There is much hostility to the idea of the “institutional” church today. Many do not believe that it is authentic and believe that it promotes formalism and bureaucracy over true community, etc.
Are there problems with institutional churches? Of course. Every sort of organization has problems. However, do the problems outweigh the benefits? I do not believe so. Let me tell you why I think that the institutional church is a good idea.
Of course, I could argue this same point directly from the Bible, but I want to just consider the institutional Church in terms of the nature of a society. Let’s suppose that we had no specific instructions on organization and just see what would happen if Christians tried to get together.
First, the foundation of a Christian society is love. We should get together with other Christians because we love them. If you agree with that, then let me ask you this question. Should you get together with Christians just in your age group or with those for whom you have a natural affection? Certainly not. That is completely contrary to the spirit of Christianity. We should seek to join together with as many Christians as we can of all ages and backgrounds.
So, let’s suppose also that Christians in an area want to meet together. What will they do when they meet together? They are going to worship and fellowship.
Now, who decides what the specifics will be, that is, when they will meet, in what order they will do things, how many times they will meet, etc.? In all societies, these decisions will devolve on a certain group or person. That’s why nearly every type of society has officers in order to, at the very least, organize what the society will do.
So, you have an organization with some sort of officers (even if non-formal) with various meeting times doing certain things. What happens, then, if someone in your group says they believe that Buddha is just as good as Jesus and wants to continue to be part of the group. Should you allow that? Should you set some parameters as to what you do believe and do not? You may say, “the Bible,” but suppose that this person says that this is consistent with the Bible. Then, you are going to have to make a statement about what you believe. So, a confession of some sort is inevitable. You may think that you are not starting out with one but eventually you will have one, even if it is merely understood and not written down. And that’s exactly how things developed in the early institution of the church.
Now, let’s also say that someone is doing something that brings a scandal on your group. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to rebuke this person? What if she doesn’t listen? Who will take this matter up? Once you believe that something must be done about scandals, then you are going to have to come up with some sort of method of discipline.
After all this, you realize that you need leaders to carry out all these things. Further, you need to have some specific people who focus on studying the Bible. Who will be the leaders? Who decides? You will have to come up with a method for choosing and installing leaders.
At this point, you realize that you have to figure out who really belongs to the group. At first, you said that you would have whoever was there be a part of the group. But, then, when your leaders confronted someone, they simply said that they had no authority over them. In a sense they were right. In a voluntary society, authority cannot be imposed. It must be given. So, you realize that you have to have a membership roll and membership vows.
By this time, your group is looking very much like an institutional church. You realize that other groups have done the same thing. You start to talk to them and learn from them. You have also seen that there are many things your group can’t figure out on its own. You decide to meet regularly with other churches to talk to one another about how you should do things. Besides, you ought to love all Christians and not only the ones in your own local Church, so it seems consistent with Christianity to get together as various Churches.
Then, you have another problem. One of the churches says that the Holy Spirit conveys salvation in water baptism and that everyone whom the water touches gets forgiveness of sins. You know that this is wrong, but you are in the same association together discussing how to run your churches together. You decide that this church should not be a part of the association unless they change their views. Others agree. Now, you have to set up a method for disciplining over an entire region.
Upon further reflection, you realize that this church once believed that baptism confirmed salvation to true believers but did not give it. You wonder what would happen if your leaders changed their view to this one. What could you do about it? You think, maybe we should have a way of keeping others accountable. So, you set up a system that keeps other churches accountable.
To bring this to a close, the institutional church is highly necessary if our goal is for Christians to come together. If people are going to come together, they must have an organization of some sort. An institution is really just an organization plus time. Institutions are inevitable in human society. If Christians are called to love one another, then they will inevitably form institutions. If they take the Bible seriously, they will set up boundaries of fellowship.
So, why not simply form your own organization based on what you think the Scripture says? At times, like during the Reformation, this may be necessary. However, even in the Reformation, the Reformers sought to look to the best of the past in order to learn how to put together their institutions. Theoretically, you may be able to build a better institution, but knowing you (whoever you are), probably not. The likelihood is that if you start from scratch, you will still build an institution. It will just be a very bad one.
Wes, you wrote the post I've been wanting to write. Thanks for doing the work so I don't have to.
Absolutely agreed.
