;)
The One True Church
Posted by David Rogers in Baptist Life
What I am going to say here is something that may be a new idea to some of you. However, I am convinced that it has a sound biblical basis, and that its implications for us regarding the way we conceive of and carry out Christian ministry can be important. I already wrote a little bit about this on several comments on SelahV’s post, LET THE AX FALL…Upon All the Dead Churches?, the other day. But here is the “official” version…
The Baptist Faith & Message speaks of two different “levels” of church:
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.
The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation..
I believe that as we study the Bible, we indeed see these two “levels” of church. Some in Baptist history, such as B. H. Carroll, and those involved in the Landmark movement of the 19th century, have placed an almost exclusive emphasis on the first aspect or “level,” typically called the “local church.” In an important way, though, I believe that the second sense, what we typically call the Church Universal, is the most transcendent for us as we seek to understand the spiritual reality that is the Body of Christ.
It is difficult in one blogpost to lay out even half-way adequately the rationale for the ecclesiology I am about to reference here. Australian theologian John Woodhouse does an excellent job, though, in a brilliant series of 3 articles that can be accessed here.
Some of the main propositions in Woodhouse’s exposition are the following:
- Jesus is in the process of building his Church, which God is gathering to himself down through history.
- The way the Church is built up is through the preaching of the gospel.
- The Church is built up whenever anyone believes the gospel, and occupies his/her place as a living stone along with all the rest who have also believed the gospel.
- This Church is not to be identified with, and is in no way dependent upon, any institution in this world.
- Local gatherings of believers are visible expressions of the One True Church, which has both a visible and invisible aspect to it.
What I am proposing in this post picks up from where Woodhouse leaves off. I believe that, in addition to what we typically call the “local church” or “congregation,” there are various other ways in which the One True Church is expressed on earth.
One of these is through what I call the “present-day global church.” The Landmarkers, and some other Baptists, have insisted that, beyond the local congregation, the only other legitimate “church” is an eschatological reality that will never actually come into being until the final day, after Jesus returns; and, thus, is largely irrelevant for us today. However, if Jesus is currently in the process of building this church, I think that the part of it that exists today, even though currently “scattered” throughout the globe, is a very legitimate and important aspect or expression of that even broader eschatological reality.
While I do not believe the “present-day global church” is authentically represented by such institutions as the Roman Catholic Church, the World Council of Churches, or any particular denomination, I do think that events and organizations like the Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization, or the World Evangelical Alliance, help make the expression of the “present-day global church” a more tangible reality for us as born-again evangelical believers. I also think that world missions in general, and cooperation and fellowship between Christians of different tribes and nations, is an important way to further this mindset.
Another way the One True Church is expressed in the world today is through the “city church.” In the New Testament, many of the references to church are to “the church in Antioch,” or “in Corinth,” or “in Ephesus,” etc. While there is good reason to suppose that there were likely a number of different “house churches,” or “home fellowships,” especially in the larger cities, the New Testament never speaks of more than one “church” of each city. Thus, the “church” in Antioch (or Corinth, Ephesus, etc.) was made up of all the different believers living in the city at the time, who met on a regular basis in a series of different “house churches.”
The reality of the “city church” is something that our present-day denominational/congregational system has, to a large extent, de-emphasized and even dismantled. Of course, the events of history, as seen in the development of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Protestant State Church, have had a lot to do with this as well. However, I think we can recover some of the dynamic of the New Testament church by way of active Ministerial Alliances, joint prayer and worship services, city-wide evangelistic campaigns, and other events and activities that bring born-again believers of different races, backgrounds, and denominations together in an expression of unity and solidarity with the One True Church.
Another important way the One True Church is expressed in the world today is through what I am calling here the “house church.” By the term “house church,” though, I do not necessarily mean groups that meet exclusively in private homes.
Biblically, as best as I can tell, the “house churches” were the context, wherever they happened to actually meet, in which the various “one another” injunctions of the New Testament were carried out on a day-to-day basis. They were small enough for the various “members” to know each other intimately, and hold each other accountable for their Christian growth and obedience to the Lord. They regularly “broke bread” together, commemorating the Lord’s death, partaking symbolically of His blood and body. They exercised their spiritual gifts in interactive meetings in which everyone had an opportunity to participate actively.
As I see it, the typical “congregation” in today’s Christian landscape is somewhat of a hybrid between the “city church” and the “house church.” It is not big enough to embrace all of the believers in a particular locality, but, at the same time, is too big for everyone to really know each other and hold each other accountable in a meaningful way.
This does not mean that these “congregations” are necessarily bad things. They serve many useful purposes. They provide a platform for gifted teachers and preachers to exercise their ministry on a level beyond the strictly “house church” level. They provide opportunities to join together with others to carry out ministries that would often be beyond the capability of a “house church” to carry out on its own. They constitute a good meeting place to have contact and extended fellowship with other believers beyond the limited group that make up one’s “house church.” I want to make clear I am not against “local congregations,” nor in favor of doing away with them.
Since most Baptists would agree that denominations per se are not really churches, and due to constraints of time and space, I have decided not to deal here with how the SBC, or other denominational organizations, might fit into this framework. I will have to leave that for another post sometime else.
The main point I am trying to make in all of this, though, is that, in many cases, to a great extent, we have emphasized one aspect or expression of the One True Church to the detriment or neglect of the others. If we are to really be biblically balanced in our ecclesiology, I believe we should give more attention to the “present-day global church,” the “city church,” and the “house church.”
;)
;)
;){kind=logo}
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
David,
Thanks. I peeked at the Woodhouse papers. Actually, I understand more and more your position the more I go behind you. I would challenge anyone here to make sure he/she at least “peeks” at the papers you reference.
I am confused as to precisely why an Anglican expression of ecclesiology is so attractive to you. Perhaps you had this view upon your appointment with the IMB, perhaps not.
I know were I a sitting trustee and you cited Anglicans as a basis for your understanding of the NT church, I’d have been compelled to tease that out a bit with you before I signed on the dotted line.
I also appreciate your springboard of stating the BF&M. But like many hobby-horse preachers I know, citing a “text” and dealing with the text are entirely two different phenomenon.
Your last statement is telling:
Tell me David, which part of the teaser quote of the BF&M is gathered up here in your summary? Is the BF&M not a “biblically balanced” statement of ecclesiology? With an affirmation of both the local church and the cosmic “Body of Christ”–the only two NT expressions–how is this not balanced?
Now, granted you did not specifically say the BF&M is not “biblically balanced”. But your words surely imply such when you write “we have emphasized one aspect or expression of the One True Church to the detriment or neglect of the others.” How so?
The BF&M does not once mention or imply–to my knowledge anyway–the trilogy of which you speak. Thus, I can only conclude “we have emphasized one aspect or expression of the One True Church to the detriment or neglect of the others” and are not really “biblically balanced in our ecclesiology…”
Also, while your “global”-”city”-“house” church trilogy, that I suppose constitutes the “others” that’s been neglected, sounds fascinating, I’m wondering how the first two is, in practice, even slightly different from the interdenominationalism you came out of when you enlisted in the IMB army. As for the latter, it’s easily soaked up into the NT concept of the local church we find in the inspired record.
I find also interesting here, David, similarly to the Anglican paper upon which you depend, a woeful lack of a carefully, teased out biblical exposition of your newly discovered concept–the “trilogy” above.
And, please, David, do not point me to the 17 long, drawn out posts where you’ve written about it on your site. I don’t want that. Nor will others wade through to find it, I’d wager.
Personally, I’d like to see a clear, specific rationale for your trilogy. Nothing long. But something very clear.
Nice assertions here. Sounds really “cooperative” among the mass of professing Christians in the world. But no real rationale.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
Although Woodhouse is an Anglican, I don’t think it is accurate to categorize his ecclesiology as strictly Anglican. At one point, he identifies his ecclesiology as congregational.
“It does not take an Einstein to recognise that what I am presenting is what is often disparagingly called ‘congregationalism’.”
He also is clearly advocating a “believers church” ecclesiology:
“Of course, conversely, a gathering of unbelievers, who have not been gathered by God to himself, who are not sons of God, and where the word of God is not heard, is not a church, no matter how many ecclesiological credentials of ‘apostolic succession’, liturgical magnificence, irreproachable order,impeccable denominational credentials are claimed.”
He also openly opposes the traditional Anglican sacerdotal leadership system:
“Episcopal ordination must cease to be required for full gospel ministry in the local church…Episcopal ordination is the chief structural instrument of the Anglican denomination to control ministry. It was intended to be a form of recognition and authorisation of appropriate persons, properly prepared to be “shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers” (1 Pet 5:2). The Ordinal of 1662 is a superb expression of this function. However once episcopal ordination ceases to serve this purpose, but instead authorises inappropriate persons, and refuses to authorise appropriate persons, then it cannot continue to be the sine qua non of ministry in our churches.”
At this point, I should make clear that I am most decidedly NOT Anglican. I signed the BFM with the one caveat I have made publicly known on various occasions: I do not agree with “closed” or “close” communion, opting to leave participation at the Lord’s Table open to all those who are true born-again believers, and who, according to their own self-examination, determine they have a clear conscience before the Lord in regard to his commands regarding baptism (and other commands).
As I said in the post, “It is difficult in one blogpost to lay out even half-way adequately the rationale for the ecclesiology I am about to reference here.” Much less, in a comment on the post. I hope you have read completely and thoroughly Woodhouse’s papers, because that will help to avert many possible surface misconceptions related to what both he and I are saying.
All in all, though, some of the main biblical planks of what I am saying are reflected in the following analysis:
The city-wide nature of the churches mentioned in the NT. You do not find anything anywhere close to a mention of the “First Baptist Church of Ephesus,” “Second Baptist Church of Ephesus,” etc. What you have are individual “house churches” who consider themselves to be a part of the entire “city church.” In Miletus, Paul calls together the elders of the church. At the time of the writing of Revelation, there was still just one church in Ephesus. Ephesus was a huge city. After two years of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, the Bible tells us that “all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.” Yet, still just one church. Not much of a church planting movement, huh? I think the model I am laying out here is the explanation of this that makes the best sense to me. The one city church of Ephesus was comprised of an entire network of separate “house churches.” The relationship between the “house churches” was not hierarchical, but rather collegial, informal, and organic. The different leaders all knew each other, prayed together, and supported each other. Yet, actual day-to-day “one another” ministry, including accountability and church discipline, took place primarily in the individual “house churches.”
David,
I appreciate your insight on this issue of churches. I do, however, have a question about the ministerial alliances you allude to. I am wrestling with this issue even as I type this, so I do not have an answer just yet. My question is: How can I come before the throne of grace in unity with someone who holds to a radically different interpretation of the Bible? In other words, how can I cooperate with, for instance, a paedobaptist? The very definition of salvation is different.
Again, I am wrestling through this question. i have not joined my local ministerial alliance because of this is unresolved in my mind. How do we have a “city church” that is not in unity about the pivotal issue of salvation?
