said about place"?) (Ref: Bad: Alternative: Jon Zens, Robert Banks, Frank Viola, etc.) (Ref: Bad: Matt McMillen Ministries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44lOjLxP7bI) (Ref: Bad: The False Church System Deception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EiZVY1Cgsk&t=932s) (Ref: Bad: The Elder/Pastor Confused with Misssionary: Piper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXCh6GTxBlo) (Ref: Bad: Egalitarian culture based interpretation dude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IufUofN3SAE) (Ref: Bad: Rough Tone: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CXp3plcU0AU, "still in the world")
Fairly recently, I have heard about a house church group in Bangladesh that is growing like the early church. They have persecution and difficulty but they are growing. The traditional church in Bangladesh is not growing. When I hear stories from around the world, in Africa, Asia and South America, I often hear of problems and suffering, but I also often hear of expansion and growth. There is a kind of dying that is good (John 12:24) and a kind of dying that is not so good. When Jesus said to the church in Ephesus, "repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent." (Rev 2:5b) Church behavior is important. Jesus will sometimes remove or diminish a church if it is not obeying.
The church in America has some of the problems of the churches in Revelation, but doesn't know it. Sometimes we are lukewarm (myself included). We are rich, but if I understand things rightly, we are probably often "wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked" (Rev 3:17) in God's eyes. We attend our theater-quality churches, entering the "tabernacle" or "house of the Lord", focus on worship, but we are unwilling to follow the main chapter in the New Testament on church order. (Ref 1 Cor 14) We claim to love God and each other, but we don't know each other. In the early church, they knew each other. They gathered for church in each other's homes and shared meals together. They probably attended one meeting on a Sunday, while we sometimes attend two, but their one meeting was more relational. Very importantly, they were a church at the city/town level. They were not constrained by the home setting or by any sub-group constraint. They were rebuked for splitting into isolated groups (1 Corinthians 1). They knew each other in their daily lives at the town level. Sometimes they even cared for each other enough to sell their possessions "as any had need." (Acts 2:45)
But our focus is not our personal love for each other as much as our acceptance of the modern church system. We follow our traditions, sometimes in contradiction to the traditions of the Apostles. We are sophisticated. We have scholars. We are the spiritual teachers of the world. We know how to do church. But if you look at the big picture, we are slowly dying. The rest of the world, not able to do it our way, is often doing better. The persecuted church in Asia, Africa and South America is often growing and more healthy. The wealthy and spiritually wise church in America is slowly dying as it gradually rejects more of the literal words of Jesus and operates in isolated groups (ignoring 1 Corinthians 1).
As you can see, our message is not very positive. Like the prophets in the Old Testament, we have a negative message for the church. (Ref 1 Kings 22:8, 18) But sometimes sorrow and sadness is good. Ecclesiastes 7:3 says, "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." If you sorrow through our "negative" concerns, perhaps you may find a surprising joy, if you can accept more of the literal words of Jesus. There is a joy in knowing you are honoring and respecting the Apostles and how they intended the church to behave. If you value the words of Jesus, you may find some of your anxiety turns to joy. For years we have been excluded from the modern church system, because of our beliefs, but we have joy in following the words of Christ. (Ref: Oaths and vows, 1 Cor 14:34-35, 1 Cor 10, James on works, 1 John, Romans 6-8, etc)
The popular church system assumes a lot and requires a lot. It assumes church buildings are necessary. It assumes church membership is necessary. (Ref: membership) It assumes church staff are required. It assumes the Lord's Supper should be a token ceremonial meal in a large assembly. This modern church sometimes likes to decide when controversial Bible verses are genuine or not. (Ref: D.A. Carson vs Gordon Fee on 1 Corinthians) It trusts scholars who agree with its inclinations. Most Christians like this system and will not dare question it. Most of us like to sit in the pew and enjoy a well crafted sermon. We like church the way it is. (Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbR6vJiT_1c) (Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EU5FBPEdX0&t=26s Min 7+)
But how does our traditional church work when tested by the early church commands? Let's use the example of conflict between brothers. Unfortunately this can happen, but our purpose it to test our modern church system. Suppose a Christian brother in a particular town gets really annoyed at another Christian brother in the same town, but he attends another church in this same town. How would we deal with this in the progression of escalation when Matthew 18:17 says, "tell it to the church". How do we implement this in our modern church system? The situation will probably not get resolved, because the two churches are independent according to IRS 501(c)(3) rules and according to our modern thinking. But the situation would be resolved by telling it to the unified church in the early church of Jerusalem. The early church would consider the 501(c)(3) Rule #6 to be a violation of a godly church. They had no doubt about the church operating at the city/town level. (Ref: City church)
We usually point to Hebrews 10 to show that we ought to "go to church." Hebrews 10:25 says, "not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another,..." But if we go to a traditional church, almost always a 501(c)(3) organized church, there will be an underlying basis that includes the IRS 14 part guidelines. These guidelines break the New Testament unified body per city model. No one usually asks about this, but instead, there is usually a justification for submitting to 501(c)(3) rules to gain the advantage of tax savings. We feel compelled to question these modern practices in order to be faithful to the teaching of the Apostles and the words of Jesus.
Are we doing church right? Does God approve of our consumer oriented church meetings? Are we doing right when we do the usual, sit in the pew, listen to the sermon and leave with minimal conversation. (Note: If you talk long afterward, you are doing well. You are the exception and your church may be the exception). If you attend a Sunday School or a "small group" meeting how do the meetings compare with 1 Cor 14? Is there an effort to follow the behaviors of the Apostles? Sometimes church can become a religious duty. But in the best case, we go to church with friends and enjoy going. We think this fits with Jesus who said, "make friends for yourselves" (Luke 16:9) But we have more questions. Is church more about worship or more about encouraging one another? (Ref: Tom Wadsworth) Does the church have a meaningful impact on our non-Christian community? How do we relate to other churches in town? How are we obeying the "Great Commission?" (Matt 28:19-20)
There is no gathering on earth that is more important than the New Testament 'ekklesia'/church. This gathering is special even when it is ordinary. Jesus is the head of the church, we are the body.
One very fundamental and important concept in 1 Corinthians 1-3 is that Paul says we should not be too enamored with particular leaders. Some of the Corinthians were willing to follow "Paul" or "Apollos" or "Cephas" to the point of division. Paul explains this in chapter 3 with this, "So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are Christ's and Chris is God's." This is a powerful explanation that says that we can appreciate many different men who might seem to be influenential, but we don't need to glorify any of them too much. We can appreciate something about a man of God, but we also should "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1).
At this point, I want to get to the point more quickly. In the New Testament, the church normally meets in the home and is considered at the city/town level. 1.town Jesus appointed the Apostles to set the standards for the church. We do not have the right to make our own traditions if they conflict with God's. We have freedom, but we also have to respect the traditions of the early church Apostles.
