Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 4/2/2003 6:32 AM (GMT -6)

I'm not a theologian or church historian, so I'll defer in this thread to those of you more qualified. I wanted to interact a bit with some thoughts Boyd presented in another thread.

quote:
It's important in discussing "the biblical approach" to issues and "what the church should do" to keep in mind what biblical authors had in mind when they thought of "church." It wasn't a group of 5,000 people, 99% of whom don't know the other 99%. It was HOUSE CHURCHES probably consisting of 10 to (at the most) 50 believers. They met daily and shared lives together. In this context, people KNOW each other, TRUST each other, and thus are able to ENCOURAGE and COMFRONT each other with wisdom. THIS is the true "church" of Christianity. Weekend gatherings of hundreds or thousands serve a purpose, but it can't be to be provide the fellowship and accountability each individual (and marriage) needs.

[A person's] "church" may have let her down (or not... how would anyone other than they know?). But it doesn't make sense to me to hold a weekend gathering of mostly strangers accountable for whatever good or ill advice she received.

Here's what I thought when I read this (although I agree with part of it in principle).

5000 is probably too big for a church. Churches should take pains to remain small enough to allow for accountability and fellowship and discourage anonymity. Just sponsoring and encouraging home studies of 10 people is a band aid and not the best way to "do church"
Having said that, I don't think 10 people is the best church either. You're almost certainly missing out on some spiritual gifts at that level, if nothing else. House churches also seem prone to idiosyncratic beliefs and practices, and other issues that I'll not detail here unless others are interested.
(Here I'm asking for correction) It doesn't seem to me that the 10-50 number is really what the NT writers had in mind, at least, not exclusively. Several refer to churches by city, as if the group of believers in a geographical area shared traits (being generous, notably). They also, across a city, shared their lives. I mean, we have the letter to Corinth, not the letter to Joe's House (not being facetious). My point is just that I'm not sure that upholding smallish numbers as the "biblical way" to do church holds water, regardless of whether we think it is more or less prone to accountability.

I wonder if the emphasis shouldm't be on the qualities of a group, not its numbers. I've been in churches of several hundred where there was (to use Boyd's list) trust, encouragement and confrontation. There was also leadership trained to deal with difficult issues who were esteemed as the leader by the fellowship.

Now, it also seems to me, that once a church gets to be large (5000), more and more of its activities are relegated to professionals and experts. Counseling is handled by 'counselors' who, depending on denomination and local laws, are more or less professionally trained. There may even be 'marriage counselors' vs.'family counselors' or 'singles counselors' and other subspecialties.

I'll leave my ruminations on the Culture of Expertise for another thread. Suffice to say, the division of labor necessary in mega churches may be a problem that reveals itself in neglect and not treating a person as a whole person. There is a difficult-to-avoid anonymity that such a 'gathering of NECESSARILY strangers' normalizes, regardless of how often Home Bible Studies are promoted from the podium.

Finally, while I agree with Boyd that 'it doesn't make sense to hold the gathering accountable', I'm not sure if the system itself isn't prone to such problems.

Terry
"Be God's"

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 4/2/2003 12:58 PM (GMT -6)

My pastor really believes that home groups are the backbone of our church. He teaches that when a person comes to church – even one with 500 people – they fall between the cracks when they need to be ministered to, taught, and have their walk put into the light. So once a week, I go to a house meeting that has about 8 couples, and we do just that.

*****************

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 4/2/2003 1:05 PM (GMT -6)

Just a question for now. Seeing as we pretty much have a diagnosis of the problem. What would you prescribe for the cure?

quote:
"...the division of labor necessary in mega churches may be a problem that reveals itself in neglect and not treating a person as a whole person."

What specifically do you mean? How so?

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 4/7/2003 8:16 AM (GMT -6)

Come back now ya'all ya hear?

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 4/8/2003 6:55 PM (GMT -6)

Good questions Terry. Totally with you. Yet, the early church DID meet in large groups, when possible (e.g. Solomon's porch). Its just that they understood the basic unit of "the church" to be in houses, where they met daily, broke bread together, supported each other, etc...

Acts seems to hold the "large group" and "small group" in balance. They REGULARLY met in their houses, yet did things (such as supporting one another, pooling their resources) as a "city church" -- a large group.