Tony
Tony,
You ask a very good question about one of the most important pragmatic difficulties involved in carrying out consistently what I am proposing. I do think we need to be clear on the essentials of the gospel, and not have fellowship with those who are heretics. Unfortunately, many ministerial alliances involve just that, fellowship between good, sound, born-again brothers and sisters in Christ, and heretics. I think the doctrinal basis upon which ministerial alliances are formed (at least to the degree they pretend to be an expression of the unity of true Body of Christ) must be solidly evangelical, in the sense of “based upon the gospel.”
On the other hand, although I am decidedly not a paedobaptist, I do not see how “the definition of salvation” of all paedobaptists is necessarily different from mine as a credobaptist. For those who teach baptismal regeneration, yes. But, there are many paedobaptists who do not teach baptismal regeneration.
David,
I concede that Woodhouse may not be “strictly Anglican” in ecclesiology. Fine, David. Will you concede he is not “strictly Baptist” either?
Nor did I suggest you were, Anglican, David. I queried into precisely why you would build an ecclesiology based upon, shall we say, a “nominal” Anglican. Thus, I’d still tease that out with you were I a sitting trustee and you offered your rationale thusly.
As a by-line in your caveat reasoning contra “close” communion, you write that you leave “open to all those who are true born-again believers [to] determine they have a clear conscience before the Lord in regard to his commands regarding baptism (and other commands).”
I’m curious how such a scenario works with paedobaptists. If communion is not withheld from those who hold to non-immersionism, but instead allowing them to “determine they have a clear conscience before the Lord in regard to his commands regarding baptism”, why on earth should we ever refuse them as members of our church? They obviously have “a clear conscience before the Lord in regard to his commands regarding baptism”. Who are we to deny them?
In addition, supposing they are free to “determine they have a clear conscience before the Lord in regard to his “other commands” as well, I do not see how we can exercise any discipline whatsoever in sustaining, as much as humanly possible, a holiness and purity of the ordinances. What do we do with practicing homosexuals who “determine they have a clear conscience before the Lord in regard to his [sexual] commands”?
Your final paragraph, David, did not clear things up for me, I’m sorry to say. In fact, my confusion is increased. In my view, your attempt to dig a hole in Scripture and plant your ecclesiological rose bush failed. You write:
First, the fact that “First Baptist Church” of Anytown in not found in the NT is not to be taken seriously, is it, David? I trust you were only being a bit facetious. Secondly, you mention what we do have are “’house churches’” who consider themselves to be a part of the entire ‘city church’”. That churches which met in houses existed in apostolic times is not questioned (Rom. 16.5; Col. 4.15).
However, that these “house churches” are as plentiful as you imply is an assumption the text does not seem to bear out.
Even more significantly, that these churches which did meet in houses somehow “consider[ed] themselves to be a part of the entire “city church.” is an assumption, David, for which you possess absolutely no proof whatsoever.
Nor is it possible. You need an explicit statement somewhere saying “house churches considered themselves to be a part of the entire “city church”. Where might one find such in the NT? How do you know what they considered if they never tell us?
You also assume, without warrant, it seems to me, that there existed in Ephesus one single church:
Afterward, you conclude:
David, the only evidence you seem to possess for the entire infrastructure of your argument above is that Luke employs “church” as singular. That’s it. That’s all that’s there.
Yet from that one insight, you deduce an entire catalogue of assertions for which you possess no evidence:
Where is the evidence for any of this that took place, David? How do you know the relationship between the “city” church and the “house” church” was “collegial, informal, organic”? What does that even mean? What evidence do you possess?
I could just as well assert the relationship was the opposite and my evidence would be no less substantial than yours. I have none; but neither do you.
In the end, from what I have seen thus far, my brother—and know I do not want to be unkind—you’d have been a lot better off staying home with the Baptist Dagg and not have wandered off into the forest with the Anglican Woodhouse.
I must say, though, the strangest thing about this entire statement is your explanation focus on the local small assemblies and the “city church”.
Frankly, it should interest us all how such a focus is significantly different from “Witness Lee’s” local church philosophy. Note carefully this statement:
David, I could quote a heck of a lot more. Suffice it to say, the way I understand your ecclesiology, you may consider a few more caveats to the BF&M.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
David,
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN
Let the Holy Spirit convict those that are Born Again as to the correct Baptism according to God’s Word and their interpretation as revealed by the Holy Spirit.
I was going to repost here what I commented about the House Church, over on SBC Today’s Blog,
Wayne
Peter,
I am a person who likes to reflect and analyze and seek actively after the truth. My search for the truth, and the grace of God in my life, has led me to the heart-faith conclusion that God’s Word as objectively clarified in the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. I am, thus, trying to do my best to understand and apply that truth in my own life. If my quest to understand God’s Word leads me to read from Anglicans, so be it. If it leads me to read from Baptists, so be it. My hope is that I will remain objective and open to the Holy Spirit’s guiding, and the message of Scripture, with the help of sound hermeneutical principles, and not be overly influenced by any particular denominational tradition.
I will concede that the New Testament leaves us with a lot of “unconnected dots” in regard to ecclesiology. Christian thinkers down through the years have reflected, and proposed various models for “connecting those dots” and restore us to a pure NT ecclesiology. I think both you and I would agree that the Protestant Reformers made some giant steps forward in this regard. I would also agree with you that the Radical Anabaptist Reformers made some important additional steps forward. I don’t think any of them envisioned, however, the denominational system we presently have.
If you don’t agree with my analysis and exegesis, that is okay. I may indeed be wrong. But I am searching for as much truth as I can in this regard. The scenario I have proposed here (in this post, and in my comments) seems to me the most plausibly coherent explanation of the biblical data I have been able to come up with so far. If you can demonstrate to me that another scenario is more likely, I will be open to being convinced.
In the meantime, since neither one of us has 100% certainty about these questions, don’t you think it is a good idea to try to mutually avoid attacks and threats, be they veiled or open?
Oh, and Peter, one more thing (do I remind you of Colombo here?),
I have read Dagg’s chapter(s) on ecclesiology, and very much appreciate his point of view. I have learned quite a lot from Dagg, actually.
David,
Now, I am even more confused. I took your position and offered what I firmly believe to be weaknesses. And the most you can respond with is a “I’m-doing-the-best-I-can-to-learn-from-both-Baptists-and-Anglicans-share-your-intimate-feelings” rejoinder?
Nope. Not at all, David. You top that whopper with this:
That has got to be the wierdest excuse I have had in two years of blogging for not defending one’s “conclusion that God’s Word as objectively clarified in the Bible is the ultimate source of truth.”
Attacks? Threats? Well, bust my britches I need fifty stitches!
David, your posts openly, boldly, confidently and, at times, categorically insist on an ecclesiology unlike anything in Baptist history with which I am aware. If there is “threat” and/or “attack” neither is coming from West Georgia, I assure. A safer bet are your own public statements. I’d start there.
By the way, if you are not going to show up for the party after you’ve spiked the punch, please inform us. I’ve got better things to do than seriously engage a piece with what I believe to be a valid point only to be shooed away like a common fly–Buzzzzz…Buzzzzz.
I trust your evening well. With that, I am…
Peter
David,
Thank you for this article. I’m sure that it will not be very popular, but I think you explained yourself very well. I appreciate the fact that you attempt to inform your ecclesiology from Scripture and even allow Scripture authoritative status when compared to the way Baptists normally do it. Thank you for speaking where Scripture speaks and keeping silent where Scripture keeps silent. Finally, thank you for taking seriously the actually text of Scripture – including the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax with which God chose to communicate with us. In ecclesiology especially, we can either begin with Scripture and allow Scripture to inform our view, or we can begin with our practices and justify those practices with proof-texts. Even us Baptists may find that some of our practices need to be adjusted when we start with Scripture.
-Alan
Alan,
Thank you for the affirmation.
You yourself have been a model for me at doing exactly what you say here: “begin(ning) with Scripture and allow(ing) Scripture to inform our view.”
I recommend anyone who has a serious interest in thinking biblically and openly about various matters related to ecclesiology to check out your blog at:
http://assembling.blogspot.com/
David,
To your understanding, would all 5 of the expressions always be present in every city or context? I’m wondering because F.F. Bruce contended that the house churches that met in Rome lacked a central, organized structure.
Perhaps, then, a more appropriate question would be, in your estimation is the “city church” in your paradigm something organized, or simply the totality of house churches and congregations within a particular locale?
Stuart,
I don’t think we can be super-dogmatic about this, because, as far as I can tell, Scripture does not answer these questions clearly. I have not yet read Bruce on this. I would be interested to hear his argument more extensively.
Given the abuses of the hierarchical system down through the centuries, though, I can see a lot of pragmatic reasons for avoiding an excessively “central, organized structure.” On the other hand, though, for meaningful fellowship and cooperation to take place, at least some kind of organization or another is practically a given.
This is what I referred to earlier in another comment, when I said:
“The relationship between the “house churches” was not hierarchical, but rather collegial, informal, and organic. The different leaders all knew each other, prayed together, and supported each other. Yet, actual day-to-day “one another” ministry, including accountability and church discipline, took place primarily in the individual “house churches.””
David, the most scholarly work on NT house churches that I have read so far is Roger W. Gehring’s NT PhD dissertation from Tubingen published as “House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity” (Hendrickson, 2004). If you have not read it yet, I am sure you will read it sometime in your PhD studies. Gehring states in introductory paragraphs, “On one point nearly all NT scholars presently agree: early Christians met almost exclusively in the homes of individual members of the congregation. For nearly three hundred years — until the fourth century, when Constantine began building the first basilicas throughout the Roman Empire — Christians gathered in private houses built initially for domestic use, not in church buildings originally constructed for the sole purpose of public worship. . . . Here again it appears most scholars are in agreement: the fact that early Christian communities met in homes is of great sociohistorical, ecclesiological, and missional significance.”
Don’t worry about the criticism you have received regarding studying the works of an Anglican scholar. Such criticism is simply a cheap shot and is embarrassingly unscholarly. It is a typical case of “ad hominem attack,” and such a dismissive attitude will never foster honest scholarly dialogue. God is not limited in the sources He uses to reveal His truth (He even chose at least once to speak through a donkey!). Your critic with his statement has eliminated any biblical teaching we may gain from scholars such as J.I. Packer, John Stott, Christopher Wright, and Michael Green, just to name a few.
Baptists have always prided themselves on being “people of the book.” That means that our ultimate guide for faith and practice is the Bible, not Baptist statements of faith nor Baptist historical theology. We follow biblical truth even when it may conflict with what Baptists have believed and practiced for the past 400 years. We seek to be intensely biblical, not intensely Baptist (even though hopefully we have not been too far off!). The scripture is always our corrective, not appeals to Baptist historical practice. As devout students of His word, we seek insights into the scripture from any source that God has chosen to reveal them — even from evangelical Anglicans.
Kevin,
I’m glad you gave David enocouragement. However, know I’m not at all embarassed nor think the questions I posed “unscholarly”.