I must say though that “house churches” have their own way to solve differences between different groups of members; it is called splitting and is an important way the house churches multiply. =P
Wes,
I think it is interesting that you say:
“Of course, I could argue this same point directly from the Bible, but I want to just consider the institutional Church in terms of the nature of a society. ”
Arguing for the institutional church directly from the Bible is problematic because it simply isn’t there, not in command, not in example and not in inference. The reality is that the institutional church as we traditionally understand it has taken its cues from a variety of sources: human nature, Roman Catholicism and pragmatism but not from the Bible.
What we see in the Bible is not an institution, it is a people. People who are predestined, elected, called and regenerated by a sovereign act of God and formed into a new people, a new family. There are those we look to as leaders not because they have a seminary degree and not because they are employed and carry an ecclesiastical title but rather because they are servants and live lives worthy of emulation. We look to one another as brothers and sisters in Christ because of our common salvation, not because of denominational identity or names on a spreadsheet on a computer in the church office.
That is not to say that there is nothing that is right or good about institutional churches. My wife and I came to faith in a very traditional, very institutional church. The greater question is not what is OK with the institutional church but rather is the institutional church what the Bible intended and if not what did God design for His people? It would be far more helpful for you to make your case from the Scriptures after defining what you mean by “the institutional church” rather than making your case from human nature or pragmatism or tradition.
Many Christians have come to the realization through prayer and study that the institutional church is not only not Scriptural but in the way it is organized and the way it functions it actually acts as an impediment to the way the church is modeled in Scripture.
Daniel,
Do you actually know anyone who is in a house church? Just curious what you base that assertion on, especially since institutional Protestant Christianity has been splitting and separating from one another, sometimes violently, for hundreds of years.
Hi Arthur,
I did actually define what I met by institution in the article. It is an organized society with age. That fits the general definitions that you will find at dictionary.com. This post was not necessarily aimed at your so-called “house church” movement. The primary aim was trying to get people to think about the fact that elements of an institution are fundamental to human society, and doctrinal standards as well as the mandate for Christian interaction necessitate these consequences.
To criticize me for appealing to the nature of human society is like arguing that I am wrong because you don’t believe in logic. My point is that these are fundamental aspects of reality; consequently, they cannot be avoided.
If you would like to engage on this post, I think it would be helpful for you to address some of the arguments that I made in this post. I’m sure that many of them you would agree with.
The Bible gives clear guidelines for leaders, their qualifications, doctrinal and ethical boundaries. Hence, it fits all the qualifications for an institution.
Dude…that’s my church. Where did you get that photo?
Wes,
I would be happy to address the arguments you put forth but not until I get some sleep.
By the way, Arthur, how could Paul appoint elders in every church, if there were no institutional churches to appoint them in? How could Paul write epistles to churches that did not exist? How could he commande excommunication if there was nothing to excommunicate them from?
I’m afraid your appeal to Scripture and ecclesiology are both a bit wanting.
Hello Arthur, I think it would be helpful if you gave us a functional definition of “institutional church” as you understand it.
thanks,
Wes and others,
This post is helpful to think about house churches from a pragmatic view, but could you address the scriptural reasons a house church is or is not ok for a Christian?
ie are Christians sinning if not part of a denominational assembly?
Wes,
It is somewhat difficult to engage with your arguments because you do not use scripture to support them. If you would re-write this post using supportive biblical references, that would be a big help. As it currently stands, your post seems like a mix of your opinions and philosophy.
Thank you,
Eric Carpenter
The believers in Jesus who first adopted the faith preached by the Twelve (Acts 2:42): 1. Embraced a particular doctrine about what they must believe and do in order to be saved (“the apostles’ teaching”); 2. They belonged to a clearly identifiable, organized, hierarchical community (“the Church”), led by the apostles (“the apostles’…fellowship). Incorporation into this community was by baptism (Acts 2:38-41); 3. They memorialized Christ’s sacrificial death via a sacred meal regularly enacted within this same organized community (“the breaking of the bread”).
Here is a concrete entity found in the pages of the New Testament that looks and sounds like an “institutional Church” to me.
Hi Eric,
I apologize for the difficulty you are having and am willing to take full responsibility for lack of clarity.