This is the balance I think we need to strive for. There are a lot of advantages to having a unified large group, and its biblical. But if this is the exclusive definition of "church," you're going to get screwed up. Only in smaller groups can intimate love, commitment, support, and accountability be exercised. When Paul writes to e.g. "the Church at Corinth," he's speaking to all the house churches in Corinth. All his teachings about encouraging and disciplining one another have to be understood in this context. When people try to apply these teachings to large groups, we get strangers confronting strangers on issues they know nothing about have no business offering opinions about. We motivate people to be moral police of others, looking for dust particles and ignoring their own tree trunks.

There's a good role large gathers can play -- but church discipline isn't one of them.

Blessings,
Greg

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/9/2003 1:55 AM (GMT -6)

Greg: There's a good role large gathers can play -- but church discipline isn't one of them.

PoW: The one exception that is obvious is communion. Sometimes that too was in smaller groups, but it was the whole church in that city that was the essential unit, gathered around the Bishop. Even if it were the Bishops's Presbyters, or even the Deaconesses, it was STILL from the whole Body. So, that's to be considered.

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 4/9/2003 8:00 AM (GMT -6)

I've been thinking I should have given this thread a much more generic name. All I could think of were phrases that brought to mind the old cliche that 'size matters' so I gave up rather quickly.

Brandon: I'm personally distrustful of mega-churches. I think a gathering of over a few hundred weekly attenders, unless those folks are carefully integrated into the life of the church, is prone to problems.

Brandon & Greg Boyd: I'm not saying "big church = bad" though. I'm saying "anonymity = bad". It's a symptom of Modernity that we have allowed in to the church, much like moral relativism, consumerism and the ubiquitous Ministry by Marital Status mentality.

We probably also allow anonymity because the cults--read: Mormons--are so noticeably anti-anonymity. There, elders will visit your house if you don't show up two weeks in a row.

Furthermore, I'm not against experts or expertise, per se. I do suspect gifted counselors are hardly more effective for all their schooling and ungifted counselors probably only draw on their education to avoid really damaging someone deeply or for avoiding lawsuits.

Just so, doesn't it seem reasonable that in a gathering of a few dozen Christians, there would probably be some gifted in 'exhortation' and/or confrontation? Put another way: does it trouble anyone that we would place the burden for Life Change, Confrontation, and Accountability on a group of 10 people meeting once a week? I've been in groups of 10 where I wouldn't trust a single person to make an accurate assessment of the Bible lat alone my spirtual needs.

Greg: By nature, I value and appreciate authority. I appreciate being confronted by someone in leadership who has the education and gifts to fulfill that role. An amorphous shared-life-interaction-fellowship model seems flawed; small groups can fulfill psychological and social needs, but political needs (confrontation, discipline) seem hopelessly out of place in a home Bible study. In fact, on that topic, I think I'm of the exact opposite opinion of your original post (quoted above). I'd rather have qualified semi-strangers confronting strangers than unqualified friends confronting friends.

(This raises the question for me: am I wrong for not wanting my Bible Study group to be my accountability/authority, or is the model wrong? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?)

So to me, the best solution is to split the difference. Keep churches from getting too big and see anonymity as the threat to (productive, scriptural) Christian life that it is.

More later, I hope.

Terry

bob
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46

Posted 4/9/2003 11:33 AM (GMT -6)

Terry: I thought you made some excellent points.

You said: "...does it trouble anyone that we would place the burden for Life Change, Confrontation, and Accountability on a group of 10 people meeting once a week? I've been in groups of 10 where I wouldn't trust a single person to make an accurate assessment of the Bible lat alone my spirtual needs."

Yes, it "troubles" me. I have been in some small groups where I wouldn't "trust" anyone to make an accurate assessment. I have been in small groups where the leader has very weak leadership skills and where within the group were very small "cliques" in which it was hard to connect with them on an intimate level because they were usually always together and exclusive of intimacy with others. Niceties- yes. Social graces and friendliness- yes. Warmth- yes. But not true intimacy that would lend itself to a person wanting to share their sins and sorrows.

This is not to say that small groups are all like this, but I don't believe they are a "cure" for the problems of a large church. Most small groups are led by a lay person who might not have a gift for teaching/exhortation or might lack in other areas affecting their leadership ability.