I asked:
If I calculate properly, Kevin, those are the questions I asked to which there was no response as I can see. In addition six of the above I asked for direct Scriptural evidences. Thus, to imply I had no concern for Scripture in my remarks, is simply, from my view, unwarranted.
In addition, I must point out that David is the one who embedded his view in the Baptist Faith & Message. I did not quote it for my position, he did for his.
I have to say, Kevin, to describe another’s position as “a cheap shot” that is “embarrassingly unscholarly” because it is a “typical case of “ad hominem attack,” with its “dismissive attitude” that consequently “will never foster honest scholarly dialogue” is a nicely well-written example of the ad hominem itself. Especially since you offered no real reason why. Just assertion that it is so. Good job!
Finally, your assumption my “statement has eliminated any biblical teaching we may gain from scholars such as J.I. Packer, John Stott, Christopher Wright, and Michael Green, just to name a few.” is one quart shy of goofy. Just because one buys not the goods from Sears clothing does not mean he cannot buy the goods from Sears tools.
I hope this clears a bit of my embarassment up. Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
Kevin,
Thank you for the affirmation, and for the recommendation regarding Gehring. I will have to be sure to check that out.
Kevin,
Peter’s questions were good, honest questions that should be answered. Why should they not? And, how in the world can you call them “ad hominem attacks?”
I have talked with David Rogers on many occasions on these blogs, and I have read other conversations that David has had with others. I have seen David ask many, many questions of those people, and I have seen David ask people for Scriptural support for their reasoning, and I have seen David ask them to explain, or clarify what they were trying to say. He had done these things to me on several occasions, and rightfully so. But, in all fairness, when Peter takes David to task, and wants Scriptural backing, and wants David to clarify things, all of a sudden it’s “ad hominem attacks.” This is an interesting way of thinking that I dont quite understand. Can you explain yourself, please?
David
I am a recent visitor to this blog, and am very happy to have found it. I appreciate that it is dealing with substantive materials in an irenic fashion.
David, I have visited your blog a number of times and have found it stimulating. (I was a student at MABTS from 1985-1988. I always appreciated your father and the way he led Bellevue to be a friend to the seminary.) One of things I appreciate about your writing is that you always show solid research. I believe that what I read is from a person who is wrestling with the application of Scripture in real world situations. I may not always fully agree, but I am sure glad you are one of “our” missionaries.
Steve
David,
Have you read any books by Juan Carloz Ortiz, particularly Call To Discipleship? Your comments remind me of his thoughts on the “church of the city.” Good stuff.
David Worley,
I have read over Peter’s comments and questions several times, and have not been able to come to a conclusion other than that they are meant to be “attacking” and “threatening.” Apparently, others agree with me.
I want to remain open to discussing these issues with anyone who chooses to do so in a civil, respectful manner. I hate to have to write this, because I can only imagine how Peter is going to respond. But, frankly, I have decided not to respond to Peter anymore.
If you (or anyone else) have some sincere questions you would like to discuss with me about this post, on the basis of Scripture, I will be happy to entertain them.
Steve,
We no doubt were at MABTS during some of the same time. I was there 83-84, and 86-87. Do you remember if we ever met?
Blessings,
David
Roger,
I read “Disciple” by Ortiz a long time ago, but am kind of fuzzy in my recollection of what it said, now. I’ll have to look up the book you mention.
“I am confused as to precisely why an Anglican expression of ecclesiology is so attractive to you. Perhaps you had this view upon your appointment with the IMB, perhaps not.
I know were I a sitting trustee and you cited Anglicans as a basis for your understanding of the NT church, I’d have been compelled to tease that out a bit with you before I signed on the dotted line.”
Peter, such statements don’t appear to be intended to foster conversation between friends, rather they appear to be attacks on David, his baptistic beliefs, and his personal character in serving as an IMB missionary. Thus, your questions, worthy though they may be, were prefaced in an attack mode. There is a huge difference asking questions to seek information in a conversation between friends (which is, I believe, the intent of this blog) and asking questions to challenge a person’s character and to gain ammunition against an “opponent” (cf. Luke 11:16). It seems that David and I read you in the same way, because his refusal to dialogue with you further indicates that the attitude you portrayed has successfully squelched “scholarly dialogue” on the subject. Peter, whether you meant it or not, you did not come across with a very gracious spirit here.
David Worley, apparently I did not make myself very clear regarding my statement about “ad hominem attack.” It is my perception that Peter was attacking David’s character and baptistic beliefs — even before asking his questions. But my main intent in the statement was Peter’s dismissal of the possibility that anyone might have any biblical teaching to add to the conversation because they happen to be Anglican. This is “ad hominem” (i.e. “against the person”) rather than against the substance of their argument; hence, it is a “cheap shot.” Scholarly dialogue deals with the substance of what a person has to say, not with whom that person happens to be.
Kevin,
Thanks for “moderating.” You have articulated the spirit of this blog very well. I know Peter is just expressing his passion for the subject matter, but we needed the reminder.
Got any warm weather up there yet?
David,
I admittedly haven’t read Bruce extensively on this point. His observations about the church in Rome are based on the introduction to the letter and his understanding of the socio-political situation in Rome at that time.
Whether or not Bruce believed there was an organized city church and “only” an organized city church in other cities, I can’t say, but I suspect not.
Roger, thanks for the affirmation. We had our first good spring rain yesterday and things immediately started to green up. Today it’s snowing! My lawn and shrubs sure are confused! Our slogan in western Canada is, “If you don’t like the weather, just wait 5 minutes and it will change.”
Kevin, that was our slogan when I lived in Maine, too. Here in Atlanta, our slogan is “pray for rain.”
David (Rogers),
You deserve to know, my brother, precisely how I intend to respond: I’m not…
David (Worley),
Thanks, brother David. I do not know if it’s because we both speak the Tennesseez tongue or what. I do, nevertheless, appreciate another set on eyes on this strange thread…
Kevin,
To insist as you seem to do that theological positions one advocates–whether now or the past–are virtually off limits and constitute “attacks on David, his baptistic beliefs, and his personal character in serving as an IMB missionary” because I placed a “what if I were a sitting trustee” is bluntly, my brother, absurd. Allow me to illustrate.
The entire trustee body of the IMB has been tortured with questions for two years over policy and procedures being teased out with the “what if” motif. They are charged with “narrowing the paramenters” and seeking to impose “Landmark” ideas onto missionary personnel.
David (Rogers) has, to date and without blinking, loudly voiced his views, his concerns over policy, his questions pertaining to Baptist ecclesiology, his daring advocacy of the “city-church” model, etc etc etc. And even in the first opening remark on this post he writes:
To now stall and say, because a critic is forthright, and seeks to make applicable the position in question to the advocate’s own circumstances, that the critic is guilty of “attacks”, “cheap shots”, “asking questions to challenge a person’s character and to gain ammunition against an “opponent”” is fantastic.
Moreover, the accusation that the questions offered by the critic were calculated to “gain ammunition against an “opponent”” greases the bucket really good against the critic, I’d say. He is drawn with the perfect pencil of a conspirator, crouched down low, patiently waiting for the little creature he intends to snare to take his posinous, ill-concieved bait. Nice. Makes one feel like a million bucks ;^)
Additionally, Kevin, to assume I came as an enemy stands horribly mistaken. I came… I came to dialog…I came prepared…I even came knowing I’d disagree. But not contra my “opponent” as you wrongly state.
Nor is this conversation new between David & I. We definitively disagree about this point in theology. And, if anyone dares think we’ve not “tit/tatted” back and forth on this till we–or at least I–become ashamed and yell “Enough! I quit!” he/she is once again sadly mistaken. Those are easy enough to locate, I assure.
Yet, from the way I understand David (Rogers), he desires no more conversation with me. I can accept that. I do accept that–though it both saddens and frustrates. Saddens because David obviously feels threatened and because he (and some of his friends)needlessly took, as personal “attack”, questions–relevant questions, at least from my little spot in West Georgia–toward his view. It frustrates me because David has never himself been reluctant to push hard questions out to those who post differently from him.
I wish nothing but God’s grace on he and his family.
Now, Kevin, two more technical issues. You insisted twice about a)the fallacy of attacking the man b)dismissing Woodhouse for the sole reason that he is Anglican. I plead not guilty to both.
First, it is difficult with the first one to know what you mean. For in the first comment to David, you insisted I was “attacking” Woodhouse. In the comment to David (Worley), you insisted I was attacking David (Rogers). It really matters little right now.
However, suffice it to say, that the “ad hominem” possesses different nuances of use, some of which are acceptable, some not. I suggest you get Copi’s text and learn the distinctions. I commited nothing unacceptable to standard canons of logic.
As for dismissing Woodhouse, you write:
To the contrary, Kevin, that’s your interpretation of my words; that is not what I said nor implied. And, I even clarified such with a follow up to the first time you said it:
Thus, I neither wrote nor implied your stated assumption. And, I even clarified with the above statement.
Nonetheless, you restate your mistake once again to David (Worley). I’d like to rhetorically ask, if I may, Kevin, just how scholarly is that?
My express apologies to SBCImpact for such a long tome. I hope for mercy to allow it to stay. I can assure I will not do such again–even a short one–for a long, long time.
Thanks to Roger, with whom at times I’ve sparred a bit–an enjoyable dialog at that!–for seeing in what I wrote in the exchanges above, at least a microscopic element of passion to pursue truth rather than poison to punish David (Rogers).
Grace to all. With that, I am…
Peter
David,
No one has attacked you here. I think you realize that. Kevin Peacock made the only attack here.
Your comments are no more scholarly than are Peter’s. Peacock’s are less so than those of both of you.
In no way would I say you are not scholarly. I would say you may be “becoming” less and less “baptistic” in your positions. You have a right to do so and I as a Baptist will defend you to the death in such, believing you to be a brother and called of God all the way.
But, somewhere along the line in your journey, you are going to have to make a choice as are several others who are very much brothers in the faith.
Will you continue to be a Southern Baptist missionary or become a missionary wherein you are more comfortable in your convictions than you are with the SBC.
Now, you and your friends here may rage at that, but it is an honest evaluation of what I have read of you in these last two years. I did not start out with this opinion, but it has developed over a period of time reading what you say.
I am no less your friend than are these who rally around you here. I am certainly no less scholarly than is Kevin Peacock, yet, I may be far more honest with you. Naturally, that may not be the case either. The case may simply be that he is far less baptistic (biblical) in his theology than I and he speaks as honestly as do I with the understanding he has. That may very well be the case.
That is not actually the issue here. The issue here is; you and your relationship to the SBC based upon the way you believe Scripture, and your study thereof, to be taking you.
cb
David Rogers,
CB has given you very sound advice this good day.
And, CB, I’m probably the least scholarly in this crowd. Although, I do believe that I have some good, ole, plain horse sense.
David Rogers, I, too, look upon you as a Brother in Christ. I respect your love and devotion to the Lord. I dont agree with you on many things, but I’m glad to call you, brother.
David
CB,
I am wondering what specifically concerns you in David’s original post.