For 50 years God's Word has been important to me. For about 40 years, I have had thoughts about the church. For about 30 years, I have been radicalized to want more of God's plan for the church in our church experience. For about 20 years, I have given up on ever seeing it in my lifetime. I have longed for the church to be more faithful to the traditions of the Apostles and to be more free from the traditions of our time. I want to see the church submit to Christ, even if it is against what "everyone" is doing.
The picture of the New Testament church we will paint, will probably offend you. You probably like church just like it is. But we invite you to reconsider what the Bible actually says and if you are patient, you may also see that there can be some mutual understanding. Hopefully, you will give these thoughts a fair consideration. If you are convinced there is something here, will you be bold enough to do something about it? I am looking for a few seriously minded men and women who are bold enough to follow the traditions of the Apostles and the ways of the early church. I am hoping you will catch the vision that following Christ, a bit more literally in some cases, can inspire more meaning in life.
The picture we will paint will be idealized and radically biblical. But we also have thoughts about how the modern traditions can fit in and work with these calls back to original Christian ordering. At a later time, we will discuss how the modern church building, the pastor, and the formal assemblies can fit in with our radical ideas of how the church should be ordered. For 50 years of my life, the modern church ordering has completely dominated. Please give me a chance to dream. I will not say you need to change, I will mainly say this is how the Bible impacts me. As an older man, soon to go, I am saying, please give me a minute to say a few words. And if you don't like my ideas, then go back to your way and your tradition.
Most Christians who faithfully attend a good evangelical church only want to worship God. They would never say they are in error in how they meet. They would claim a lot of freedom, and anyone who is more particular about imitating the early church might get labelled "legalistic." It is true that we do not have a direct word from God about these things, and God may in the end find most Christians innocent. But we do have convictions about these things and we want to watch our doctrine closely rather than assume God is OK with our wandering ideas of the church (1 Tim 4:16). We want God's Word to guide us instead of our feelings or our cultural context. Jesus put the Apostles in charge. He is head of the church. We should listen to His every Word.
Jesus said, "if you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15) Paul said, "Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us." (Phil 3:17) We must keep in mind it is not our church to organize as we like. Jesus is the designer and leader. All leaders who submit to him can be useful in his kingdom and his church. "He is the head of the body, the church." (Col 1:18)
When I was a child I played endlessly, I went to class when told, I behaved as a child, but I also had the priviledge, like Timothy, to know God's Word from a young age. Paul says, "how from childhood you have been aquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 3:15) So I have these glorious memories, of struggling with the language of a KJV, of joyfully finding an RSV New Testament (bought it instead of candy). Of thankfully discovering the NASB and NIV in America. Of many years later using the ESV. In my early years at boarding schoool, I did not "go to church." Our school was a little bit like "church every day." I began to love God, His Word, and His Apostles. In these early years, I began to ponder.
But it was not until teenage years meditating on God's Word that I started to question some of the status quo. As I read my NASB and NIV Bibles, and investigated the NIV study bible notes, I started to observe that the church today does not follow some important ways of the early church. I observed with concern, how the Lord's Supper was treated so differently. I observed the collecting plate being an important modern tradition. I noticed the modern church preacher and sermons not corresponding to the early church. I noticed the participatory meetings in the early church. I observed many things like in 1 Corinthians 14 and Colossians. I noticed the early church normally met in homes and operated at the city/town level. I noticed the Jerusalem church was a good example and model. There may have been 50 or 500 little meetings on Sunday in Jerusalem, but the church was always considered the "church at Jerusalem." If there were issues, Acts records the Apostles and elders gathering at the town level to discuss the issue. 1 Corinthians 1, made it clear that sub-groups and personalities within the city-based church, were not God's way.
So this book is the result of 50 years of thoughts about God and the church He has designed. My desire is for Christians to obey Christ a little more carefully. My hope is for Christians to follow the traditions of the Apostles. Paul says, that "you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15)
Chapter 6 - The Lord's Supper
When I was a teenager, I can recall a strong feeling of disappointment in how the modern church does not follow the full-meal Lord's Supper example in 1 Corinthians 11. I was impressed at how the warning to the Corinthians had turned into a complete dismissal of the meal. I may have read this and wondered about this at age 9-10, but as a teenager, the replusion and feelings of disappointment in modern church leadership was growing. Today, if I read the most advanced commentary on 1 Corinthians, the questions and scholarly opinions also question our traditions. (Ref: Thiselton)
We could imagine the Corinthians hearing the rebuke from Paul and thinking, wow, we are not even celebrating the Lord's Supper, because we are not waiting for the poor. And in 2 Corinthians, Paul commends the Corinthians for listening and responding to his corrections by letter. So we would imaging that the Corinthians, proving to be faithful (in 2 Corinthians), would have immediately corrected their behavior and would have done as Paul suggested. They would have waited for the poor and eaten at home if any one was hungry. Then, I would highly expect, they would have properly begun to observe the Lord's Supper. But imagine if they did not bring food, and enough for the poor. Imagine if they reacted to Paul's rebuke by completely skipping the Lord's Supper meal. Imagine if they said, oh, lets turn the full-meal Lord's Supper into a token ceremonial meal, with no food to satisfy the poor. Imagine the shame, when they all knew the Lord's Supper had a direct link to the Passover meal, a regular and significant celebratory Jewish meal.
I thought, as a teenager, I wonder if God is fuming mad at us, but also gracious, since we are blind to our error. So some of the Corinthians had died because they ignored the poor, but perhaps God overlooks our way because we are doing it in ignorance. I was sure the Lord's Supper was designed by God to be a blessing in the church, but with our history and traditions we have become blind and convinced we should no longer have a meal.
Very few Christians today seem to notice the practical dimension to this very strong warning in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 says, "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself. That is why many of you are ill, and some have died." But by our slight of hand, we have made this verse of none effect. Now, with our strange interpretation, we have made it impossible to violate this verse! By simply omitting the eating, we are safe. With our new ritual and ceremonial sacriment we are protected from error. But, I felt this was a great loss. The intent of the Apostle was to continue the Lord's Supper meal, but only to observe it properly. I saw something very important had been taken away from the church.
I was amazed at how brazen our modern church was. It had become so fixated on its own traditions that it would not even discuss the possibility of going back to the biblical example in Corinth. It reminded me of Jesus talking about human traditions in Matthew 15:3-9. Jesus said, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or mother, "What you have gained from me is given to God," he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God." And then Jesus quotes Isaiah, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"
I have no direct word from God that he sees our wandering way this seriously. But it did seem to me that we have developed our own traditions and these traditions have become powerful. Over the years I have observed the modern version of the Lord's Supper in many churches. There is usually the tiny thimbal of juice and the cracker. There is never any sense of concern for having wandered so far from the traditions of the Apostles. The only feeling I got from Christians is that the Corinthians were really bad. There is a amazing sense of freedom to fix things in our own way. Our traditions resolved the error of the Corinthians. We just ended the meal and made it more symbolic. We took away the fundamental context of the Lord's Supper (the meal). The sentiment is, 'We have freedom, don't we?' We can change anything about church to fit our modern culture. There is no verse that says we can't. It also works much better to have a token Lord's Supper in the larger modern formal church structure. Meeting in homes is out of the question. That is such a strange way of doing church. The only reason they met that way was because of persection in the early church days. That is our modern church tradition.