Many things were said and I only commented on a few for lack of time.

bob
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 46

Posted 4/9/2003 2:20 PM (GMT -6)

A really good link on a paper thoroughly explaing "church discipline" in detail (including the whys, whens, and hows) by J. Hampton Keathley III, Th.M., a 1966 graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and a former pastor of 28 years. It's on the Bible Study Fellowship (BSF) site and is very good!

www.bible.org/docs/theology/eccles/churdisc.htm

Also, GREG... can you let me know how you have learned that the Corinthian church referred to house churches? I have never heard that before by any teacher or pastor although I have heard it taught that the church in Acts was in homes. How did you come across this info? Is it explained in the Greek? I can't definitely say that it's not true, but am wondering as to how one would obtain that information (the Greek? Or some other words that Paul uses that clarify this?)? Is there a particular verse that I am overlooking that explains this?

timlings
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130

Posted 4/14/2003 11:33 AM (GMT -6)

hello everybody

I've been rather out of the loop for the last while, doing crrrrrrrazzzy stuff with YWAM. But such is life.

But I thought I would add some stuff about church.

greg: Its just that they understood the basic unit of "the church" to be in houses, where they met daily, broke bread together, supported each other, etc...

Tim: Yes! That's something I'm beginning to get excited about. Doing church as in living communal lives with other people in homes. We need to meet as bigger groups, but it's got to be more than that.

In my third year as a student, I lived in a house of 4 with other Christians, and we tried to make it as much of a community as possible. Although we still led quite independent lives, we prayed together loads and generally encouraged each other to grow in God. It was cool.

And I want to do that again, but with more of a church backing and with more of an outward focus. Do you think that was what church was like in NT times?

love

Tim

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/5/2003 5:39 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Terry_Baxter

I'm not a theologian or church historian, so I'll defer in this thread to those of you more qualified. I wanted to interact a bit with some thoughts Boyd presented in another thread.

quote:
-------------------------------------------------
It's important in discussing "the biblical approach" to issues and "what the church should do" to keep in mind what biblical authors had in mind when they thought of "church." It wasn't a group of 5,000 people, 99% of whom don't know the other 99%. It was HOUSE CHURCHES probably consisting of 10 to (at the most) 50 believers. They met daily and shared lives together. In this context, people KNOW each other, TRUST each other, and thus are able to ENCOURAGE and COMFRONT each other with wisdom. THIS is the true "church" of Christianity. Weekend gatherings of hundreds or thousands serve a purpose, but it can't be to be provide the fellowship and accountability each individual (and marriage) needs.
-------------------------------------------------

Here's what I thought when I read this (although I agree with part of it in principle).

5000 is probably too big for a church.

Having said that, I don't think 10 people is the best church either.

For the sake of having something to think about, I'd like to present something that can, in itself, challenge part of the above. OK?

The way the early Church writing presents it, the Church was the WHOLE Church in a particular place. It was not 1st Baptist, 2nd Baptist, etc. It was the WHOLE thing, gathered around the Bishop/pastor in the Eucharistic fellowship. Logistics always, always present challenges. But what they wrote about the Church says THAT; and not something else.

We should stand challenged by that for a moment.

And part of that challenge is that the Eucharist is THE assembly most constitutive of the Church. And it is by far the most "intimate." It is the assembly where the "Church Militant" (living) and the "Church Triuphant" (departed) all join together with the angels and fellowship with the risen Lord. It is church with Mom, and Grandma, and Grandpa, and the Saints we've heard of, and those who's witness is real but unknown to us.

That said, the reality of the Church's inovations in some real challenging logistical situations is also an opportunity to stand in awe, for a moment. In Constantinople, the "Whole" City would assemble in the Great Church (Holy Wisdom) and process through the streets in worship to the Church who's name-sake Saint was observed on that day. Talk about tying everyone together (imperfectly of course--but lay that aside for a moment!) and bringing the Church out into the world!

(Remember, too, that one predecessor of the Church was the Temple. That was large.)

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 5/5/2003 8:18 PM (GMT -6)

There may be several issues about "church" that are merely a continuation of thought first presented by the reformers of the 1500's. Many of the reformers were instrumental in teaching large numbers of people who had nowhere else to attend, i.e. it was a unique situation. The outgrowth of that situation was the state church, much like what the reformers had opposed in the Roman Catholic Church.