Without quibbling about some terminology, I see the post largely as a recognition that we (Baptists) are not the only part of the body of Christ, and that we should discern purposefully how that should impact us as Southern Baptists. I don’t see that he is wishing to throw away 500 years of progress in reflective Protestant/baptistic/evangelical ecclesiological understanding.
I read all three articles by Woodhouse when David first posted the links on his site some weeks back. Save for infant baptism (which I’m sure he must accept), Woodhouse sounded to me like he had a clearer understanding of the church and the kingdom than many Baptist who are still struggling to free themselves of the lingering influence of Landmarkism (that unless any number of things aren’t done exactly correctly, then an assembly of truly born again believer can disenfranchise themselves from being the true church).
I have laid low on this discussion, just lurking in the background.
But I think things, most definitely, need a re-direction.
CB, you said:
“That is not actually the issue here. The issue here is; you and your relationship to the SBC based upon the way you believe Scripture, and your study thereof, to be taking you.”
But that is not the issue at all, my friend. Not even close.
As I have gone back and read David’s original post, it was a simple (since all blog posts must be), straightforward look at the possibility that we may be missing something in our church structures today (i.e. “the city church” and/or house churches) that appears to be (according to David) quite biblical. And that’s it. He referenced the Baptist Faith and Message. But in his study of this subject, he also discovered and referenced the work of an Anglican scholar.
It was Peter who took issue with his referencing an Anglican, and who subsequently added the “trustee” remark … alluding to the fact (though certainly not saying straightforwardly) that his Southern Baptist missionary “credentials” might be in question. The thread devolved into various non-subject areas from that point onward.
David (Rogers) never once “attacked” current Baptist structures. He simply put forth a thoughtful examination of a possible alternative … and suggested that we “take a look” and talk about it.
Dr. Peacock, a consummate Southern Baptist scholar and seminary professor, merely pointed out the folly of an “ad hominem” dismissal of the potential contribution of the works of an Anglican scholar to the discussion.
There is absolutely no reason … and I do mean no reason … that David Rogers’ service as a missionary in the SBC should even be “on the table” in this discussion. It is way off subject.
I think we should be able to talk about such things … and do so from Scripture, history, practice, and scholarship … without the discussion going “to the man,” which is exactly the definition of “ad hominem.”
David Rogers is a dedicated, thoughtful, godly man. He and I have found disagreements, as well. It is his “blog debate” with me a couple of years ago on the issue of PPL that introduced me to the blogging world. But, suffice it to say, his record of service is beyond question. His Southern Baptist “credentials” and “pedigree” are solid. His thoughts and scholarship merely reflect the thoughtful struggles that develop in the life of a man who has spent a major portion of his life in service on the “front lines” of mission … far beyond the cultural isolation, myopic worldview, and Baptist comfort of the Deep South.
And that’s something that most of us who have been here all of our lives sometimes find it difficult to understand.
So … the subject is the substance of David’s post. Get out your Bibles. Get out your history books. Read the links that David provided. Add your own, if you wish. Let’s talk about it. But suffice it to say that an argument of, “That’s just not Baptist,” won’t cut it.
But let’s not talk to David about whether or not he needs to keep serving as a Southern Baptist missionary. Like other missionaries before him (as we have discovered this week), and like scores of young pastors and church planters, if and when David Rogers thinks it’s “time to go,” I don’t think he’ll need anyone to hold the door for him.
I love you guys. Every last one of you. Now let’s talk …
This topic is very important. I think that one aspect that we might want to treat in more depth is whether the original meaning of “ekklesia” morphed into something different in the New Testament. My impression is that the original meaning of the word was “organized assembly,” which goes beyond the frequently cited “called out ones.” David referenced B. H. Carroll’s article, which I would encourage all of you to read whether you agree with it or not. It might be a good starting point for a discussion of the meaning of “ekklesia.” In regard to the church at Jerusalem, we don’t have a lot of specifics. It’s doubtful that all the members of that church could have fit into one building (before the outbreak of persecution). The people had frequent small group meetings in houses. I would think, however, that in order to call the large number of people an “ekklesia,” they must have gathered on some type of regular basis in one assembly, perhaps only a few times per year (maybe in an outdoor area). An interesting example of a translation of “ekklesia” other than “church” occurs in Acts 19:32, 39, 41. This crowd was called out into an assembly (A. T. Robertson’s comment on Acts 19:25: “First aorist active participle of sunathroizō, old verb to assemble together [athroos, a crowd]), and a moderator was appointed (Acts 19:33).
David Rogers, I enjoyed having lunch with you yesterday.
To all: I think all of us have to be extremely careful about how we write comments. Our written tone can be easily misinterpreted. It’s much easier to discern tone when we are sitting across a table from someone and enjoying some good food. I’m glad that Jesus emphasized eating while building relationships (Luke 10:7).
Thanks Geoff (#32) – I was wondering what I would say. You pretty much said it the way I would.
Ditto.
Rob
CB,
I just couldn’t believe what you said above. When I resigned as an Elder in a church that I was raised in for 40 years, I received a Hate Letter from the Pastor of the church. His Claim was that I was a Lutheran and My Reply to Him in Love, Filled with the Holy Spirit, having been Born Again was that I am A Christian.
When I go into the world I am a Christian who happens to attend a BAPTIST church because the Denomination Baptist, happens to believe the same as I do. I have far more Born Again Believer in Jesus Christ Crucified that are not of the Baptist Denomination as True Friends than I do, that are Baptist Regenerated Believers.
CB, You know I love you and respect You for Who and What you are, but you have let me down with your comment to David Rogers, a front Line Christian, who also believe the same as I do and shares His Heart for Jesus Christ Crucified. David is and has been far more a Baptist than I have been in my 73 years.
Of all the Bloggers that I have observed these past 2 years David Rogers and Alan Cross have displayed far more GRACE than any of the Bloggers.
LOVE
Wayne
David Rogers,
I believe that an exegetical point that would strengthen the concept of the NT “city church” (and I am sure that others have pointed this out) is the presence of the Greek definite article (cf. Rev 1:11). It seems to me that there is a huge difference between “the church in Ephesus” (i.e. the only church there) and “a church in Ephesus” (i.e. one of the many churches there). What did the church look like when it outgrew one house — especially under persecution? It was probably a single church scattered throughout the city gathering in numerous private homes. Mike Morris is probably right in that they probably did all gather together on specific occasions when they could, but probably not on a regular basis. Those “regular” meetings probably were in smaller groups in private homes. A group of elders (Acts 20:17) oversaw the work of these numerous smaller congregations and kept “the church in Ephesus” unified.
P.S. I would have loved to have been at that lunch table yesterday with you and Mike and entered into that conversation.
Kevin, you made a good point about persecution. It would have been difficult for a very large group to meet on a regular basis during a time of intense persecution. Of course, after the persecution began, many in that church dispersed from Jerusalem, such as Philip (Acts 8:1, 5). As Saul was “ravaging the church,” he was entering “house after house and dragging off men and women” (Acts 8:3). Before persecution began, however, the entire group may have met on a fairly regular basis outdoors. Many of the apostles had seen John the Baptist and Jesus handle large crowds outdoors.
CB and David Worley,
I have never claimed to be any more scholarly here than anyone else. In good conscience, about 14 years ago, I applied, together with my wife, to be a Southern Baptist missionary. At that time, I signed the Baptist Faith & Message, with one caveat: I believe there are occasions when it is okay to allow non-baptized believer, who by their own testimony believe they are walking with a clean conscience before the Lord regarding the command to be baptized, to participate in the Lord’s Supper. I think this is included in the things for which someone should “examine himself” in 1 Cor. 11:28 before partaking in the Lord’s Supper.
At that time, the trustees voted to allow me and my wife to be IMB missionaries. If, at any time in the future, they decide I am not qualified, I will have to cross that bridge when it comes. In the meantime, I have a clear conscience about being an IMB missionary. From the information I have gathered, it is probable that the majority of SBC churches have a practice regarding the Lord’s Supper and Baptism similar, if not less strict, than mine. I see that the ecclesiological view I am talking about here is not incompatible with the BFM. As a matter of fact, I think it may be more compatible than the views of some, who tend to de-emphasize the part that says:
“Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ’s Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ’s people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament”
If you have particular points about what I say here, that you would like to discuss, from a perspective of Scripture, I will be happy to do so.
Mike (Baptist Theologue),
I very much enjoyed our time yesterday as well.
You reference Carroll’s paper “Ecclesia,” of which I believe I first became aware back when I was working on my M. Div., and of which you reminded me, and re-directed me back a number of months ago on another post somewhere on the blogosphere.
Though I say it with fear and trembling, being aware of Carroll’s great scholarship and role in Baptist history, there are certain elements of Carroll’s thesis that have never been totally convincing to me. It seems to me he relies too much on a wooden, literal understanding of the term “ecclesia,” and defends the rest of his thesis on the basis of this understanding. For me, Woodhouse, (and I believe many, many evangelical and Baptist scholars would agree with him), provides some alternative observations that, while not throwing out the obvious significance of “ecclesia” as an a “local assembly,” consider the broader development of the concept, both when the term “ecclesia” is used, and when other terms such as “the Body of Christ,” “the spiritual building” or “temple” that God is in the process of building, etc. are used.
Like you, I would encourage everyone who is interested in studying this, to read Carroll and take into account what he is saying. That is why I included a link to his paper here. But, in order to have a more balanced view, I would also recommend carefully reading Woodhouse’s articles, and comparing the merits of both with an open mind. I think that there is good evidence to not have to press the matter of actual physical assembling when we talk about the reality that the Bible calls “the Body of Christ,” “God’s Temple,” “God’s building,” “God’s field”, “the Church,” etc.
From the way I understand it, it is true that, at the last day, all of the Church will be physically assembled when we gather around the Throne of the Lamb from every nation, tribe and tongue. In the meantime, the spiritual reality that is the Church is expressed in different ways, some of them involving physical assembling, and some of them not necessarily.
Then, it seems to me, that certain elements of NT ecclesiology have been largely forgotten at other points of history, much like justification by faith, and believers baptism, had been forgotten. This includes a failure to take into account the fact that, in biblical usage, it seems that the “church” in a certain city is always referred to in the singular, while, at the same time, individual house meetings are also referred to as “churches.”
Mike (Baptist Theologue),
Also, one other item of interest in this discussion is:
Acts 9:31. “Then the church (singular) throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace.”
R. Grannemann, Geoff, Rob & Wayne,
Thanks for the affirmation.
Kevin,
Yes, indeed, the references (such as in Rev. 1.11) to THE church in a given city, taken in tandem with the various references to THE church that meets in so-and-so’s house, are an important factor that has led me to the view I am proposing here. It may well be, as you say, that, from time to time, the entire church in a particular city, met together, such as in 1 Cor. 14:23 (“So if the whole church comes together…”). However, I don’t see why this might not refer, as well, to the whole group of everyone who normally met together in a particular house church. That is why, I said to Stuart in comment #13 that we cannot be super-dogmatic about questions like this.
David,
You referenced Carroll’s lecture 1. The link below supplies lectures 1 and 2:
http://www.carmichaelbaptist.org/Sermons/carroll%20ecclesia.htm
This link supplies lecture 2:
http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/B.%20H.%20Carroll/Ecclesia/lecture_02.htm
In lecture 2, he discussed Acts 9:23 and Septuagint usage of “ekklesia.”
David,
You referenced Carroll’s lecture 1.
In lecture 2, he discussed Acts 9:23 and Septuagint usage of “ekklesia.” I tried to put the links in an earlier comment, but it did not work (“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”)
Oops! I meant Acts 9:31, not 9:23.
Mike,
Here is the link to Lecture 2:
http://www.theologue.org/Ecclesia/ecclesia-2.htm
Carroll openly admits that Acts 9:31 is a difficult passage to explain, in light of his thesis.
Also, it is good to point out that the textual evidence for “church” (singular) is not unanimous. Actually, the KJV has “churches.”
But, as Carroll himself concedes, “The oldest and best manuscripts, however, have the singular noun with corresponding verbs.”
While I would agree that any one of Carroll’s 3 scenarios might possibly be true, for me, when I weigh the plausibility of this versus other explanations (such as the one I am offering here), I find them less convincing and more convoluted.
In the end, I don’t believe that my argument rises or falls on a correct understanding of Acts 9:31, though.
David, I agree that your argument doesn’t rise or fall on Acts 9:31. It is an interesting piece of the puzzle. I’ll share a couple of comments before I run some errands:
“Luke uses the singular ‘church’ here where Paul prefers to use the plural and speak of the ‘churches of Judea’ (Gal. 1:22; cf. 1 Thess. 2:14). It was, however, in the main the original Jerusalem church in dispersion. ‘The Ecclesia was still confined to Jewish or semi-Jewish populations and to ancient Jewish soil; but it was no longer the Ecclesia of a single city, and yet it was one: probably as corresponding, by these three modern representative districts of Judaea, Galilee and Samaria, to the ancient Ecclesia which had its home in the whole land of Israel’ (F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia [London, 1897], pp. 55f.).”
F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 208.
“The best manuscripts have the singular, ‘church,’ though there is strong support for the plural, ‘churches.’ The singular views the disciples as a new humanity in Christ, or body of Christ, with no reference to an ecclesiastical system. The plural points to separate local bodies.”
Frank Stagg, The Book of Acts (Nashville: Broadman, 1955), 114.
One more:
“Luke’s use of the singular ‘church’ could be taken in the ‘universal sense’ as the whole body of Christians in all their local assemblies. That meaning does seem to be found in Paul’s speech at Miletus (Acts 20:28), but everywhere else in Acts ‘church’ refers to a local body of believers. Perhaps the church that Luke focused on here is the Jerusalem church pictured in its witness, which extended throughout all these regions.”
John Polhill, “Acts,” vol. 26 in The New American Commentary, ed. David Dockery (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 244.
Mike,
Thanks for the quotes from Bruce and Skagg. I concur with both of them, at least, on these particular points.
I should probably add, in clarification of my view, that I don’t see the various “levels” I mention in this post as being neatly defined. That is, whereas the NT almost always speaks of “THE church” of a particular city, I do not necessarily agree with interpreters such as Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, in overemphasizing the concurrence of the boundaries of the political city with the boundaries of the “local church.” In my opinion, there is indeed a natural and normal fellowship that occurs in a special way between the believers in a particular municipality. However, in some circumstances, this same dynamic may function on more of regional basis, or between believers in one particular neighborhood of a larger city. And, though I think we need to especially be careful to avoid the idea of “national church,” which has formal ties with the government of a nation-state, there is also a sense in which the composite of the believers of a particular country, or trans-national people group, are authentic expressions of the One True Church.
Mike,
Whereas Polhill may well be emphasizing a different aspect of the church than I am here, I don’t see this particular quote as technically incompatible with what I am saying.
David, it could be possible that Jerusalem was a regional church for a period of time, where those Christians driven out of Jerusalem occasionally assembled with those Christians that had not yet been driven from Jerusalem. For example, Bellevue has been a regional church for some time now. I know of one couple that drove all the way from northeast Arkansas to attend Bellevue. Another example: The largest church in the world, Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, claims to have at least 800,000 members. When I was serving in South Korea, I noticed that it had many campuses, and some of its campuses were in other cities. There were also many cell groups scattered around in the homes of people. Of course, there was still a connection with the main campus. It’s food for thought.
Mike,
Yes, I can see the possibility that the churches of the NT were similar to today’s “cell churches.” I can also see that they may have been more like “house church networks.” The question is whether, when they assembled with each other, it was mainly everyone all together in one big meeting, or separately, in separate “house groups.” Of course, Acts 2 says they met both in the temple courts, and in their homes. Earlier, when they were a much smaller group (in v. 1), “they were all together in one place.”
So, it seems evident that the NT disciples liked to meet together with each other, whether in big groups, or smaller groups, or however. It also seems evident that the sum of the believers in any one locality, together with all their various large and small group meetings, considered themselves to be one big happy spiritual family.
My point is that, whether they were officially assembled, or scattered about, they were still the “church,” and thought of themselves as such. And, it was not an organizational tie that bound them together, but rather a spiritual tie. The church is not an organization; it is people.
This does not necesarily mean it was all loosey-goosey, with no structure. I think it is most likely that such things as “church discipline” and the intentional carrying out of “one-another” ministry, happened in the context of the house groups, though.
David, another issue is that of autonomy. The Koreans understood the concept of the cell church quite well when I was there. When we tried to start house churches, however, they thought such churches were very strange. Because both entities are found in homes, you would think that the Koreans would view house churches in the same way that they view home cell groups, but they don’t, and the difference is autonomy. The home cell groups are not autonomous; rather, they are always under the authority of the leaders or gathered members at the official headquarters building. House churches, in contrast, are autonomous.
Apparently the house groups in Jerusalem were not autonomous. When an important issue needed resolution, each house group did not make its own policy. At the Jerusalem Council, important missionary policy was approved by “the apostles and the elders, with the whole church”–the “holos ekklesia” (Acts 15:22).
P.S.: I think it is possible to see “ekklesia” in Acts 15:22 as a reference to the assembled council rather than the entire Jerusalem church.
David, this is what I call “scholarly discussion” on the subject. It really has little to do with formal education. Some of the finest “scholars” did not even have doctorate degrees (F. F. Bruce, Robertson McQuilkin, to name a few). Scholarly discussion deals with the substance of issues without the accompanying emotions and knee-jerk responses. It is a rational dialogue that stays away from personal attacks. It seeks to find truth and hold an open mind on issues, especially where another person may make a good point or shed further light on the subject. Scholars also learn how to disagree agreeably. Personally, I believe this is a Christian virtue. Scholarly dialogue can take place while displaying all of the the Spirit’s fruits.
You and Mike are indeed a scholars in your pursuit of biblical and missional truth as well as in your responses. You (i.e. David) may have just begun your degree, but in many ways, especially in your pursuit of truth and in your decorum, you are already there. In my view, Mike’s missionary experience in Korea already gives him the credentials!
Kevin Peacock
(South Korea MK, 1968-80)
Mike,
Yes, autonomy definitely is an important issue in all of this. Do you think the “house churches” mentioned specifically as such in the NT were autonomous? If not, then it seems to me there is some conflict between Carroll’s thesis and this reality, since they were evidently full-fledged “churches.” Another question is do think the NT evidence points toward more than one autonomous church in a given city? Strictly speaking, I do not. That is what I meant by the previous comment that there was not the “1st Baptist Church,” “2nd Baptist Church,” etc. of Jerusalem, which I just as easily could have said “1st Christian Church,” “2nd Christian Church,” etc.
But then again, it seems likely to me that the concept of autonomy was diffused among the various levels of church. The “house churches” were likely autonomous for some effects. I think that in order to carry out, for example an effective personal discipleship “program,” which included the practice of loving, restorative church discipline, it would be more helpful to do so in a context small enough for everyone to know each other on an intimate basis. Thus, these types of decisions were very personal, with people who knew you and you knew cared for you, and not impersonal and administrative. Also, it seems the Jerusalem church “broke bread” from house to house, and not in the context of a big meeting with everyone together. I know there is some doubt as to whether “breaking bread” necessarily referred to the Lord’s Supper. But, I think it did. Though it was normally done in the context of an actual Agape fellowship meal. Which would be much harder to organize for the larger group, with everyone all together.
That doesn’t mean the believers from all the different “house churches” didn’t come together as a big group from time to time. They may have even celebrated a big, massive Agape meal, with a joint Lord’s Supper time. We don’t know. It is more speculation that anything else. But, it makes sense to me. Kind of like the feeding of the 5,000, or our modern-day potlucks.
If they did this, or came together for a big city-wide joint teaching session, I imagine that the elders from the various “house churches all got together and planned these activities together. It that sense, the individual “house churches” were probably not totally autonomous.
We know from early Church History that the churches soon developed a more hierarchical structure, with one recognized “Metropolitan” Bishop in each city. I believe this was one of the first steps toward the apostate Roman Catholic system, which has wreaked so much havoc on the One True Church down through the years.
Kevin,
“Blush”
Kevin, thanks for the compliment. I don’t run into many people in cyberspace who have missionary experience in South Korea.
David, you asked, “Do you think the “house churches” mentioned specifically as such in the NT were autonomous?”
Yes, I do. Romans 16:5 and 1 Corinthians 16:19 describe the churches that were in the houses of Priscilla and Aquila in Rome and Ephesus, respectively. Aquila and Priscilla may have been wealthy people who could afford large houses. Before those house churches were started, Aquila and Priscilla had been forced out of Rome with other Jews (Acts 18:2), and Paul stayed with them and taught them in Corinth (Acts 18:3). They went with Paul on his first visit to Ephesus, helped start a house church at some point in Ephesus, taught Apollos in Ephesus (Acts 18:26), and later started a house church in Rome. After being in Rome, they returned to Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:19). Paul spent two years in Ephesus teaching in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9-10), and many Christians were probably there eventually. I believe that the first house church in Ephesus was autonomous, and it grew into a large church which had multiple elders (Acts 20:17), possibly many home groups, and probably a large space in which many people could worship. In Ephesus, Paul taught the Christians “publicly and from house to house” (Acts 20:20).
In Romans 1:7, Paul addressed his letter to “all who are beloved of God in Rome” (NASB). Thus, that verse opens the door to more than one church in Rome. Apparently there was a lot of persecution of Christians in Rome near the time of writing, and small autonomous house churches would be easier to hide. Robert Mounce described the situation:
“From Suetonius (private secretary to the emperor Hadrian) we learn that in A.D. 49 Claudius had ‘expelled from Rome Jews who were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus’ (Life of Claudius 25.2). This was the edict that caused Aquila and Priscilla to leave Rome and go to Corinth (Acts 18:2). Although Chrestus could have been the name of some Jewish agitator, it is more likely a corruption of the Greek Christos (‘Christ’). Apparently there were serious disputes in the Jewish community over the claim of some who had converted to the Christian faith. Their belief that Jesus was Christos, the Messiah, had led to a mass expulsion of the Jewish population from Rome. From that point forward the church became predominantly Gentile. . . . A date somewhere around A.D. 56 would be most likely for the composition of Romans.”
Mounce, “Romans,” in vol. 27 of The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 24-26.
Nero came to power in 54 A.D. The Christians there were disliked even before the fire of 64 A.D. Autonomous house churches there would have been appropriate and convenient. My impression is that the house churches in Rome were autonomous. Other house churches mentioned in the New Testament are those of Nymphas (Colossians 4:15) and Philemon (Philemon 1:2), and I have no reason not to believe that they were also autonomous.
In regard to the church at Jerusalem, it seems to me that there was one church with many home groups that were not completely autonomous at the time of the Jerusalem Council.
You said, “It that sense, the individual ‘house churches’ were probably not totally autonomous.”
I believe that to be considered a New Testament church, a group must be totally autonomous. The 2000 BFM describes a New Testament church as an “autonomous local congregation” that “operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.” Thus, I don’t think that home cell groups can be called “house churches.” Home cell groups are not totally autonomous.
Mike,
Interesting information. As I see it, all these tidbits are like new pieces to the puzzle. Still, if we are honest, we must admit there are many “dots” that are not “connected” for us. As I look at the “dots” we have, the scenario I describe in this post makes the most sense to me. If another scenario makes more sense to you, we will just have to agree to disagree.
One thing of which I am quite certain is that the NT makes a big emphasis on the unity of the Body of Christ. There are, perhaps, different models of how to best express this unity in practical ways. But, in my opinion, we are not given the option of “sweeping unity under the rug,” as it were.
David,
I did not say you were not scholarly.
I rebuked Peacock for his remark about scholarship.
You also know I am not just in reference to this post in what I am saying. We both know that. We both know I did not attack you.
We both know I simply stated the truth. You are going to have to eventually make a discision about some things.
That is all I said. Now, other people have become emotional in thier response. You also know that as do I.
I have made no insult toward you. I have merely stated the obvious.
cb
CB,
Nor did I say that you said I was not scholarly. I merely said: “I have never claimed to be any more scholarly here than anyone else,” just to clear that up, since it looked like this was developing into a discussion of who is more scholarly than someone else.
If I understand you correctly, the implication you are making is that I, and my views, may not be consistent with my status as an SBC missionary. I think if you are going to make insinuations like that, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why such is the case. As I have stated earlier, I have chosen, with a clear conscience, the path I have chosen. Frankly, I take what you say here as a challenge to my ethical consistency. If I am misunderstanding you, please help me to see better what you are really saying.
David,
There is no “challenge” to your “ethical consistency” whatsoever.
My point is that as you are searching for a theological foundation you may be finding you are not able to continue to remain a Southern Baptist missionary.
I did not know you had signed the BF&M taking exception to part of it. You said you signed with one caveat.
Would you now sign it with only one caveat or would there be more?
Remember I did not start the scholarship debate. Peacock did. I simply challenged it. You did not correct him in his attack on Peter. And it was an attack. Peter was simply engaging you as is his privilege on an open blog post such as are posted on IMPACT. If that is not to be the case then the administrators should change the format of the blog to just a commentary blog. Peter did not attack you. He simply engaged your position and debated the content.
I did not attack or insult you as did Wade on an earlier post by making the “Blue Blood” statement. I have never debated you as anything else other than a brother. I will only now mention the fact that I knew your father. He ask me personally to serve on a board back in the day.
I respect you as a man on your own, nothing more, nothing less. I assume you would rather have it that way.
As you know, there are no Blue Blood Baptists anymore than God has any grandchildren. God has children. Baptists are Baptists by conviction and theology.
Your journey in theological searching may take you from the boundaries of the SBC. If so, then you need to deal with it and I am sure You will. As I said earlier I was simply stating the obvious.
I made no insinuations. I was very direct relating to my observations and you know it.
So, David, again I ask; If you were signing the BF&M today, would there be more than one caveat?
cb
CB,
Still only one caveat.
You and I will just have to disagree about Peter’s intentions.
I do not foresee that my theological searching will take me from the boundaries of the SBC. And, I don’t see why you would think that I might. That is what you will need to explain to me more specifically.
Also, I don’t see what Wade’s “blue-blood” comment has to do with the price of tea in China, in the context of this conversation. I do not think Wade intended it as an insult. But, neither do I think I am any more special than anyone else.
David,
Wade did not intend it as an insult. That is true. My point is; Were I you I would have taken it as such.
I am saying I approach you as I would any other person. Who you were born has nothing to do with my comment to you. It means nothing to me who you are or who you are not. Some obviously see it differently.
Now, I hope that is cleared.
David, the BF&M is a minimum document of cooperation. You could not sign the minimum without caveat.
In many of your posts you take issue with other articles of the BF&M.
You are an employee of the IMB. My point is simple. Are you going to be able to continue as an employee as you continue to disagree with things the IMB does?
cb
CB,
Could you please point me to where I have ever taken issue with any article of the BFM besides the one caveat I have already mentioned?
CB,
I just think you need to take another look at this post and the comments that lead up to this attack on David Rogers.
When Peter comments on Blogs as well as some of His Post on His Blog, Peter tends to Rant and Rave rather than participate in a discussion. Take a look at what has taken Place by David, Mike and Kevin. Peter has been Bared from some Blogs because of his demeanor.
Also the Blog Admin Geoff Baggett called your attention to your Statements. Please Prayfully reread the comments.
Love
Wayne
David,
It would take days to converse back and forth relating to things you have posted.
Thus, for the sake of brevity let me ask you this; Do I understand you to say that your city church grid would be consistent with the BF&M?
If it is should we not be working with other denominations to plant churches?
If that is the case how do we deal with non-immersionists in planting churches? How do we relate to them in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper within the fellowship of which we plant together?
Many other groups, fellowships, churches and denominations preach and teach the gospel just as we do and they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet, they do not hold to the same distinctiveness which makes us Baptists. How do we plant churches with them; “City churches” or otherwise?
David, do you disagree with any of the policies/guidelines of the IMB?
cb
Wayne,
IMPACT can remove me from their blog anytime they want. I have not attacked anyone. Peter did not “rant and rave.”
He simply asked David questions relating to his post. For whatever reason David, in my opinion, became defensive. Then Peacock entered the comment thread saying Peter was not scholarly. Peter left the conversation. I picked it up.
The IMPACT administrators can do as they please. It is their blog. The truth will remain that the only person who was in any way attacked was Peter.
David was not attacked by anyone. He posted on an open blog with an open comment thread. The post presented ideas of ecclesiology. That subject is possibly the most controversial doctrine within the SBC. David knows that. Certainly, if his post was of a serious nature, it would be expected to receive serious engagement. Peter provided it.
I simply asked David questions based upon my reading him for close to two years now. That is it.
I actually have very strong convictions relating to the trustees and the administration of the IMB relating to signing the BF&M with caveats.
cb
Wayne,
Let me correct something. I have not attacked anyone in this comment thread.
I have willfully attacked others on other comment threads and in some of my posts. I will do it again, I am sure, as the situation demands.
cb
CB,
Yes, I believe my “city church grid” is consistent with the BF&M.
Now, you have directly accused me of dishonesty here. Right after I say: “Still only one caveat,” you say: “In many of your posts you take issue with other articles of the BF&M.” Then, I ask you: “Could you please point me to where I have ever taken issue with any article of the BFM besides the one caveat I have already mentioned?,” and all you can answer is: “It would take days to converse back and forth relating to things you have posted.”
If you are going to make that type of accusation against me, it would be better for you to have some evidence to back it up.
CB, please think about this. This is quite serious.
Apparently, not being able to come up with any regarding the BF&M, you now back-pedal and ask me: “do you disagree with any of the policies/guidelines of the IMB?”
I have been open for sometime now about my disagreement on the new policies related to PPL and baptism. Anyone who reads Baptist blogs at all knows that.
On the following post, you can also read my opinions on several other policies/guidelines of the IMB:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/05/historical-documents-baptist_29.html
If you think these opinions make me unworthy as an IMB missionary, that is your opinion. So far, no one else has told me so. And, I do not believe the Convention at large, nor my supervisors at the IMB, would think so.
I don’t know how to be any more open. I have nothing to hide.
David,
No back-pedal intended. Just couching my reasons for these questions in history for the sake of brevity.
David, your methodologies of debate here are tiresome. You always become defensive and say someone is calling you dishonest or something of that nature.
David, be assured if I ever consider you to be dishonest or a liar I will say so.
I simply stated that due to some positions you hold I think you will have to, someday, ask yourself if you should remain in the employ if the IMB.
You have every right to believe the things you believe. You have every right to be a Southern Baptist believing what you do. You are no heretic. I have never said that of you. I do question you now as a Southern Baptist missionary. I have that privilege. That is no slam against your integrity or anything else.
I do think the trustees and the administration have not been consistent. What is the difference in assigning you to the field if you sign the BF&M with a caveat and then sending people home from the field for not signing it at all? They simply did not produce a caveat. They simply stand and say if I can’t sign the whole thing I will not sign it at all.
The administration and the trustees are inconsistent. It is this that is causing us trouble at the IMB and in other entities.
Now, would you like to answer the questions about the “city churches” and planting churches and about baptism and the Lord’s Supper within such churches we may plant or do you want to continue to ignore that?
It is at this point you became defensive with Peter and threw him off. You now seem to be using the same tactic with me.
Will you or will you not answer the questions for it was this that was the core of this whole debate to start with, was it not?
cb
CB,
For sake of brevity?
My methodologies of debate are tiresome?
I always become defensive and say someone is calling me dishonest or something of that nature?
I repeat. Please read carefully:
Now, you have directly accused me of dishonesty here. Right after I say: “Still only one caveat,” you say: “In many of your posts you take issue with other articles of the BF&M.” Then, I ask you: “Could you please point me to where I have ever taken issue with any article of the BFM besides the one caveat I have already mentioned?,” and all you can answer is: “It would take days to converse back and forth relating to things you have posted.”
If you are going to make that type of accusation against me, it would be better for you to have some evidence to back it up.
CB, please think about this. This is quite serious.
David,
I will state my conclusion here to what I believe your “city church” paradigm would produce.
If we adopted it as you have presented it the ultimate conclusion would be as follows:
If we went into a place wherein no church was to be found and worked with other, non-baptistic churches to plant a city church we would most certainly, at some point, be working with non-immersionists and those who see the Lord’s Supper differently than do we as Southern Baptists (Those of a weak ecclesiology as have some Southern Baptists among us today. Just think of what would happen if we openly cooperated with any and all.).
This would lead to the highest order of ecumenicism.
We could end up planting city churches with the Pope if we were to follow your paradigm.
The city church was characteristic of the church in its infancy when doctrinal differences were not so diverse. The idea of planting a city church would now endanger the very gospel itself.
