Evidence for God from Science

Second, I think everyone can agree that there are some who are specially gifted in the area of teaching. Whether they are elders or not, the question of how they are to function in this "organic church" (I appreciate the sentiment in the phrase--I just really don't like it, but labels are what they are). One of the nagging questions I had while reading PC was why the heavy emphasis on "the meeting"? Is a teacher (or teachers) to teach at every meeting? If not, what must be done at every meeting? What if there is no singing? What if there is no exhortation? What if people just meet, have a good meal, and leave? Viola seems to think that isn't "really" church. This, I think, may be an issue that needs serious clarification--when you promote non-organization as your organization, are you not bordering on self-contradiction? Just as "non-denominationalism" turns out to be its own type of denomination, so "non-organization" turns out to be an organization in and of itself.

In that case, I have a specific question about a particular function of the elder. In what sense is he to be obeyed?

Full disclosure: I'm pretty sure Viola and I will have strong disagreement here. I do not agree with a congregational style rule. I believe firmly in an elder rule. I wouldn't call the elders a distinct class of Christians (i.e., the laity/clergy distinction), but I would say that these are people who are operating in a very specific capacity within the local church. That is, I think they have real authority, not just more influence. I do realize that Viola doesn't like authority in human realms, especially as it relates to Christianity. That's just a standard theological position (egalitarianism) that I firmly disagree with (which goes back to our debate over The Shack and the egalitarian view of the Trinity, which I openly call heresy).

WillyG wrote:Age,

You'll certainly hear no disagreement from me regarding the need for a Shepherd to tend to His flock. But if we usurp that role, or give in to the temptation to institutionalize it, we risk making ourselves the head of the Church rather than allowing Jesus to be the Head. In such circumstances, I often think of Uzzah, who "reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God." I think we can all relate to Uzzah. He saw the Ark of the Covenant in danger, and he reached out to steady it. But his act treated God like God didn't exist--like He was powerless to care for the Ark Himself. He acted on a human, not a divine, impulse. We should avoid Uzzah's mistake. If God tells us to steady the Ark, we are His instrument in steadying it. But if we simply look around and see that the Ark is falling with nothing to steady it, and we take it upon ourselves to remedy the problem, we walk where angels fear to tread.

WillyG wrote:God is there. God is the Good Shepherd, and He can tend to His flock. As Christians, we worry too much. God is in control. He doesn't need us to steady the Ark. He can bear it up on angels' wings, if need be. As John said, "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." As Bart has already amply explained, the Lord has given gifts to the Church (preaching, teaching, shepherding, etc) not in the form of offices, but in the form of people given by God to the Church to satisfy Her needs. We have people in the church in DC whom we respect and listen to--some would probably call them "elders." We don't offer them any title (or compensation), and, praise God, they don't ask for either one! They don't "lord it over us like the Gentiles do." They are brothers and sisters, meeting a need. Likewise, I am sure God has shepherded me many times using the encouragement and teaching of other brothers and sisters. These things happen naturally; no one has (yet) printed up business cards.

• The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. (1 Tim 5:17)

• Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb 13:17)

• To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Pet 5:1-3)

WillyG wrote:Age,

Unfortunately, another WillyG. I wish I could put on a concert!

I may be naive. But what I described has not led me or others astray (as far as I can discern) over the past several years of meeting. Satan does prowl about like a lion, but he is not God's equal. We can't go wrong trusting in God. That isn't a call to inaction; it's just a call to act on spiritual, rather than human, impulses.

Love you all!

In Christ,

Will

WillyG wrote:Danny,

Thanks for taking the time to read my post. I'll offer two clarifications.

When I mentioned "false teachings," I meant to draw a distinction between those and outright falsehoods, like, "Christ was not the Messiah," or "God is not three Persons." When the sharing during the meeting addresses basic matters of doctrine, that sharing tends to focus on the nature, sacrifice, and resurrection of Christ. As I stated earlier, I have yet to encounter a situation in several years of organic church life where sharing contradicts the basic precepts of Christian religion. If we did have such a situation, I think the Body would handle it as I mentioned in my earlier post. Probably not much need to elaborate.

However, we all encounter the false teachings I referenced earlier in any church (institutional, organic, or otherwise) we might attend. We listen to a sermon that perhaps echoes the basic precepts of Christianity, yet it misses the point. The words grieve our Spirit. We want to get out of there. I am sure all of us have experienced this before. Nothing being said DIRECTLY contradicts any Christian creeds, but the spirit of the words invalidates what we know to be the truth of God in Christ.

An example might help. In most American churches, the teaching tends to focus on either 1) sins to avoid or 2) Christian disciplines to practice. The messages are works-oriented. They seem to convey the thinking, "If you [do/don't do] this [Christian discipline/sin behavior], God will be more satisfied with you." Yet we know that Christ is already fully-satisfied with us--there is absolutely nothing our finite lives and behaviors can do to add to or detract from the infinite nature of His sacrifice (do not take this as an endorsement of license). But the bottom-line point of this example is that a message about my behaviors seems to indirectly cast doubt on the perfect the work of Christ. To me, that is a false teaching.

Our response in the institutional/consumer model of church is probably to look for another church, because institutional churches are disposable. There are probably tens of thousands for me to choose from in the DC metro area, so I can go somewhere else that tickles my ears a little more pleasantly (or, in a more pious vernacular, that doesn't grieve my Spirit as much).

But in an organic church, the point isn't the goodness or badness of the teaching. The point isn't that the singing is great, that it makes me feel happy inside. The point isn't for me to personally grow into a spiritual giant. The point is for Christ's need to be satisfied. What is His need? He wants one Body, composed of many members. He wants one Bride, perfectly proportional and seamless. "Foxes have holes, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head." He wants a home. WE (not I) are that Home. We are His Body. We are His Bride. That's why His spends the last hours of His earthly life begging and praying for unity, that we may be one as He and His Father are one. When you hurt me and I turn the other cheek, or when you say something that is false and my Spirit says, "Let it be," even when the old man screams, "Strike him down! Falsehood!!!" THAT is the peace that surpasses understanding. That peace isn't some flaky emotion, meaningful to me but meaningless to US. The peace that means something to Christ is the peace in our relationship with each other. The peace He craves is His love, expressed in you to me and in me to you.

That peace expresses itself when I place His need above my "wish dream." The term is short-hand for a concept described by Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his book "Life Together." At this link (http://www.hiswayministries.org/fddisillusion.htm), there is a VERY short essay that encapsulates the whole message of his book. Bottom line: the false teachings we lash out against most in church are not central elements of Christian theology--they are minor disagreements blown out of proportion because they contradict our vision of the church. We ALL have a wish dream--we all want the church to look like the perfect image in our heads, and anything that contradicts that perfect image we call "false teaching." If you preach a social gospel, and I believe in conservatism, then I use the Scripture to tear you apart, and you do likewise. That is the whole, entire history of Christendom in a nutshell. Which is why we have 33,000 denominations and a history just as bloody and sinful as any false religion. What a testimony.

When I say we bear with false teaching, what I mean is that I permit others to trample my wish dream (in my more Christ-centered moments). Because I am human, sometimes I don't, and then they let me trample their wish dream. All of this is better known as the Cross. The Church is One Body, perfected in love, because you are my Cross to bear. When I permit your false teaching, I actually "take up the Cross and follow Him." He didn't respond to His accusers, either. In fact, as they insulted and murdered Him, He prayed, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they are doing." THAT is the peace that surpasses understanding. THAT is church life.

I apologize again that I have taken so long to describe a very simple concept: bearing with one another. "Though He slay me, yet shall I love Him." And when we hear the many members say that to one another, we see church life, whether it occurs in a building or in a family room. The life, not the location, make the gathering satisfying to Christ.

Love you all. Hope this helps.

In Christ,

Will

Canuckster1127 wrote:Danny,

No worries on the typos. I'm the king of that myself. I often put my head down and plough through something I'm trying to say and my spelling and grammar suffer for it if I don't go back and clean up and I don't always so no apologies needed.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Were there church locations before Constantine? I think there is evidence that there might have been. There's no evidence within the NT itself of any. In PC, Viola and Barna say that the first recorded use of the word ekklesia to the refer to a Christian meeting place was Clement of Alexandria around AD 190. In that instance though, he wasn't referring to a dedicated building. He was referring to a home.

According to PC, and it's extensively footnoted, there were no dedicated building for christians meeting until after 300 AD. It indeed didn't become common until Constantine and the reason is pretty obvious, in that there was persecution and many of the meetings were underground figuratively (and in the case of the church in Rome, literally.)