The Reformed Church at Amsterdam during Arminius' day might serve as an example of the general situation. "The invitation, which was accordingly extended to him, met the most strenuous opposition from the authorities of Amsterdam, at whose disposal, as has been stated, Arminius had, in youth, placed his services for life." source The political and ecclesiastical dominance of the state church would discourage any other church/house gathering (see Menno Simons as an example: "On 7 December 1542, one hundred guilders were offered by the authorities of Leeuwarden for the apprehension of Menno, who appeared by night at different places to preach and baptize. This indicates that Menno returned to his native province of Friesland at times in all secrecy but only for a short time. Menno found no permanent home during this time in any of the Dutch provinces." source) As a result, we find the various denominations enjoyed their "church" buildings while others were consigned to "secrecy" in their meetings, due to persecution.

The concept of church buildings is foreign to the New Testament. There was only one Temple for the whole of Israel, which would hardly be attended by those in the more distant areas except for certain feast days. The synagogue served the function for regular meetings and was part of continuing Israel's national identity. The Church has no national identity to continue and has no need for wasting God's money on seldomly used (Sunday and mid-week meetings) edifices. The Amish are good examples of a church that moves the meeting place, along with the benches and song books, from house to house every week.

EDIT: Why were the url's printed? Is there a different format for this BBS?

EDIT 2: I think I got it this time! Thanks!

Edited by - Paul5388 on 05/06/2003 7:56:18 PM

Magneton
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/6/2003 7:17 AM (GMT -6)

Paul,
Try putting the URL in quotes: [url="http://www. etc.

See the FAQ for examples.

Magneton

"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." - T. S. Eliot

Laplace
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138

Posted 5/15/2003 1:06 PM (GMT -6)

Just briefly,

1. Didn't see this listed explcitly, but if you are a Believer (Christian) you ARE a part of THE CHURCH whether you go to a building or not (with Christ as the chief cornerstone). This is regardless of denomination or viewpoints on non-fundamental doctrines. This helps us a bit in perspective. Furthermore, I believe that when "2 or more are gather together in His name" you have a church gathering right there.

2. It is true that the original model was probably a "House Church" one as the Romans (and Jewish authority) certainly wouldn't let a public steeple be made. However, based upon the writings of Paul to certain churches, it seems that some these gatherings were quite large (sidenote: It might partly explain Paul's strange command for "women to be silent" in the church. Not as a direct put down of women, but simply to help maintain order as certain churches [like Corinth] must've gotten quite rowdy)

3. The idea of formalized leaders or "Bishops" came into place when it was important to establish authority within a gathering area or place because of the amount of false teachings that were around. They would also be key points of contact for correspondence between churches. Unfortunately, the issue of authority became a big point of division in the Reformation years.

4. The first major church split was in 1054 over political/social (and some minor doctrinal issues), where we got the Catholic and Eastern (Greek) Orthodox churches. The next in the 1500's with the Protestant split from Catholicism (the authority bit). And later, in the Pentacostal movement in the early 20th century.

5. During the entire church era, there have always been other denominations and cults. Some of these survived for many years (400 in some cases) before dissolving. What's interesting is that if you look at these recurring errant viewpoints, they are just repackaged today in different forms (New Age, Jehovah Witness, etc.)

Conclusion: I wouldn't worry too much about finding the IDEAL church, but simply a good one. Define good? One that adheres to the truth of Scripture, builds up and equips Believers, and is a visible light to the world (more I'm sure, but just a few major ones to throw out).

P.S. It's also why I'm non-denominational.

"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 5/15/2003 4:00 PM (GMT -6)

Laplace,

You seem to have forgotten the first split from Protestantism (Zwingli) on Jan 5, 1527 over infant baptism.

quote:
Zurich's city hall decided that infant baptism was the proper interpretation of scripture. Felix and his associates argued that only a person beyond the age of responsibility should be baptized. After a small group met in his house and rebaptized each other despite the government's policy on infant baptism, and then refused to baptize their babies, the City Council arrested a majority of their leaders, including Felix. They sentenced him to bread and water until he should "die and rot." When Felix escaped, he was recaptured and sentenced to die as we have seen.source

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual