I would like to clarify a few things after reading some feedback regarding my recent posts. It has been my intention to share what I have been learning about “church,” but it will take quite a few entries to fully explain the complex issue. As a result, there are things that I have yet to share that will help to clarify what I have already described. I want to skip ahead to clarify one thing, because I don’t want my readers to get the wrong idea.
While I stated that Dwight & I no longer attend church, that is true only in the sense that we do not attend a “traditional church.” This does not mean that we “forsake the assembling of ourselves together” (Heb. 10:25). In fact, I’d have to say that over the past 3 months we have been “assembling” more often than usual. We have been meeting with other believers who desire to meet in a fashion that more closely resembles the participatory meetings of the 1st century church. Some call this a “house church” or “organic church.” I don’t really like “house church” because it emphasizes place and we don’t have to meet in a home. In fact, at least twice, we have met in a park. I like the term “organic” because it suggests “living” and focuses on the idea that people are the church and meetings are flexible rather than program based. I will describe what these meetings are like in a future entry (although that will be difficult because the meetings are less about what we do during the meeting than they are about how our relationships with one another are helping us all grow in Christ).
We started out meeting with a group that meets about 35-40 minutes away. Because of the drive and the difficulty of getting together with them during the week, we have been trying 2 other groups that are a little closer. Now we are praying about where God would have us because although both are very different in the manner in which they meet, we like aspects of both. It is a matter of where God will lead us, but in the meantime we have been meeting with both for the past 2 weeks. Dwight loves this because he loves to meet new people and meeting with 2 groups is fine with him. I know that before long I will burn out and gas will make it impractical.
Organic churches are different than the typical church because we are not associated with any denomination (including churches that calls themselves “non-denominational”). We are not “institutionalized” or “organized.” There is no distinct clergy, building, or liturgy. These churches usually don’t have names and you don’t “join” it in the sense of becoming a formal “member” by way of letter from another church or baptism into it. All people who attend are allowed to participate in the meeting as equally functioning members of the body of Christ. This means that anyone can lead a song, bring a teaching, pray, share a word of encouragement or exhortation, read a scripture, etc. These functions are not limited to a few elite clergy members because we believe in the priesthood of all believers in practice (rather than just in theory). The Holy Spirit was sent to us by Jesus to be our teacher and if you are a Christian you have direct access to Him. You need not go through a “professional” or hear a teaching only from someone who is seminary trained.
So, we don’t “go” to a church building, but we do meet with fellow believers on a weekly basis for a time of fellowship, teaching, sharing, praying, etc. I know it sounds like I’m splitting hairs here, but these meetings are nothing like what we were used to so there is a big difference. These are also like no other Bible study that I’ve been in because most of them are teaching-centered and led or facilitated by one person. These meetings aren’t led by any one person and they combine various elements like communion, praying, singing, teaching, fellowship, etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Mary, as you know there are many things that I agree with you on with all of this, and many things we disagree on.
One thing that I would encorage you to carefully look into in the Bible are these passages, when understanding the need for elders, deacons, and Bisops.
1Ti 5:19 - Show Context
Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.
1Pe 5:1 - Show Context
The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:
1Ti 3:1 - Show Context
This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,* he desires a good work.
1Ti 3:2 - Show Context
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;
Tit 1:7 - Show Context
For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,
Php 1:1 - Show Context
Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
1Ti 3:8 - Show Context
Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money,
1Ti 3:10 - Show Context
But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.
1Ti 3:12 - Show Context
Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 - Show Context
For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
In regards to someone preaching, that is someone who gives a sermon (I looked that up).
Here is what the Bible says, let us read a judge for ourselves.
1Ti 2:7 - Show Context
for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle--I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying--a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
2Ti 1:11 - Show Context
to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
Ro 1:15 - Show Context
So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.
Ro 10:8 - Show Context
But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
(note that they said that they preached it, not talked about it)
Ro 10:15 - Show Context
And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!"
Ro 15:20 - Show Context
And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man's foundation,
1Co 1:17 - Show Context
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
1Co 1:23 - Show Context
but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
1Co 9:14 - Show Context
Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.
1Co 9:18 - Show Context
What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel.
1Co 15:11 - Show Context
Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
2Co 10:16 - Show Context
to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's sphere of accomplishment.
Ga 1:8 - Show Context
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
Ga 1:16 - Show Context
to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,
Ga 2:2 - Show Context
And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
Php 1:15 - Show Context
Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from good will:
Look at this one closely. It is stated in the Bible that some do preach out of a wroung heart, but that does not mean stop preaching.
Ok, now I know we do not agree on this one.
Here are the verses though. I'm posting this here and not my blog because it is on subject. YOu said that any one can say any thing at these churches and well I have no problem with christains meeting in homes, this being disobeyed, oh yeah it is a sin.