The early church observed the Lord's Supper as a true meal along with the bread and cup. But sometime in history, things changed. The original commentary in the Geneva Bible of 1599 says, "The Apostle thinketh it good to take away the love feasts, for their abuse, although they had been a long time, and with commendation used in Churches, and were appointed and instituted by the Apostles." (Ref NTCD Steve Atkerson pg 5) We think Steve Atkerson responds well, "To this we wonder, would Paul single-handedly overturn something established by Jesus Himself, taught by the other apostles and practiced in all the churches? Though in humble disagreement with those who penned the commentary, their acknowledgement that the Lord's Supper and the love feast were celebrated together and instituted by the apostles is appreciated. It has been said that the best antidote to abuse is not disuse, but proper use." (Ref NTCD Steve Atkerson pg 5)
If the Lord's Supper was anything like the Passover, the food and fellowship was a big deal and the children were a focus. In one of the top commentaries on Corinthians, Anthony Thiselton suggests that the Lord's Supper and the "cup of blessing" correspond to the Passover meal setting. He says, "the cup of blessing coheres precisely with the context of the Passover meal as the framework for the interpretation of the Lord's Supper..." (Ref, p 756, 758, 759)
The early church seems to have had a tradition of gathering on each Lord's Day for a meal in someone's home. They called this meeting 'ekklesia' (church). There is no danger in literally following this tradition of the Apostles. If we do this, we are clearly following a tradition of the Apostles and imitating their practice. If we don't we are chosing our way over their way, following our own tradition and risking breaking something important. Who knows if our tradition as led to some ignoring of the poor in some modern settings. Most of the people in the world deal with some levels of poverty. What if there were other aspects of the small home based setting that are an intentional design of the Apostles? What if the participatory nature of the home based meeting was important? What if the Apostles would be horrified with our changes to their traditions? What if our main reason for liking it our way is the easy, passive, consumer oriented nature of our way. What if the sermon is the main reason for ignoring the pattern set up by the Apostles? What do we make of the call to imitate Paul as he imitates Christ?
We believe a submissive attitude to Christ will bring us to consider the context set up by the Apostles. We believe there is a design in the full-meal Lord's Supper. We believe the supper does hint back to the Passover meal where the children are at the center of the feast. We don't need to understand how to do it perfectly. We are just called to imitate the ways of the Apostles. We don't need to know how to do it perfect right. We have been so trained at doing it wrong for so many centuries. We have had centuries of very bad practice. I am sure God will be patient with us, if we only desire to restore Apostolic tradition, in our imperfect way. The safe way is to follow the ways of the Apostles. The risky way is to ignore the ways of the Apostles. We believe there is a blessing waiting for those who more carefully seek to follow the traditions and ways of the Apostles.
Years ago, at my first Lord's Supper in the African boarding school, I recall our teachers gathered in a little circle and beginning to observe the Lord's Supper. The students were allowed to sit quietly at a distance and observe the adults. The adults were teaching their understanding of the Lord's Supper. But in those years, I had been secretly reading my KJV Bible each day, and I had some feelings about this. I appreciated their demonstration, but something did not quite feel right about their way. Young people can instantly tell when they are being excluded. I knew that Jesus did not exclude the children. In fact, Jesus said if you want to enter the kingdom, give more thought to the way of a child. I was about 9 years old at the time.
Years later, a Jewish friend told me about the strong emphasis of children in the Passover meal (The Seder). The children are a real focus in meal/feast. So if the scholars are correct that the Christian Lord's Supper is related to the Passover, then denying children is an unthinkable evil. I did not know the Bible as well back then, and I assumed the adults had a justification for their action. But I sensed that Jesus would do things differently. Jesus elevates the children, but we let them starve in our celebratory Lord's Supper meals. In our distorted theology, we invent a requirement for the children to be "baptized" and "church members." Once the children are sanitized, they can join our holy Lord's Supper. This is not like Jesus. (Ref: Thiselton)
Our modern church traditions have really made a mess of things. Why not follow the clear traditions of the Apostles? Why not meet together in our homes. When we observe the Lord's Supper why not simply wait for each other with the food. As we prepare the food, why not honor the poor. If we have no poor, our practice can still affect traditions around the world. Why not avoid making the meal into a formal ceremony and keep it a relaxed ordinary meal. Why not let the children participate to avoid Jesus getting offended? If a non-believer joins the gathering, why not just let them know that the meal has a special meaning for the Christians (not special for them).
What if your children start to read their Bible, and have questions? Why do you want to provoke painful questions if your children start to think about things? Why do you want to demonstrate to your children how how you have strayed from the ways of the Apostles? Isn't it better to just follow the ways of the Apostles because Jesus gave them church order authority? Isn't it better to let go of our modern church traditions that conflict with Jesus? Sometimes we need to let go to gain. Think of the monkey with his hand in the cookie in the jar. If he lets go, he gets freedom and joy. Likewise, we believe there is a blessing and joy if we choose to follow God's ways instead of our ways that conflict.
This chapter is available online in case there are things to be added or subtracted. (Ref rfaber/chapter) You can read a lot more about this online and in our favorite NTRF books, like (Ref NTCD, Steve's friend and his book )
Chapter 7 - Church Membership
I have written much on this topic so I will try to shorten this for this book. But the idea is simply that the Bible makes all Christians members of the church. There is no such thing as a church member in the modern sense according to the Bible. So it is very confusing to say our church members are about 70% and 30% are church attenders, as Mark Dever once said. And then he says he is responsible for the 70% who are church members. What is up with the 30%? Why are they not church members? Have you made obstacles? In the early church, 3000 were added in one day. That is near instant church membership and it fits the biblical truth that we are all members based on belief if Jesus.
I am sure I will add more to this chapter as I get reviewers comments, but for now let me list the 9 points I have made elsewhere.
1. The word "member" is used in 1 Corinthians 12 of someone who is part of the body of Christ. Any other use of the word member, like the modern use, causes confusion. The Bible is saying we are members. The modern sense is you can join our church and become a member. Do you see the difference? The biblical meaning is you are (present tense) members. The modern sense is you have to jump through some hoops to become a member or else you are not, you are still an outsider.