Think about it.
cb
CB,
I must be honest. Up till now, though we have disagreed from time to time, I have felt I have had a pretty good blog relationship with you. But, you are now reaching the point of treating me in the same way as Peter.
But, lest anyone say I am avoiding anyone’s questions, my answer to “the questions about the “city churches” and planting churches and about baptism and the Lord’s Supper within such churches we may plant” is embedded within the post I referenced in my other comment:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/05/historical-documents-baptist_29.html
If you read the whole thing carefully, you wlll find your answers.
CB,
Who said anything about “planting a city church”? I think a big part of your problem is that you are misunderstanding me. In the model I am talking about, we can only “plant” house churches, or congregational churches. The “city church” is made up of all the believers within a city. We do not plant it. When we win souls, we do add to it, though.
I suppose there is one way in which you could say we plant a city church, if we win the very first converts to Christ in that city. But, even then, we are not talking about “planting the church” in the same way I think you are talking about here.
David,
Will you or will you not just answer the question about city churches and establishing them with non-immersionists?
You are simply “sandbagging” with this other stuff and you know it.
The bottom line is this: Your city church paradigm is weak because your ecclesiology is weak. That has been revealed in this post and in others. It is also revealed in your caveat with the BF&M which is just a minimum for cooperation.
cb
CB,
Have you by any chance read the articles by Woodhouse yet?
If you read them all, especially the last one on “Christian Unity and Denominations,” I think it would go a long way towards helping you to understand where I am coming from on this.
David,
You are right. This is serious. That is why I have challenged you to think about whether or not you can continue as an employee of the IMB.
No one has attacked you. No one has questioned your integrity. No one has called you less than a brother and a fellow minister of the gospel. I simply question you as an IMB missionary.
For you to say I have questioned your integrity is wrong.
cb
CB,
I do not know what the term “weak ecclesiology” means. Personally, I consider the strongest ecclesiology to be a biblical ecclesiology. If you are saying that, in order to be an IMB missionary, you must agree with J.R. Graves’s or B.H. Carroll’s ecclesiology, you are adding a few more qualifications than the Board of Trustees has dared to add yet.
You say I am “sandbagging.”
But you still have not owned up to the fact that you directly accused me of lying.
You say you did not.
But how can you explain any other way this exchange?:
Right after I say: “Still only one caveat,” you say: “In many of your posts you take issue with other articles of the BF&M.” Then, I ask you: “Could you please point me to where I have ever taken issue with any article of the BFM besides the one caveat I have already mentioned?,” and all you can answer is: “It would take days to converse back and forth relating to things you have posted.”
Please do not dodge this question anymore. Otherwise, I will be forced to not answer you anymore, just like I have chosen not to answer Peter.
David,
I take it by your comment in #77 you do not intend to answer the questions as to non-mersionists, Baptism, The Lord’s Supper, and ecumenicism in church planting within your city church paradigm.
Let it be as you wish. I leave it with you until another day and another subject. David, you do have things to think about in your journey.
cb
That should be “non-immersionists” But, I think you already know that also.
cb
David,
No doubt we posted close to the same time or I would have certainly said something about your last comment.
If (notice the “if”) you are making any reference to me as being an adherent to Landmarkism after all I have said against it and most certainly have “attacked” those who promote it for the last two years then I most certainly do call you dishonest and a liar.
I hope that was not your intent.
I am done here David. You hide behind a half-baked theological idea if you please.
Till another day,
cb
Anyone reading this,
I really hate to leave this conversation this way with CB, and for that matter, with Peter as well. I believe the Lord would have us work out our differences. But I am at the point I don’t know what else to do. Can anyone give me some godly counsel?
CB,
I remember as a young man being called down for saying something foolish. I retorted, “Did you call me a fool?” The person replied, “No, I said you said something foolish.” There is a big difference between the two. Calling me a fool would have been making a judgment about me as a person. Calling what I said foolish makes a judgment on my actions.
If you will re-read what I said concerning, and directly to, Peter, here is exactly what I said. (Because I don’t know how to do italics, I will now write certain words in all capitals.) I called his “CRITICISM” “a cheap shot,” “embarassingly unscholarly,” and “a typical case of ad hominem attack.” I called his “ATTITUDE” “dismissive,” and something that would “never foster honest scholarly dialogue.” I replied that his “STATEMENT” regarding an Anglican scholar “eliminated any biblical teaching we may gain [from any Anglican scholar].” I stated that “SUCH STATEMENTS” “don’t appear to be intended to foster conversation between friends,” in fact they “appear to be attacks on David, his baptistic beliefs, and his personal character in serving as a missionary.” I stated that Peter’s “QUESTIONS” “were prefaced in an attack mode,” and “THE ATTITUDE [he] PORTRAYED” “successfully squelched ‘scholarly dialogue’ on the subject.” I concluded with the statement that Peter “did not come across with a very gracious spirit here.”
For the life of me, I cannot see where I once attacked his person, insinuated that he is no longer Baptist enough for service within or with the denomination, or dishonest in his character. I called his criticism “unscholarly,” and the attitude he portrayed “squelched scholarly dialogue.” Not one of my criticisms were attacks against his person but rather against his actions and the attitude he portrayed. Scholarly dialogue does its homework and deals with concepts, not with persons.
Now as to the subject, what is your fear, CB, of going back to the scripture and building our beliefs and practices from it? If our beliefs and practices can’t withstand the scrutiny of a close examination of scripture, then we have a pretty weak basis for our faith. Appeals to the BF&M for authority pale in comparison to appeals to holy scripture. Statements of faith change. Scripture never does.
It may be difficult for Southern Baptists in the States to understand how questions about one’s character, baptistic beliefs, and Baptist loyalties (even made in jest) are perceived as serious threats to an IMB missionary — especially in this day and age in the SBC. David has proclaimed his loyalty to Southern Baptists and has proven it now with years of faithful service on the frontlines in the trenches. If anything, he is “worthy of double honor.” Please take him at his word. He is not the enemy.
Kevin,
For the sake of fairness I will make this statement.
No one has threatened David. He posted the post. Peter questioned it.
You commented to Peter’s position as stated above. It was you who brought the scholarship issue to the discussion.
I simply asked David a question. In truth the question has been in my mind a long time based upon David’s posts and interaction in comment threads.
Now, as far as fear of anything here. Maybe you do not read what I say very much. If you did you would know I question many things within the SBC. Far more than David has.
Kevin, our theology is sound. There is no need to go back and “question” it. The reason is; it is scriptural already.
David’s “city church” paradigm will not stand biblical scrutiny. Many times David and I have discussed issues of ecclesiology in comment threads. His ecclesiology is weak.
Upon my saying that he proves its weakness by making reference of me as adhering Landmarkism. That in and of itself is tangible evidence of him not having a strong understanding of ecclesiology. Yet, that is probably not his fault. The doctrine of the church has been greatly neglected as did Florovsky point out and later Erickson repeated. The doctrine of the church has not had received the attention as have other doctrines in writing, or seminary and Bible college class rooms. Far too much is just simply taken for granted.
Baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology.
Also, if you have read anything I have said you will know I care little for the BF&M other than for it to be a minimum for cooperation. It is a document of human origin. I would not care if it did not exist. I don’t need it to be a Baptist. I don’t need you to tell me of the primacy of the Scripture. I actually understand what inerrancy means. I also think I know why it was left out of the New EM.
I have never said David was an enemy. Don’t put words in my mouth. I do take him at his word. That is why I asked him the question about his future relation with the IMB in the first place.
You take note of only a few things I have said in this thread. You ignore the rest. David has done the same.
Kevin, someday maybe David and I will cross paths in our journeys. Maybe then we can talk of all of this.
One more thing, my brother, This “Southern Baptist in the states” thing does not work well on me. You know nothing of me related to the “States” and the rest of the world.
Now, I shall leave it with you. We will speak again, I am sure, unless I die and you post not again in Blogtown. The same is true of David. I did not say he was an enemy. I am not angry at him. I did not say he was not a loyal brother in Christ or a Southern Baptist. I questioned him as a Southern Baptist missionary employed by the IMB. There is a difference. If he left the IMB and worked independently or with another mission agency I would be willing to support him. He just needs to make some decisions and that is all I said. I could work with him. I simply challenged him and said his ecclesiology is weak and it is. Of course, so is Landmarkism.
cb
SBCImpact,
I said I would not post for a good long spell. Forgive my hyprocrisy, I beg.
Kevin,
You are too funny. If I may, observe your conclusion concerning the self-defense of your words CB mentioned. However, allow me a bit of liberty to place my name instead of yours. This may help you see CB’s confusion–not to mention my own–pertaining to your and our author’s insistence I personally attacked him:
Here is the crux, Kevin–at least the way I see it: there is not one thing in my words that demonstrate an attack on David. Nothing. What you really did not like is the way you discerned my attitude or tone or psyche or whatever other non-tangible we could define. The problem with that is, you haven’t a scintilla of knowledge what that is. At best, you’re guessing.
To date, after over two years on blogs, hundreds of posts, thousands of comments, under God, I do not think I’ve ever–not one time–mentioned a person’s attitude, tone, likeability or any other non-tangible in an exchange. It’s about the content. What is it that’s being said.
Nor will I in the future make dumbfounded guesses what’s right or wrong in attitude about a person I neither know nor am personally face to face. For me, just chalk that up as unscholarly.
Now my brothers, carry on. I trust our Lord pleased with your future exchanges.
With that, I am…
Peter
Baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology.
I continue to be amazed at statements such as this. There is much in “Baptist ecclesiology” that could stand being looked at in context of scripture. But most of what I read on SBC blogs is this kind of closed-mindedness.
Another comment stream on this blog had a claim being made that Philip was “the pastor of the church in Samaria”. Yet when challenged, no defense from scripture was made. This is apparently “baptist ecclesiology” at work. And as such, it has as many (if not more) roots in tradition (including Constantinian institutionalism) as it does in “biblical ecclesiology”.
But when statements such as the above are made, no wonder guys like David Rogers are questioned when they try to re-think what’s being assumed.
Whether or not I ultimately agree with his final conclusions, I admire a guy who doesn’t assume that the traditions that have been passed down are correct just because of baseless claims like “baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology.”
Cb,
I am really praying for the Holy Spirit to remove this chip that you have on your shoulder and let you see what you are accuring David of. I even sent you an email on May the 8 of my daily Devotion because of reading some of your Comments.
Cb,
Missionaries are Called by God the Same as Pastors.
Most Missionaries I personnal know have become Pastors and Pastor Churches in the Mission Field in Countries that are not very friendly with Christian.
I call these and all Missionaries that are on Foreign Soil the ones on the Front Line. Some don’t have a proper Place to Sleep at night. They suffer for their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. May God open your eyes for you to see it is about being Crucified in Jesus Christ as Paul Says
Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Love Wayne
Steven Sensenig,
You make my point. I believe David Rogers and Kevin Peacock and most others in this comment thread would agree with me in saying; “Baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology.”