1Co 14:35 - Show Context
And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
1Co 14:34 - Show Context
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
I Tim.2:11-14.
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Let me say that I agree very much that we should be too fancy for church, ( no matter what the building looks like ). Here is why.
1 Timothy 2:9-15
9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.
Church is not for show.
I know this will come across critical, but you should know me well enough that I mean this in the best possible way.
You said, "I will describe what these meetings are like in a future entry (although that will be difficult because the meetings are less about what we do during the meeting than they are about how our relationships with one another are helping us all grow in Christ)."
That sounds good. However, if the meetings you describe do not line up with Scripture, then the groups are not helping each other to grow in Christ. His word was given to us so that we would know exactly what he wants from us.
Not being a denomination, institutionalized or having sects of members are all good things since the Bible doesn't hint at those either.
You then said, "These churches usually don’t have names and you don’t “join” it in the sense of becoming a formal “member” by way of letter from another church or baptism into it."
The New Testament does in fact give evidence of a membership or list even of who is part of the church. The church was never a come as you want club. As for Baptism, that is the mark of a disciple. If a person won't get baptized biblically, I have no obligation to count him as part of the church.
You then said, "All people who attend are allowed to participate in the meeting as equally functioning members of the body of Christ."
I agree with the statement just as you have it. However, you use that to lead into something else I strongly disagree with.
You said, "This means that anyone can lead a song, bring a teaching, pray, share a word of encouragement or exhortation, read a scripture, etc."
Since you want to go by the book and seem to think that the cultural church in america has been gimped by tradition or something, where in the New Testament do you find that anyone at any time could do any of the above? In fact, you find just the opposite. Not everyone was allowed to teach/preach/pray as the church gathered. Women were forbidden if men were present and some/many men weren't even allowed to. Some of that has to do with roles, maturity, and order.
You then said, "These functions are not limited to a few elite clergy members because we believe in the priesthood of all believers in practice (rather than just in theory)."
I think you are misusing this doctrine. The priesthood of the believer is simply that you have direct access to God and are responsible to him directly. We go directly to God through Christ. The doctrine has nothing to do with who is and who isn't qualified to do something in church. All believers may go directly to God.
You said, "The Holy Spirit was sent to us by Jesus to be our teacher and if you are a Christian you have direct access to Him. You need not go through a “professional” or hear a teaching only from someone who is seminary trained."
I agree with this. We do not NEED someone to teach us since we do have the Spirit. However, if we don't NEED anyone, why did God give the gift of teaching to people within the church? In their imperfect way, God has still equipped some people with the gift of teaching to help others see more of God's truth. It is the Holy Spirit who will open the person's heart/eyes.
You also seem to disagree with the idea of one person leading everything. I do too. The NT unquestionable teaches plural eldership. At the same time however, not anyone and everyone may teach/preach within a church.
Also, consider this: when Jesus founded the church, he gave it two ordinances: baptism and the Lord's supper. Please note what you read the early church doing from Pentecost on.
Acts 2:41-42
Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
1. Saved
2. Baptized
3. Continued in Apostle's doctrine (scripture)
4. Fellowship
5. Lord's supper
6. Prayers
Note the order and what actually made them a church. There is another aspect of church life that makes it a church and that is discipline as seen in Matthew 18.
Without those components, it isn't "church". So you have a regenerate, baptized membership who continue in Scripture, the Lord's supper, and discipline. That is church.
Ruth,
I think you are getting ahead of me with your talk about elders, deacons, and bishops. I haven't touched on that yet. I will talk about it in a later entry (because not everyone reads these comments). I agree that we should have all of them, but I disagree with the Catholic abuses of these positions--turning them into mystical and elitist offices. Elders are those in the fellowship who are mature in the faith and can best handle the affairs of the group because of their experience, wisdom, and Christlike character. The word "deacon" is translated "servant" and describes those who are designated to serve the needy. I will have to research "bishop" further.
Ruth,
Regarding preaching: What was your source for the definition of preach or preacher? I'm not trying to be critical, but if you used the dictionary--it just describes current realities--not what the Bible teaches.
Two Greek words are commonly used for preach in the New Testament: "euaggelizo" which means "to announce good news ("evangelize") especially the gospel:--declare, bring glad tidings, preach (the gospel) and "kerusso" which means "to herald (as a public crier), especially divine truth (the gospel): --preach, proclaim, publish." There are a few other Greek words used for preach that mean generic things like tell, speak, teach, report. None of them mention a sermon. In fact most of the verses you quoted discuss preaching in the context of the gospel.
I have no problem at all with preaching the gospel. In fact I think every man, woman, and child who has accepted the truth of the gospel is commanded to preach (evangelize, declare, proclaim it) to others. That is the great commission and it is our privilege and duty as Christians. You are probably the best preacher I know because you are such an incredible evangelist--you have the gift. I would say preaching is the same as witnessing, evangelizing, and declaring the gospel (that is how it is used in context in scripture) and the definitions of those Greek words specify that it refers to the gospel. It is done by early Christians throughout the city wherever non-believers are gathered. After preaching is done, you will notice that many are saved, baptized, and added to the church. In other words, these were evangelistic meetings as distinct from church gatherings. The church is a gathering of those who are already believers. Some who are unsaved can be brought to such a meeting and may desire what they see in the believers. If an unbeliever is brought to such a meeting, I would hope that the group is intimate enough that it would be known that there is an unbeliever in their midst. The gospel should certainly be preached at that point. But if all those meeting as a church body are believers, why must they hear the good news? If they are believers, they already know it. There is nothing wrong with thanking God for salvation, but if we as believers spend our meetings declaring the gospel, what have we learned? We need teaching that delves into how we should live our Christian lives. I call lessons that relate to spiritual growth teaching, not preaching. I save the word “preaching” for declaration of the gospel. Early church leaders did preach in the synagogues and temples but not because those are similar to churches. The synagogues and temples were the places where unbelieving Jews (who did not accept Jesus Christ as Messiah) gathered so temples and synagogues as well as street corners and dinner tables were the most common sites for preaching. One problem in churches today is that people rarely preach where unbelievers are—instead they invite people to church so the pastor can preach to them. Problem is the pastor is usually talking about a topic related to spiritual growth (as he should be because his audience is supposedly mostly believers) rather than the gospel. Unbelievers never hear the gospel. Instead they are lulled into a false sense of security that they are saved by church attendance or being good. What should happen is that one should go where unbelievers gather, share the gospel, and if they accept Christ, they should then be invited to gather with other believers for discipleship and edification. Jesus didn’t invite people to synagogue or temple. He sat with them by a well, at a table where “sinners” gathered, at their place of work, on the beach, on a hillside, or on the side of the road to do his preaching. When he was with His disciples (those who already believed) he taught—explaining parables, giving examples, answering questions, teaching how OT prophesies were being fulfilled in Himself. In conclusion, I believe we are to preach (declare the gospel) to unbelievers and teach during church life with believers. Preaching should be done outside the church (unless there is an unbeliever in your midst) and teaching should be done inside the church.
Ok let me just say after reading back over my post.
*on my last post I was trying to put it is a sin to not obey the posts that I then posted. Not that it was a sin where you meet, I do not think it matters where you meet at all.
Ruth
James,
The organic church meetings that I have attended do line up with the New Testament description of church. My point is that the average traditional church does not. The main difference—lack of participation by the traditional church member which encourages passivity and complacency rather than growth. When you sit in a pew and watch a show rather than actively participate and contribute to other’s edification you are not able to experience what church was meant to be.
Could you site evidence of a membership list in the NT? As soon as people repented of their sins, trusted Jesus to bring them salvation, and were baptized they were added to the church. I just don’t like church membership in many churches where it is treated like a club membership and people see their tithe as their dues. Some even mistake church membership for a ticket to heaven. Anyone who is saved and baptized should be embraced by local believers and accepted into the church—Christ’s body. How can you come and go from that? You are thinking of a locale. You physically gather with believers in your vicinity. NT believers met with those in their city (church of Jerusalem, church of Ephesus). In their experience one only “church hopped” if one happened to move from one city to another. I can only speculate that if there were too many believers in one city to meet in one house, they met in multiple houses throughout the city, but worked side by side with all as they served the community and preached the gospel.
I hesitated about including “baptism” in my original post because I thought it might be misconstrued. I should have left it out. What I meant was I have not been required to be baptized because I was baptized in another church when I was 6. Most of the believers in the groups I attend were baptized before they became members in various denominations, so they have not been baptized again when they became a part of this other kind of church. Viola (author of Pagan Christianity?) actually criticizes most modern churches because it is common practice to baptize months or even years after someone is saved. Viola points out that this never happened in the NT. Baptism always immediately followed salvation. In fact it was equivalent to the modern day “sinner’s prayer” popularized by Billy Graham. It was the way people proved that they had repented of their sins and turned to Jesus for their salvation. Hebrews were an action centered people who wanted to do something to show it and not just talk about it. So organic churches who practice what Viola describes would expect immediate baptism of any new believers. Many churches today would say, “Oh, let’s wait until we have enough people to justify filling up and heating the baptistery.” An organic church would say, “Hallelujah! You are saved. Let’s find the closest pool, Jacuzzi, lake, river, garden tub so you can be immersed right away.”