So, of course believers met in buildings and not in the open. The issue isn't that buildings are bad. They're tools. God doesn't dwell in buildings. I would even say that I don't think it's "wrong" necessarily for a body of believers to own a building. I think, and some of this is emotional for me because I've been personally involved in building millions of dollars of religious buildings, that in retrospect when the church (as a body of believers) becomes tied to a building that some very predictable and undesirable things happen. The ongoing expense requires that decisions be made to maintain that building. So, in order to justify the expense most of the meetings of that body then become tied to the building and the meeting in homes and more intimate levels of fellowship are bypassed and the body, I believe suffers for that. The focus shifts to numbers and efficiency in providing the programs and services based out of that building to generate by means of the offerings and the fees related to the activities needed to continue to support the building (and also the staff needed to maintain the building and the programs that attract those who are now consumers to the building.) Decisions made by the organizational structure based in that building are now guided by the elephant in the room at every meeting and in every decision that that elephant has to eat. It's subtle (although not always) but that explains the measure that begins to guide other decisions. Elders or whatever that particular tradition holds to in terms of polity, are now selected not just on their spiritual qualifications, but if there are people in the church who are known to be rich or contribute strongly there's a strong temptation to put them into positions as opposed to others because their contributions or their talents in managing business affairs are seen as very desirable and that elephant has to keep eating and so without even often stating those reasons, there's a hierarchy that can form based upon the ability of leaders to personally or by their business acumen to be placed into position that they may or may not be qualified spiritually to do. When conflicts arise within the body, that elephant sits in the room as well as to what actions the other leadership will or will not take to address and resolve issues.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Am I simplifying things? Yes. However, Jesus seemed to have a lot to say about deferring to the wealthy in giving them positions of honor at the table for instance, didn't He? I can tell you without hesitation that I've seen these dynamics at work, inexorably and undeniably in many contexts within Churches where the slightest suggestion that this was taking place would be met with indignation and vehement denial. It would very rarely ever be said openly in any meeting and especially not before the congregation at large. In practice however, I can tell you in several different contexts and organizations that as the treasurer or administrator, which I many times was, when positions of leadership were being vetted, I was asked quietly to check the giving records to report back whether the nominee was giving to the church and if the amount being given was indicative of a tithe. The reason given was that someone who was not tithing was not spiritually committed to the Church and should not be leading. Now set aside that perhaps this was a legitimate reason in the minds of some (and set aside that it's debatable that this is a purely Biblical standard for eldership or leadership.) One of the practical results in many situations is that leadership in asking me to do this (and I did it so I'm not denying my own complicity) was pushing right against the public declarations they made that giving to the Church was private and not looked at by Church leadership. Also, consider that this assumed that those giving anonymously through loose cash and who chose to keep their acts of charity between them and God (as for example, a certain Jesus encouraged acts of charity to be done to avoid doing them for influence and praise from men) and effectively disqualified some from leadership for causes which they themselves were unaware as they were never told that this was taking place. Do you see a problem with that? I do and I see it tied into the structre established which is driven in many cases by the need for a cash flow to pay the 80% average of most churches that goes immediately off the top of every dollar given for staff salaries and building maintenance.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Forgive me for making this example the key as there are many other ways to look at things. I bring this up because it was at the heart and core of much that I did and my role in the church. I could tell some very more detailed stories of some horrific things that I just became jaded to over the years because my role and the needs of the organization dictated it and it went with the job. Does that make me emotionally involved and perhaps not completely objective? Perhaps, but then too, it also makes me very unpopular as a great deal of that elephant in the room requires a complicit agreement of all in leadership to not speak openly of it.

Sorry for that. That was quite a rabbit to chase based on what you say, and it probably says more about me than it does the issue to some but so be it.

Jac3510 wrote:Will,

Thanks for the reply. Let me just hone in on the issue of eldership and authority. What do you make of the following verses?

• The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. (1 Tim 5:17)

While this verse is (justifiably, I think) often used to defend clergy salaries, the more important phrase for our discussion is "direct the affairs of the church." Who is to do that? The elders. Contrary to congregationalist ideas, the whole congregation doesn't make the choices. Paul here says the elders are to do that (which is why they are so carefully chosen/recognized).

• Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb 13:17)

Does this not flatly say that some men have authority over others? The context is hardly secular. Note in verse seven the word "leader" (same in Greek) is expressly used there to refer to those who "speak the word of Christ to you" (sounds like evangelists/teachers).

• To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Pet 5:1-3)

Again, is this not plain? Notice what Peter says about elders:

1. The flock is under their care;
2. They are oveerseers of said flock;
3. The assignment over overseeing a flock under them is from God;
4. They are not do to this work out of a desire for money (which presupposes payment), but out of a desire for service;
5. This function is capable of being abused, in that these men can "lord it over" the flock. This presupposes power, which is consistent with the rest of the NT.

As much as Mr. Viola rightly points out that we read our own cultures into the Bible when we justify things like sermons, ceo-styled pastorates, and church buildings, I'm afraid he might be reading a bit of his own egalitarianism (which is a strictly 21st century phenomenon!) into the text! I don't think NT Christianity or the NT Church is one without authority, or even one without human authority (it wasn't in the Garden; it wasn't in Israel; it wasn't during Jesus' earthly ministry; it won't be during the Millennium; why should we expect it to be one now?!?). But authority, which is all from God and given from Him, is to be administered in a God-honoring way by following Christ's examples.

Now, I know you disagree, so I'm interested in your take on those verses especially. And, I'll say to you as you are fairly new to the thread, the reason I asked Bart to start this in the first place is that I am broadly sympathetic to his ideas. I'm more on his side than not. I'm interested in how many of these things get played out. I just think this is one area where he might be mistaken.

Thanks again.