2. The idea of creating a separate membership causes division. Just think about how passonate God's Word is in 1 Corinthians 1-3 about division. If you introduce modern church membership, you suddenly create division. Churches that do not have this modern church membership avoid this form of division. Anthony Thiselton raises this as a concern saysing, "The obsession with groups and with status tears and splits the body of Christ, limb from limb and organ from organ." (Ref Thiselton)
3. The idea of church membership and those who are not is sometimes applied to 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 in the discussion of insiders and outsiders. The Bible means Christians and non-Christians, but the promoters of modern church membership often attribute this to their idea of church membership and call those unwilling to join, 'outsiders.' This is like calling the Christians who find fault in your idea "non-Christians", if you understand the passage correctly. David Garland understands the passage well in his commentary. (Ref Garland)
4. Some Christians want to honor the words of Jesus about avoiding oaths/vows/promises and are bothered by the typical membership oaths. Jesus said, "But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all... Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil." Matthew 5:34,37 So, for some Christians, their conscience is bothered by the church membership oaths. Does this matter to you? Do you care? We should care. We should be careful not to go against Jesus in order to make our modern system follow our own traditions.
5. Another concern with the idea of modern church membership is the boundary of the responsibility of elders. The Old and New Testament speak about elders having town based authority. Modern churches do not operate at the town level. So the elders of a sub-group, not in association with other elders in town is operating on its own. Then the elders who limit their responsibility to church members only do not go along with 1 Peter 5:1-4 that speaks about shepherding the flock of God that is "among you." And this also relates to "willingly" and "eagerly" in the same passage. One is not willing or eager, if one is complaining about the overburdening difficulty of the responsibility of the full number who is "among you." So the eldership that is distracted with the 501(c)(3) model, may start to look like the distracted shepherd in Ezekiel 34:4.
6. The formal nature of the modern church membership process is a concern. The early church added 3000 in one day. But for some today, the process extends over months. There is the membership training meetings. There is the pastor visit. The oaths and vows ceremony. This is so completely opposite to the informal nature of the Bible's idea of membership that is based on beleif.
7. Another issue of modern church membership is the temporary nature of it. If you move to another church in town you have to start the whole process again. In the New Testament church of Jerusalem, with 1000s of church members, they did not have to do this. Their membership was permanent. If you move farther away to another town, you only had to be recognized. It was not really a matter of becoming a church member, but an issue of deterining if you are a Christian. Then you would be recognized as members on the same day.
8. The 501(c)(3) government regulations is a problem for some Christians. Some people do not even realize that the 501(c)(3) model requires a distinct membership. There is mixing of government and spiritual, but there is also rule conflict. This government rule applied to the Jerusalem church would force a sub-group to not allow membership across the sub-groups. Basically, most of the 14 part government rules would fail to work with a proper church like the Jerusalem church. Some Christians are not ok with this.
9. Finally, does modern church membership show Christians love. We think not. There is the case of some leaders calling those who don't join, "outside the church." There is no discussion, but only a church formality. And Christians who choose to avoid the modern church membership are sometimes called "unspiritual", "uncommitted", or "lone rangers." This is not love. This is unloving. In contrast this statement by CARM.org is much better, "Inclusion in the Body of Christ is not by membership in a denomination, nor by baptism, nor or by dedication. It is not received by ritual, or by ceremony, or by natural birth. It is received by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8). The invisible church is the church made up of true believers. The visible church consists of those who say they are Christian but may or may not be truly saved. Being a member of a church on earth guarantees nothing. Being a member of the Body of Christ guarantees salvation."
You can read a lot more about this here: Membership (Ref footnote, article )
Chapter 8 - Participation in the Ekklesia
The idea of 1 Corinthians 14 is that of men sharing for the building up of the church. This is strongly resisted in our modern church. I know very few Christians who do this. There are some, but many of these Christian groups are considered alternative and have quirks. I want to be part of a church that is somewhat local and is faithful to God's Word. The idea here is that we will never sort out all the issues between Christian groups, but God calls us to pursue likemindedness (John 17, Phil 1,2,etc). So ideally, if we have groups within the church, these groups should be in discussion and dialog. If we refrain being in dialog with each other, we may be creating division. 1 Corinthians 1 warns about having groups that become too distinct and separate. Are we officially shunning each other? If so, that is serious. Our view is that we can shun various groups of Christians if it is biblical, but even then we should not shut down communication completely. We can exclude from association and assembly, but let's not block channels of communication toward reconcilation. Long term blocking of relationship may be pride and arrogance and completely against the idea of Christian love, a basic requirement for approval with God (1 John). (Ref: explain the quirks, thinking of Amish, who my be patriarchal, but then avoid being "in the world" as Jesus said. and there seems to be a gospel/grace/works issue.) (Ref: More on the Amish: I understand most Amish to not be very clear on Calvinism or works vs grace and these are important foundational concepts. If you are an Arminian, I am not trying to raise that concern, but I am saying that I personally would always like to speak about God's sovereignty with freedom. Once at a Methodist church I was given freedom to teach New Testament books with a strong Calvinism, and that made it ok. But generally, this will not be the case, so I would normally look for a church that is open to the important doctrines of God's Grace, etc.) Assuming you have found a set of Christians who you agree with on basic Bible doctrine, so you don't need to spend much time on disagreements, then we can continue with our discussion here).
So assuming you have your Christian friends sorted out (above), then what about is 1 Corinthians 14 to you? Are you a complete cessationist? Does your denomination suggest that "prophecy" has ceased? What does it mean for today? If you do believe in prophetic cessationist views, then we have come to a huge halt on this topic and we have to go to relationship building on interpretation. We have to discuss low level foundational concepts. (D.A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, Richard Gaffin, Presbyterianism, Reformed Baptist views, this is a difficult detail for the footnotes) But if we can get past this then we can continue on to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14.
This is a very difficult chapter to diagnose due to the issue of tongues. And also there is the issue of the word "prophecy." Finally, there is the very controversial egaltarian/complimentarian issue in this chapter. There is so much difficulty in this passage. But the difficulty is only if you don't follow and accept the plain teaching of scripture in this passage. We do follow the plain teaching and words of the text so it is much more simple. I have heard many preachers suggest that 1 Corinthians is one of their least favorite books. For me, it is one of my favorite, because it gets to so many core behavioral issues and practical things. I love it.
So of course I am patriarchal/traditonal, not complimentarian or egaltarian. So if you don't agree on that, please lets not dwell on that too much. Yes, I think the passage is talking about men speaking and women being silent, just like the tongues speakers without an interpreter must remain silent. For me this is so simple to read and understand. I don't fight the text, I just read it and understand it.
But the tongues issue is another issue for some. For me, I think tongues have ceased, but I could be proven wrong. It is completely up to God, but my guess is that 1 Corinthians 14:21 which says, "By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.", refers to Israel. In other words, God is using the tongues miracle as a testimony to stubborn Israel unbelievers and it has very little to do with our modern day. If I ever truly saw the miracle of tongues as a true miracle, then I would simply say, ok, God has a continued use for it. But as it stands I see 100% of its use breaking the order guidelines of the Bible (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). I do believe tongues are actual languages based on 1 Corinthians 14:10 which says, "There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning." So the only rule I would make if anyone claimed to speak in a tongue is that it must be an actual language, supernaturally ocurring, and follow the rule of requiring an interpreter as the text says. From my understanding, every case of speaking in tongues today is a violation of these biblical guidelines. Also, the text says tongues is not for believers. So it is not the main thing to expect in a Christian gathering.
So the primary issue and question is "prophecy." What does "prophecy" mean in the context of 1 Corinthians and what does it meant for today? There is a clash of two main views that are plausible and a third we reject. If anyone thinks prophecy is a supernatural gift of Old Testament style, pattering after Elijah the prophet, we do not think that applies to 1 Corinthians and these New Testament days. The two main plausible possibilities are that prophecy has ceased or that it continues in a limited New Testament form, that is tested, and that it means nothing more than speaking for God. In other words, it is often attributed to what a preacher does speaking to the people for their building up, encouragement and consolation. Prophecy in 1 Corinthians is defined in verse 3 as someone speaking to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. So our translation of the word would simply be "speaking", with the rest of the meaning assumed and defined as we just said.
So if you are willing to understand the word that way, simply following 1 Corinthians 14:3, then the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 is simplified. So assuming only men can speak, assuming tongues have ceased, assuming prophecy has not ceased, but is limited and partial as 1 Corinthians 13:9 suggests, and assuming this "speaking" must be tested by the others (assuming men who would speak up with their testing evaluations), then the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 becomes more simple. But there are other questions. Some would be strict about the number of speakers when 1 Corinthians 14:29 says, "let two or three [prophets] speak", or we could say it "let two or three men speak" (trying to simplify). But we don't think that is what the author is meaning. If you take that completely literally, that is fine. We could live with it. But before this verse in the same chapter it says, this men speaking is "for believers" and "if all [speak]" (or literally "if all prophecy") 1 Corinthians 14:24. And right after the "two or three" in 1 Corinthians 14:29, it says, "For you can all [speak] (prophecy) one by one, so that you may learn and all be encouraged, (1 Corinthians 14:31). This is why we think it means, lets get started with two or three, and if this satisfies, then good enough. And since tongues do not apply any more, those "only two or at most three" can be replaced by 2 or 3 prophets, since that is the primary focus of the chapter. So in summary, our interpretation is, 'let 2 or 3 men speak', and let 2 or 3 more speak (since tongues have ceased). And if you are still not satisfied, perhaps a few more, perhaps not, depending on the opionions and sentiments of the people. We would be open to a few more.
So this is our understanding. On each day of gathering, come expecting to share in a full-meal to celebrate the Lord's Supper. And let the men expect to have an opportunity to speak for the upbuilding and encouraging and consolation of the people. And let the men be free to give a lesson, or a thought, or a short teaching. But any lessor or thought or short teaching must be something where you are sensitive to someone else who feels led to say something. The idea is that as you are speaking, you are watching the other men. You can easily see if someone else wants to say something. So the meeting is organized, with one man speaking at a time. When someone says something and sits down, there should be a pause for testing thoughts that may follow. Other than testing thoughts, the next man who wants to encourage or build up with a thought, or offer consolation thoughts is free to stand up and speak.
If a woman want to say something, the idea stated is that she can ask her husband at home. This of course implies she will not speak during this special time in the meeting. But as this time of the meeting ends, if there is the food and extended fellowship time, the woman might talk freely with men and women, but not on the same topic. If she has a serious question about something a man said, she can ask her husband at home. However, during the food and fellowship time, men and women would generally be free to talk about almost anything. There is a need to guard the time when men are permitted to speak, but there is not a strict silence after this time has ended.
Why would there be such a strange rule? Well, it only appears strange with our culture of women speaking as freely as men in most situations, like Sunday school. But our idea is that God wants the men to have an opportunity to lead, and interact with men. The women being silent allows the men to lead. If they are not silent, the men will never have this opportunity. They can subsitute some learning by gathering as men only, but it will not be as strong of a training in leadership as having the opportunity to speak in front of other men ready to test them, and women ready to question them when they get home with their husbands. Of course we would think the single women are just as restricted. If they are younger women living in their father's house, they can ask their fathers at home. This idea is not stated, but based on all of scripture, we assume this is what is meant.
Ok, so we have just explained 1 Corinthians 14, and now we need to listen to the testing. There is more we could say, but we have said our "five words" (1 Corinthians 14:19)
Chapter 9 - The Home based Ekklesia
The context of men speaking in church only makes sense in a home setting. The Lord's Supper as a full-meal only makes sense in a home setting. We are not going to convince anyone who resists us, and we will not try.
We will just say that the design of the church order set up by the Apostles only works in a home or small setting.
The temple was destroyed in 70 AD, because that was not God's plan for the church assembly. The temple was an Old Testament plan and God had a clearly stated plan to destroy the temple. This was a judgement on Israel. We should never say, the church met at the temple. Of course they did because there was an overlap time when the new Jewish Christians were granted freedom to continue to observe the Law even if they were being freed from the Law.
But for us to linger on the temple is not right. And the church met in home universally for centuries. It was not till around 300 AD with Constantine that the church went back to "temples" following the pagan mindset.
No, the temple idea was completely not what the early church did. They always met in homes. Every book of the New Testament that mentions a Christian gathering on the Lord's Day, was set in a home setting.
This worked better or the Lord's Supper meal. This worked better for men speaking to encourage the church.
What if there were 3000 added in one day? Well, that meant a whole bunch of homes just got more busy focused on Christian meetings.
How does that affect us today? Well today, in our town, no one meets in homes. I would say we are so affluent and formal stuffy types, that we only have "temples" and "tabernacles", which are really Old Testament concepts. Ideally, we should stop using those terms. We do not need to stop using our church buildings, but they are expensive. We should certainly not guilt trip Christians into supporting your church ministry as if the building needs to continue.
At the same time, if we do have a Christian church building, it will need a stead up-keep of maintenance and funding. So if you choose to support this kind of ministry, it is best to make it known that this "church" is really a particular ministry that is assuming a church building but it is not fundamentally an ekklesia. The true ekklesia should happen in a small gathering in a home or possibly in a room of a larger Christian church building.
The modern church building can easily accomodate a ministry of evangelistic preaching as an outreach to the community and for those who do not want to abandon the pew sitting experience.
But Christians should be encouraged to attend a primary ekklesia meeting which would be giving men an opportunity to speak in the 1 Corinthians 14 style and a context for a natural full-meal Lord's Supper so that there can be a joyous and celebratory theme with the Lord's Supper meal. If the Passover really is a pattern (and we believe it is), then there needs to be a mini feast (with simple food), and a celebratory mindset to the Lord's Supper.
Christians will continue to like their traditional church experience just the way it is. And we would not stop them. But we want to encourage a mind and a thought about the patterns set up by the Apostles. The New Testament mentions home based meetings, but there are two possibilities. Either these home based meetings are so important that the narrative assumptions was considered sufficient. Or because the home meetings really don't matter. We should not blindly assume the latter. It may be that the home meeting is very important to the Apostles. But, in God's devine plan, and he often is testing us, he has left it as a quiet early church pattern. Our thoughts are these:
We are painting a picture of what seems beautiful to us, but if you can afford an outwardly beautiful church building and you can assemble a whole host of Christians to worship and sing together, we might take a break from our theoretical home based meeting and come join you. Just don't ask us to share in the cost of the building or staff. Please think of it like a ministry. If you desire to spend the money on that, and you have no guilt in the expense of it, then favor us who might theoretically be not having a clear conscience about the expense, and just give us the blessing. Otherwise, grant us the right to follow the Old Testament example of meeting outdoors, on a nicer day if we might want to gather in larger groups. Or opinion is that if the Apostles visted today, they would teach us to quickly fix some things. They would quickly make us correct various things that we have done and introduced as our own traditions of man. The Apostles would probably explain more clearly from scripture what they mean't and they would probably say, "how slow we are to understand the scriptures."
Chapter 10 - The City based Ekklesia
The Jerusalem church was a city church. According to the Bible, your church is also considered at the city or town level. All the churches in the New Testament were considered a church at the city/town level. If you have a church that is not at the city/town level, you are not following the New Testament boundary and context for the church. The early church met in homes but was considered a church at the city/town level. Since Jerusalem had thousands of members, there were many home meetings. There were home assembly meetings of people gathering for the Lord's Supper meal, but you would say that the church gathered, just not in one place. At times, the church might gather in one place, but customarily, and normally they gathered in homes for the observance of the full-meal Lord's Supper.
Just to remind, and as we stated earlier, the ekklesia, both in the Bible and in the origins of the word, was city based. "In ancient Greece-most notably in classical Athens-the ekklesia was explicitly rooted in the polis (the city-state). You did not join this civic assembly through a broad application, election, or religious initiation. Instead, membership was an automatic right and duty granted exclusively to the adult male citizens of that specific city-state." See Tara Caudle, "The Ekklesia as an Assembly That Invokes Response," Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy 1, no. 1 (2020): Article 12. See Mogens Herman Hansen, The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 125–128; cf. Aristotle, Politics 3.1275a.
This is significant. The church was city based both in the Bible and in the roots of the word that Jesus chose. He chose the secular Greek word 'ekklesia' and not the religious word 'synagogue', even though both would seem to work.
Instead of following the biblical instructions, as Titus 1:5 says, to appoint elders in every town, we have become denominationally and non-denominationally hyper fragmented. There are so many separate and independent church gatherings in each city or town that even the Christians are confused. Churches are independent and unconnected.
The unbelievers have noticed. They say Protestants are massively divided and the implication is the Protestants cannot be a true faith. Some so called "evangelicals" have even changed to follow the "Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox" church to be part of something larger and more unified. This of course is foolishness, and those that switch show their weakness in theology and faith.
This division into so many little groups is a sin when we cannot meet as a city/town based church. Our church and denominational traditions are strong. And we have good arguments for supporting our dividing to preseve our doctrines. The argument is good, but not complete. Yes, we should divide at times, but we have gone too far and have ignored other godly Christians in town. In almost every city and town I go, I can find multiple evangelical churches that are reasonably faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But the dividing into groups has proliferated to such a great extent; we have a problem.
According to the New Testament, sub-groups are fine. Jesus heard the disciples trying to denigrate another group and Jesus rebuked the disciples for their divisive attitude. He said if they are not against me, they are friends. (REF a few verses here) So likewise, John said, they went out from us to show that they are not of us. This implies the division and splitting off can imply some groups are not true Christians (if you read John as I do). In other words, divsion away from false Christians is good and divsion away from true Christians is bad. Yet we are massively divided.
Do you think the Corinthians were worse than us? On the issue of division, we have gone farther. We actually do follow Paul, or Apollos or Cephas. We follow them into separate denominations or non-denominational groups. We are Baptists or Presbyterians or Evangelical Free or Calvary or community types, but we are not ever simply Christians of the local town. We want Christians to have their theological convictions, but we do not need the hard group barriers. I can go to so many different groups, and even to groups that are seriously wrong on some things, but I know they are genuine Christians. If I attend a Methodist church, for example, many who attend may be rather shallow. There will be a mixture. Some genuine Christians will land in churches that have notable theological issues.
The point is this. When you follow the traditions of man in your modern church and divide up into various groups, you become trapped by the limits of your group. But since the New Testament defines church at the city/town level, you are forced to open up and relate to other Christians who you don't like at all. They may be Charismatics or anti-Calvinist or a bit confused on the Sabbath. But still, if we care about the city/town aspect of ekklesia, we must distiguish who we can associate with and who we cannot. If someone is LGBTQ friendly, I would probably not associate with them, as a church. If someone is not clear on the basic Gospel and core Christian doctrine, I would separate. The association and dividing needs to happen but it doesn't need to be perfect. But today, we have mass confusion. The outsider sees that Christians have no clear association (of true Christians). All they see is 100 groups in the vicinity. In reality, the 100 groups should be 50 that associate and 50 that shun each other (as an example). That would cause a stir, and the 50 that are massively compromising the gospel would feel the pain of not being associated with the 50 following the gospel. We know this could work theoretically, but in practice it would be impossible if the Holy Spirit was not involved. With God, all things are possible.
Today, however, we continue the endless division. We will continue to justify ourself and feel good for our divisions. I might think of myself as a house-church oriented Christian who meets at the town-level, but since no-one else in town believes the same, so I must give up and attend the best local church I can find. The church I found is a good church, but like all churches in town, they divide the members and non-members. And they form a separate group, sometimes a separate denomination which causes division.
Paul commands Timothy to watch his doctrine carefully. But we have stopped the expression of views to be heard. I am not too concerned, but I cannot talk about a whole myriad of issues and ideas because of group-division controls in place. Each group-division creates a stopping of conversation on a set of topics. For example, our local church had a huge debate about baptism before we landed. One of the notable speakers of a credo perspective soon left the church. I think there was a subtle understanding that the pedo perspective had one the upper had, having more senior pastor influence, and so staying would be no longer an open debate. Ever since that time, when this friend left, this issue has been shut. No one talks about it and all leaders are trained in how to carefully speak to the topic. They are trained to pretend to be open to the two sides but in reality the worst thing is to have any debate on the topic. Our point is this. In the New Testament, the debate was allowed to continue. But in our human thinking, debate is bad. Debate can be bad, if there are unkind heated words. But debate can be good. God has set so many difficult topics that are ripe for debate. But in the typical church you are called to sit in the pew or be a trained-controlled and authorized teacher in Sunday School. Any one who simply goes by the Bible is not suffiently authorized. Men and women can openly debate, which violates 1 Corinthians 14. This is one of the best churches in town.