I agree that we can learn from other teachers in the church besides the Holy Spirit. What I disagree with is the common practice for most teaching in churches to only come from one ordained pastor or team of pastors. Most churches allow pastors to teach because they are “ordained” or have an MDiv. behind their name. But the Spirit is the one who bestows the gift of teaching, not a seminary president). An MDiv. says nothing about a person’s character or gifting. In an organic setting, those with the gift and abilities for teaching are generally those who attempt to do so (when false teaching arises, that person can be corrected as described by Paul—but believe me this happens just as often in the pulpit as it does from the couch).
The organic churches I have attended practice all 6 of the elements you describe. One even practiced church discipline. When a person insisted on causing dissension in the group by sharing with the group that he did not believe in a literal hell, he was asked to stop sharing it. When he continued to share it, he was asked not to return. In some of the churches I attended prior to this with 600+ or 4000+ people, church discipline was not practiced like this. I’m sure there were members who did not believe in a literal hell. Do you think they were every asked to leave? Does anyone even know what they believe? How could they know— the person is never given a chance to speak?
Mary,
I also disagree with how the Catholic have done things. But, most the people reading your blog are not Catholic and you don't come from a Catholic background. I would agree that the modern evangelical seeker churches are becoming filled with error. But, look at the United States history when it comes to evangelicals. Just 50 to 70 years ago, most pastors were not seminary trained. The buildings they met in were very plain. They were often a part of the community and the church didn't pay to use the building that was used for a schoolhouse, church, courthouse, and for any other kind of meeting. Many small towns had circuit preachers, too. I imagine Grandpa's dad was paid something as a circuit preacher, but it sure wasn't much and it wasn't his major source of income. It is a new thing of the last 30 years that we have seen so much church staff paid. As for bulletins... I really don't think the small evangilical churches of America printed any. I imagine they were lucky to have several hymnals to sing from. Yes, they did have special Sunday clothes, but I would say that only in the big cities were they really fancy. Wearing your dirty farm clothes was just kind of well... dirty. But, you could I am sure if it was all you had. You have to think about things like they had no washer or dryers, no showers, and limited soap. I would say in Evangelical churches of America that it started out being a good thing to save out a pair of clothes to wear for Sunday that were clean and less worn. It is just that we took it too far as we became a materialistic society. Sunday clothes then began to have too much emphasis. It is very common for good things in churches to gradually get changed around for the bad. It is man's sinful flesh that we must just always deal with.
I just wanted to point out the Evangelical history in America. I think we sometimes forget that in our Grandparents and great Grandparents day things were different. America has changed and become very materialistic and selfish and, well... now we are broke!
Joanne was talking about a cultural shift. Well, I think we may be seeing the beginnings of it as our economy and America begins to decline. If the Asian countries begin to own us, I doubt we will have our freedoms for very long. Churches meeting in homes may soon become a need.
PLEASE DISREGARD THE 1ST WRITE UP
Pastor Bunmi Owolabi
Well, I am not a theologian, but I am a believer. I believe going to church is never a ticket to heaven, but let every man be persuaded.
My understanding of the reason there was no organized church in the apostolic days was because of the persecution believers of that time were going through.
Up till now, this type of churches still operate -UNDERGROUND CHURCHES in some of the Asian countries. In fact, I have a pastor friend/brother -Pastor Adelaja who grew up in an underground church in Ukraine. He now pastors the largest church in Europe.
In Jesus days, the people worshipped in the synagogue. In fact, the first official sermon of Jesus was preached in the synagogue/church.
Getting involved in a house fellowship where every Tom, Dick and Harry is allowed to share the concept of their faith, or better said, preach or teach makes me a little uncomfortable. Why? There are a lot of doctrines on the street according to 1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;...
Also, the key to our faith is fruitfulness, which is keyed to discipleship. Is there a system in place that allows for this?
Moreover, what about the issue of accountability? When people are raised not to be accountable to spiritual authority, they can not grow up to be effective leaders. You can not lead people if you don’t learn to submit to a higher authority -those God has placed over you in the church.
Tithing: Is this addressed with members or neglected?
Does your vision has the uttermost part of the world in mind, or is limited to your Jerusalem?
These and many other technical questions are my personal concerns.
However, if you are being led to go this route, may the Lord prosper you in Jesus name. I know the veil of religion prevents many Christians from hearing from God, and following His directions.
The scripture says, 'those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.' —Rom 8:14
Bunmi Owolabi
Pastor
Kingdom Embassy
www.kingdomembassychurch.org
1 Tim 5:3-16 speaks of how to treat widows within the church. Verse 9 says to not take certain widows into the number. That isn't an argument for a membership list, but it does show that they kept track of people.
Acts 2 tells us that those who were saved were added to the church. That can only mean that the people were added to something. They weren't just added to an idea.
Also, you mentioned discipline. Your church wouldn't think to discipline people outside of itself would it? That is because each church is to answer exclusively to Christ. So a membership is necessary. A person must be part of a church. My church cannot and will not discipline those outside of my church.
Post a Comment