If they don’t; Well…there is the core of our problem.
cb
cb, if you think I was making your point, I must have communicated very poorly. I’ll try better next time!
Wayne,
I am not challenging David’s faith or calling as a missionary. I believe him to be a missionary. I believe him to be a brother. This difference here is not going to change that.
I have challenged him on a theological issue that is at the heart of being Southern Baptist; ecclesiology. Our ecclesiology is the very heart of our identity. I am no Landmarker, believing apostolic succession. (Baptist ecclesiology pre-dates such erroronous ideas by many, many years.) I also do not confuse the identity and accountability of the church universal with the church local.
If you have read what I have said you have seen I have no disrespect for David.
BTW, It would be a rare thing for an IMB missionary not to know where he is going to lay his head tonight. It is not a rare thing for many of them to not know if they will still have a head come morning. They are in the hands of God, but so are you.
Steven Sensenig, it is our military who may not know where they will lay their head tonight.
I read your posts. Please never forget hard men keep watch this night that you may sleep in peace. And if necessary they will kill other men to assure you of that peace. And may God grant them perfect accuracy that they may make “One shot, one kill” “first time, every time” until the enemy is dead or surrenders. Then maybe they can lay their heads down and rest when they come home. That is, if the nightmares of war will let them.
cb
CB,
Do you agree with this article by Dr. John Frame and if not WHY???
The Church in the New Testament
Unlike my dispensationalist brothers and sisters,[6] I believe that the church of the New Testament is essentially the same as the church in the Old, with some changes, of course. It is the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). It bears the same exalted titles given to Israel in the Old Testament (I Pet. 2:9f; cf. Ex. 19:6). The people of God are all one olive tree, a tree from which some branches (unbelieving Jews) have been broken off so that others (believing Gentiles) might be grafted in (Rom. 11:17-32). Promises given to Old Testament Israel are regularly applied to the church in the New Testament. Joel prophesied that God’s Spirit would one day be poured out on all people (2:28-32), a prophecy fulfilled by the new presence of the Spirit upon the Christians on Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21). Amos prophesied that God would rebuild the tabernacle of David (9:11f), and the Lord fulfills that prophecy by bringing Gentiles into the New Testament Church (Acts 15:16-18).
Of course there are also changes, because major events have taken place: the incarnation, earthly life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, God’s eternal son. The Aaronic priesthood, the “one priesthood” of the Old Testament, gives way to the new priesthood of Jesus himself, a priesthood disconnected from the Old Covenant in the way that the story of Melchizedek in Gen. 14 is disconnected from its historical context (Heb. 4:14-5:9, chapters 7-10). The earthly tabernacle and temple, the “central altar,” give way to the reality of which they are but shadowy images, the heavenly temple to which Christ brought his once for all sacrifice (Heb. 9:11-28). Similarly the feasts, the sacrifices, the distinctive garb, the dietary laws.
But what of unity? Did Jesus come to establish one church, as in the Old Testament, or many denominations? Does the Old Testament emphasis on church unity fall away with the coming of Christ? Certainly if that is the case, it is very difficult to imagine why it should be so. Jesus’ one sacrifice obviously eliminates the need for animal sacrifices, a central altar, a continuing human priesthood.[7] But why should it eliminate the need for unity among God’s people, that beautiful unity about which the Psalmist spoke so eloquently (Psm. 133)?
The need is still there. The New Testament is concerned about it as much as is the Old. Please consider the following:
1. As in the Old Testament, the New Testament believer worships at a central altar. For Christ himself fulfills the central altar of the Old Testament, and there is only one Christ (Acts 4:12, I Cor. 1:13, 8:6, Eph. 4:4-6). Same for the priesthood, the temple, the sacrifices. The church has a single location in one sense, though it is scattered throughout the earth; for it is seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Eph. 1:3, 20, 2:6, 3:10, 6:12).[8]
2. Jesus does come to build one church. “Church” is regularly used in the singular to refer to the whole New Testament people of God (Matt. 16:18; cf. Acts 2:47, 5:11, 12:5, I Cor. 10:32, 15:9, Gal. 1:13, Eph. 1:22, etc.).
3. The New Testament church is a unity of a higher order than that of Old Testament Israel. For in the new order, the great schism between Jew and Gentile is broken down. Jesus died not only for the Jewish nation but (as God had spoken– ironically through the wicked priest-prophet Caiaphas) “also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one” (John 11:51f). At Pentecost, Jews from many nations are united in Christ’s body; they participate with “one heart and mind,” (Acts 4:32). Later, Samaritans (Acts
and Gentiles (Acts 10) are added, and the great wall comes down (Eph. 2:11-22, Gal. 2:11-5:26).
4. Other ways in which Scripture teaches church unity: (a) The New Testament images of the church: a temple, the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, the flock of the good shepherd, the branches of the vine, the people or family of God– all stress unity: unity in the above senses, but doubtless in many other ways as well. (b) There is one Spirit in which we have been baptized, who gives gifts to the church (I Cor. 12). (c) It is God’s love in Christ which binds us together (John 13:34f, I Cor. 13, I John 4:7ff). (d) There is one gospel (Acts 4:12), (e) one revelation (I Cor. 2:6ff), (f) one baptism (Eph. 4:5), (g) one Lord’s Supper (I Cor.10:17).
5. The New Testament uses “church” to designate not only the universal body of Christ (above), but also the Christians in a region (Acts 15:3), those in a city (Acts 11:22, 14:23, 18:22, Rom. 16:1, etc.), those worshiping together in a household fellowship (Rom. 16:5, I Cor. 16:19, Col. 4:15, Philemon 2), indicating unity among the Christians at various geographical levels.
6. The Lord gives his church a church government. There are first the apostles and prophets (Matt. 16:18, John 20:21, 23, Eph. 2:19-22, 4:11), but also evangelists, pastors and teachers (same verse). Elsewhere there are references in other terms to church leaders: elders (=bishops) and deacons (I Tim. 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9; cf. Acts 11:30, 14:23, 15:2ff, 22f, 20:17, 21:18, I Tim. 5:17). Obedience to such leaders is not an optional matter; it is God’s command (I Cor. 16:16, I Thess. 5:12f, Heb. 13:7, 17). We do not, therefore, have the option of choosing when we will or will not submit to the government of the church. This is Christ’s church, Christ’s church government. If we do not like it, we dare not set up our own government to rival his. Thus, Christ’s intention was to unite all his people under his officers. One Lord, one church, one church government.
7. Do denominations play any role in New Testament church government? Well, look up “denomination” in a concordance! You won’t find it there! More seriously, whether by “denomination” or by some other name, the New Testament says nothing at all about what we would today call denominations. Denominations, in the sense of groups of Christians who differ from other Christians by some distinctives of doctrine, practice, ethnicity, or historical background, play no role in New Testament church government[9].That is especially remarkable when we consider that there were many diversities in the early church that might have led its leaders to consider a “friendly” denominational division: great differences of ethnicity, languages, etc. But the New Testament seems to make a particular point of stressing that such differences are not to be the basis of divisions in the church (Acts 10, 11, Gal. 2, 3:28, Col. 3:11).
8. To carry the point even further: the New Testament rebukes the mentalities and practices which were later to produce denominational division in the church. These mentalities and practices are (a) autonomy: picking and choosing which leaders in the church will have one’s respect (I Cor. 1:10-17, 3:1-23); (b) factionalism: forming partisan groups in the church to advance the program (or supposed program) of one’s favorite leaders (same passages); (c) lust for power: seeking to be boss (Matt. 20:20-28, Acts 8:9-24, 20:30, Phil. 2:1-11, I Pet. 5:1-3, III John 9); (d) unwillingness to seek reconciliation (Matt. 5:23-26,[10]18:15-20, Rom. 12:18, Eph. 4:3, Phil. 2:1ff, 4:2, I Thess. 5:13, Heb. 12:14, James 3:17), (e) failure to maintain church
discipline: (Matt. 18:15ff, I Cor. 5); (f) inattention to doctrinal and practical purity: (I Tim. 4, 6:11-21, II Tim. 1:13f, 2:14-4:5, Titus, etc.); (g) failure to help fellow believers in need: (Matt. 25:31-46, III John.[11]
9. When Scripture speaks of the church as the body of Christ, it contrasts the harmonious working together of the parts of the body with “schism” or “division.” See I Cor. 12:25, in the context of I Cor. 12, Romans 12. The figure of the church as a temple points in the same direction (Eph. 2:21), as does that of the family (Eph.
4:6).
Love Wayne
C.B.
As I see it, David’s post on ecclesiology is an attempt to help us picture how the whole body of Christ is a witness to the world. He is not advocating giving up Baptist distinctives (such as believers Baptism, a regenerate church membership, or a congregational polity) to achieve a superficial unity. He is talking about recognizing other born again believers for who they are: fellow heirs in the Kingdom of God. The unique aspects of foreign missionary service has caused David to consider, more deeply than most of us, how Southern Baptists should relate to other Christians in advancing Christ’s Kingdom. This is a complex issue, and David has blogged about it more in the link he gave above: http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/05/historical-documents-baptist_29.html
Should a missionary resign the IMB just because he thinks outside the box or is exploring what he believes is a more complete ecclesiology? Should a missionary resign if he disagrees with some IMB policy, though he is willing to follow it as long as he is employed by the IMB? Should a missionary be allowed to have an opinion of how the Kingdom can best be advanced which is different than the majority view of the presently elected/appointed IMB BOT? C.B., I think you would answer “no”, “no”, “yes” to these questions. So while I can understand your concern about Baptist ecclesiology, I don’t understand the degree of your concern about David’s positions, except that you seem to be reading him quite differently than I do or else are projecting something onto what he has said which, if you read him closely, you will find isn’t actually there.
My concern is always that we divide the Truth rightly (2 Timothy 2:15), letting it be our guide for life. You have some valid points, yet your reference to “where two or more are gathered” I see as out of context. First, no matter where I am the Lord Jesus and God the father are with me. Second, I do not need anyone present for Him to be with me. Third, Matt. 18 in context deals with Church discipline which few SBC churches ever involve themselves in. Jesus is saying Where two or three are gathered in MY NAME for the purpose of discipline I will be with you. Maybe if we were living the principals of an inerrant Bible we would not have dead churches. Could it be that our traditions of interpretation are major players in the condition of our convention? Maybe, just maybe, if we had a revival of Biblical hermeneutics, exegesis and exposition there would be a greater spiritual understanding and the dry bones would once again live.
Ed,
I’m trying to figure out whether you intended this comment to be placed here on this post or not, and if so, to whom you are addressing it. I don’t mind answering; I’m just not sure of the correct context from which to answer you.
Thanks,
David
Still looking for a true church,got some useful info here and also from http://www.adventistonline.com/ and will search for a true church.. till I am satisfied…
Steven,
I’m curious just what it is about the Adventists that leads you to think they may be the true church you are looking for. Also, do you believe that if the Adventist Church is the true church then other churches are necessarily false ones?
[...] other levels) on a citywide level (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here & here). At the same time, I think there is good evidence that a plurality of individual house churches [...]