In contrast, according to scripture in 1 Corinthians 14, only men are to speak in the main assembly meeting and there is a very important time of testing what is said. In this open testing time, the elders are not given special priviledge. The elders are men who have been selected for their wisdom and they must be able to teach. But that cannot butt in and influence the testing. They may not be good at testing. They can easily be wrong about doctrinal things. If you have selected well, this should be rare. But according to the New Testament, elders are not the testers. Testing is open to all men. The elders are however, respsonsible for moderating the orderliness of the assembly. And it would be expected that elders would be often contributing to the speaking that 1 Corinthians says is for the upbuilding of the church. Some debate on controversial issues is acceptable, but it should trigger additional meetings of only men to haggle over the controversial issue. This is seen in Acts where the elders and apostles gathered for a more in depth meeting.
In our modern churches we are so untrained at the meeting assembly time in 1 Corinthians 14, that we should be expected to be failures if we ever tried it. We are trained at ignoring the Bible and well trained at following our particular church tradition in contradiction of 1 Corinthians 14. In modern church life, the deceptive ways of human thinking have been dominating church life for centuries.
Chapter 11 - Behavior in the Ekklesia
One example is questioning the six days of creation. Many Christians these days are open to the evolutionary biological process in the formation of man. This is a suprising weakness of the modern church. There are other churches that are strong on this point, but then they have other massive issues. If we don't have agreement in the basics of scripture then we don't have harmony. We may gather with other Christian men and agree on the gospel and God's grace, but we will have fundamental issues if we can't agree that God created a literal Adam about 6000 years ago according to Bible chronology. We are not saying how long God lingered before Genesis 1:1, when the earth was formless and void. We are talking about the Bible's clear chronology once Adam was living and the Bible starts to record geneologies. This is a modern world test of faith. In our local church, we are weak on the topic, and I have found about 50% divide on the topic by testing individuals. The leadership has failed to explain this topic. There is confusion. This is a sad case of failure to follow the scriptures.
Another example is divorce and remarriage. Why do Christians have the same divorce and remarriage rate as non Christians? There is a problem with the usual Christian interpretation of the 7 or so New Testament passages on this topic. We would like to see both sides of the debate rather than the gentle-on-remarriage side dominating. We'd like to see the traditional, biblical, strongly-avoid-remarriage view be more supported at church. Instead, the tolerant view of remarriage seems to control the conversation.
Our main point is this. We should allow Christian men to formulate views from the Bible and freely speak about their thoughts in the assembly. If there is a controversy, then the elders can and should step in to bring order to the assembly. Anyone involved in testing must be given good opportunity to test. The elders are responsible for order but they also can share words of encouragement. Their primary role, however, is to step in to ensure an orderly discussion. The elders may even suggest a separate meeting. This happened in Acts 20 when the men involved had the opportunity to go into more detail on the issue at hand.
One of the worst things for humble church order and leadership is when some elders have too much influence and are able to control the teaching of the assembly. According to 1 Corinthians 14, any man can speak. Any man can be involved in testing. There is no mention of elders having influence and control over what is said. Instead, elders are called upon to ensure there is order. If something is said wrong, then men from the assembly are expected to step up and challenge the thing said which is called the testing. Elders are given special rights and respect to help keep the meeting flowing for speaking or testing. This time in the week for the the men. The men are part of the city/town church. The men are subject to dealing with other men, but not women. The men should be from the local town. There is such a thing as extended association of towns and two towns nearby may have cross over, which is fine. But locality should have great importance. Locality should have a great importance especially when elders are selected. But locality should also weigh in on those speaking and testing. If one is from the town or a neighbor town fine. If one is from far away, one would wonder about that mans responsibility to his own town.
So officially selected elders should be town based and should help with maintaining order if things get out of hand. They should be able to teach in a home size meeting. They certainly should not be controlling the teaching. Any man should be free to test anything said by any other man in the assembly. If there is a fear of testing, there is probably a problem of leaders having too much power. The example of Diotrophes comes to mind. (Ref. 2 or 3 John ) Men who may focus on testing may be more gifted in testing than speaking for the encouragement of the church. These men may even tend to refrain from speaking in general, but care deeply about watching doctrine so they focus on testing.
Any man should be free to test any other man that brings a lesson or a speach. This is the dynamic of this very important ekklesia meeting. The real 'ekklesia' is completely different from our modern church meetings. This rarey gets discussed. Today, in most churches there is so much order that the ordinary man has no place to speak. Instead of trusting God and the Holy Spirit working in men and instead of trusting the men who test based on the Bible, we trust our human traditions.
But there is another way. As you read your Bible, you will notice that God is working in each of us. We are called to love each other. One of the most significant ways of love one another is allowing each man to speak in the ekklesia meeting.
This comes down to how carefully we are willing to read and trust the Bible that wrote for us to be observed today.
Chapter 12 - New Covenant Theology
Sometimes there are very foundational things that can affect your church. Usually we avoid this topic. But we have been personally affected and potentially affected by Covenant Theology at our local traditional church. Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology are complex systems that have deep underlying side effects on how you understand the Bible. In our case, the idea of covenant membership seemed to drive a tension between our attending and some ideas of Covenant Theology's covenant membership. It is very possible for you to be happily attending a local church and have a group of elders suggest that you leave the church, to find some other elders to submit to. This is a theological system with a lot of eccliasatical control expectations. This system is more controlling than Dispensational and New Covenant Theology.
We responded with a comment about covenant membership from Douglas Moo, who follows a more NCT type of theology. We don't know for sure, but another incident involving one elder resisting the Lord's Supper being only allowed for members may also be a side effect of Covenant Theology understandings.
I am so thankful to have heard a critique of both of these theological systems by Dr. Ferris L. McDaniel at North Eastern Bible College in 1986-1987. Dr. McDaniel was a brilliant Greek/Theology professor, probably my favorite at the college, and I would put his critique of these systems near the top of his helpful analysis. The amazing thing was to discover that both of my brothers found and learned New Covenant Theology or the Doctrines of Grace from John Reisinger, years later. If I would compare these two, they may not have been identical, but the gist was what I now see in New Covenant Theology (NCT).
I do not agree with everything from this ministry, but CrossToCrown Ministries has taken over the work of John Reisinger and these NCT presentations seem excellent so far. Here are the links. If you believe either of these theological systems, we highly recommend listening to as many of these NCT talks to find out how the systems compare. We think this ministry supporting careful understanding of the scriptures is a beautiful aspect of the New Testament ekklesia.
Youtube - #1 NCT
Youtube - #2 NCT
Youtube - #3 NCT
Youtube - #4 NCT
Youtube - #5 NCT
This is as far as we are as of writing.
By the time you get to the 5th episode, we felt strongly about the deficiencies of Covenant Theology and the scriptural superiority of NCT. But we are biased to NCT, so it is preaching to the choir. For our friends, and we have some, who subscribe to CT, we'd like to see how far you get through the episodes until you realize the same. Or perhaps you have an amazing response show that will put these points to rest. If we get feedback on this, we may make updates in future editions.
Chapter 13 - Seminaries
Jesus chose ordinary men for his disciples. This is significant. The early church did eventually get a very highly trained leader when Paul became an Apostle, but the training was almost incidental and it was not the reason why Paul was chosen by Jesus to lead the Gentile church. Paul constantly shows a humility to make the point that it is not about education that men lead in the church.
Unfortunately, the idea of questioning seminary training is very unpopular today. Every solid traditional church follows the path of finding a highly qualified leader to be a pastor, and the more training the better. Nine times out of ten, the young man coming to be your teaching pastor or senior pastor will come from outside the church. He will be working on his career as a pastor, and the church will evaluate, with the education being an unspoken essential requirement.
So the way it works is like this. You feel called to be a pastor. You put in your time, 3-4 years or more. You look for a job being a pastor and you may start as a youth pastor or assistant pastor or go for pastoring a smaller church. Now you are a young squirt telling the older people what to do.
In actuality the main biblical concept of church leadership is the 'elder', which simply means an older one. The real meaning, however, thinking of Timothy, is 'older one in the Lord.' It is more about your time and maturity growing in faith and learning how to navigate life as a Christian, following God's Word. Timothy knew the scripture from his youth. So even though he was young, perhaps 35, he may have known God's Word for 27 years or so. And as a helper to Paul, he had authority, like Titus, to appoint elders in new churches being formed.
In order to maintain the open access to becoming a leader in the church, we need to go to some fundamentals in scripture. There are some misconceptions that abound in the church today. But the target and goal is to not turn aside men like Peter and John who were "uneducated and common men", but who had been with Jesus (Acts 4:13). If we loose this, we loose something fundamental. We seem to have lost it today because every leader at the top, like senior pastor, and every leader at the lower level, like assistant pastor, is either seminary trained or in the process of getting seminary training. Our modern church is obsessed with education.
There is a hint of Diotrophes in the institutional and beaurocratic type of church that dominates our traditional churches today. Instead of the humble non-invasive ekklesia model, we have the priest-like ordination based control that strongly resists the 1 Corinthians 14 model of church. The pastorate has become professional no matter how much you like John Piper's book on avoding the professional style.
Once someone has gone down the path of spending time and money on a seminary degree, there is a pressure to seek a more stable financial setup to help pay off the education debt. Of course there are some, very few, who get a seminary degree, and humbly don't mention it, and work in an ordinary job. We are not talking about that way. We are concerned about the seminary being essentially required for church leadership today.
Chapter 14 - Church Government (Ecclesiology)
We are inclined to be against denominations, but they can also be used with good intentions. Guarding the right doctrine can be a very good reason to add denominational boundaries. But, sometimes, there is a lack of listening and dialog and a tendency to human tradition that keeps certain denominational boundaries. Our general preference has been inter-denominational ministries and churches, because this usually implies a working out of differences rather than isolation and avoidance. This is the healthiest in most cases. Non-denominational ministries can be good or bad, it all depends on the purpose and intentions of the heart. Today there are so many denominations in America that the unbelievers know Christianity is a false religion. We have completely missed the priority of John 17. It is a sad state of division gone to the extreme. The excuse of holding on the right doctrine is a lie in the big picture. In the specific cases of organizations we would not say denominations are evil, because the intentions are often very good for creating new denominations. But when centuries go by, and there are still so many denominations, something is wrong. We have clearly done what the 1 Corinthian church was warned about in 1 Corinthians 1. The solution is humility and God's Spirit. With man things are impossible, with God all things are possible.
This quote from Spurgeon is helpful. Spurgeon says, We may draw up the most express and distinct form of doctrine, but we shall find that the next generation will depart from the truth unless God shall be pleased to give it renewed grace from on high. You cannot, by Presbytery, or Independency, or Episcopacy, secure the life of the Church-I find the Church of God has existed under an Episcopacy-a form of government not without its virtues and its faults. I find the Church of God flourish under a Presbytery, and decay under it too. I know it can be successful under an Independent form of Church government and can decline into Arianism quite as easily. The fact is that forms of government have very little to do with the vital principle of the Church. "The reason why the Church of God exists is not her ecclesiastical regulations, her organization, her formularies, her ministers, or her creeds, but the presence of the Lord in the midst of her; and while Christ lives, and Christ reigns, and stands and feeds his Church, she is safe; but if he were once gone, it would be with her as it is with you and with me when the Spirit of God has departed from us, we are weak as other men, and she would be quite as powerless. - Charles H. Spurgeon, "Christ is Glorious – Let us Make Him Known" Murray, I. H. (2000) Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, p. 285.
Chapter 15 - Conclusion
This book is a very oppinionated expression of thoughts and ideas discovered over may years. It is not a book of defiance. These ideas are convictions based on the Bible intended for opening up discussion. If there is a willingness to talk about things mentioned, that is good. If there is no willingness, so be it. There is no expectation of change. There is only an expectation of the same mindset continuing, because institutions and traditions are very hard to change. The main appeal to change is conformitity with the Bible and the Reformation's idea that there should be a openness to always be reforming (Ref: Always reforming).
The Reformation idea of always reforming is based on the idea that the church will always need to be looking to the Bible as the final authority for faith and life. The Reformers were blind to issues in their cultural context and close proximity to the Roman Catholic Church. There is no expectation that they would be able to correctly understand the externals of the church for all time, as some of them assumed. There were failures with the Reformers, and they should not be put on a pedastal. They boldly confronted an evil church and they made many good steps to improve things. But that does not mean their ideas of doctrine, worship structures and church government were accurately implemented. They may have thought so, but all things should be tested. (Ref: tested) And if the church is not united, then the discussion should not be closed.
The purpose of this book is not to ruffle any feathers of the traditional church leadership. Let them continue on with what they want to do. I have no intention to challenge existing leadership in any church. I do invite Christians and church leaders to consider these thoughts, but not by way of challenge. I only ask for a thoughtful comparison with scripture and discussion based on the foundation of the Apostles and their traditions. If anyone is interested in responding, then polite dialog might be good and healthy and may help us refine our arguments.
If anyone is part of a traditional church leadership and gets access to this book, and is bothered by any of the ideas in this book, please do not get mad. Let's get together and discuss and work on our supporting arguments based on evidence. Let's let each other know what is not well founded, and smooth off the rough edges. One of the great calls to use our mind for spiritual things is in the very chapter that brings the greatest anxiety to some. 1 Corinthians 14:15-19 is focused on both our spirit and our mind applied to godly behavior in the church.
May God use these words to build up His Church.
FOOTNOTES
1.town
In the New Testament, the church is always considered at the city or town level. There is no such thing as a subgroup church in the church at Jerusalem even though thousands were added in one day. If there is subgroup thoughts of separate churches, this is a divisive idea and does not follow from the design of the New Testament Apostles. Here is one clear verse for example.
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you. (Titus 1:5)
1. See the author's extended biblical membership at rfaber.com/membership.html. ↩
My main goal of this book is to see Christians follow the ways of the 1st century church and enjoy doing so.
See the online edition for the latest version and any additional information. newcovenantcommunity.html
| This website is public domain. |