However, this argument hinges on a particular and careful definition of the word “institution.” My argument is simply that given my definition of an institution and certain Scriptural injunctions (though not specifically cited, like the command to love the brothers), that an institutional organization of some sort logically and necessarily follows.
A proper definition of “institution” is not provided by the Bible itself. Like most words, we must derive their definition from philosophy and common usage. Now you may reply that because the word “institution” is not the Bible, we should not have them. However, you are relying on philosophical and historical knowledge in order to describe something as institutional, i.e., you must have an idea of what an institution is and then you apply the knowledge derived from experience in order to state that certain groups are institutions. Thus, your own arguments must of necessity be based on experience and philosophy as well as Scripture.
I think you could engage my arguments in several ways. You could challenge my definition, you could challenge the marks of an institution, you could challenge the basic commands such as purity of doctrine or life or love of the brethren, or you could challenge how these things will work out. All four would be useful for our discussion, IMHO.
My only point is that even if the Bible did not explicitly say that we should have leaders, confessional definition, and some sort of organizational rules (which I believe it does) that these things would be necessary simply in terms of the inherent demands of human society just as if we did not have a grammar (which the Bible does not provide), we would have to invent one simply for language to exist.
Kevin,
I am working on a response to Wes that is more complete but your comment begged an immediate response:
“By the way, Arthur, how could Paul appoint elders in every church, if there were no institutional churches to appoint them in? How could Paul write epistles to churches that did not exist? How could he commande excommunication if there was nothing to excommunicate them from?”
a) why is an institutional church required to appoint elders?
b) why does Paul writing letters to Christians in an area (i.e. the church in Corinth, the church in Rome, etc.) require or presuppose an existing institutional church?
c) what you call ex-communication the Bible describes as refusing fellowship. why does that require or presuppose an institutional church?
I am afraid your argument is made based on cultural presuppositions and traditions rather than Scripture.
Art,
I’ll look forward to your full response, but a couple of my own (with no insults intended).
The nature of the beast. On whom do you lay hands, if not your self? As soon as you have elders, you have an institution. Don’t even get me started on having deacons.
I begin to wonder what you mean by “institutional.” Still, if you truly believe that the epistles were open letters to be read by whomever, you are reading the NT with blinders on. Take Hebrews 1o:25, for instance. I cannot believe that the writer means, “Get out of bed, and go listen to dad!”
You clearly do not understand excommunication. But it would fit in the house church model. It would be awkward, in the least, to have to excommunicate yourself for gross, unrepentant sin,wouldn’t it?
Sure there are some presuppositions there, but I’ll wager I can produce 5 Scriptures to your every one. And let us not forget the history of God’s people. Let’s see, when did institutional church appear?
21st Century? Nope. It was already there.
20th Century? Nope. It was already there.
19th Century? Nope. It was already there.
18th Century? Nope. It was already there.
17th Century? Nope. It was already there.
16th Century? Nope. It was already there.
15th Century? Nope. It was already there.
14th Century? Nope. It was already there.
13th Century? Nope. It was already there.
12th Century? Nope. It was already there. See a pattern developing yet?
11th Century? Nope. It was already there.
10th Century? Nope. It was already there.
9th Century? Nope. It was already there.
8th Century? Nope. It was already there.
7th Century? Nope. It was already there.
6th Century? Nope. It was already there.
5th Century? Nope. It was already there.
4th Century? Nope. It was already there.
3rd Century? Nope. It was already there.
2nd Century? Nope. It was already there. And here’s the kicker, the disciples of the Apostles were still around…in institutional churches!
1st Century? Nope. It was already there as evidenced by all those pesky epistles, laying down rules for propriety of worship, ordination of officers, church discipline, warnings of apostasy, etc.
And before Christ? Hello? Synagogue? Temple? Tabernacle?
Seems like God has always worked the health and life of the living organism of his people through institutions, long before a small group of radical homeschooling types thought they had discovered the answer to all that was wrong with ecclesiology.
On the more practical end of things:
1. Do you preach to your family? By what authority?
2. Do you administer the sacraments to your family? By what authority?
3. When you teach falsely, stray doctrinally, or committ gross sin, how do you discipline yourself and, if necessary, excommunicate yourself?
4. When you take up on an offering, do your just transfer money from savings to checking?
I could go on. Bottom line, house churches do not bear the marks of church and are not, therefore, church.
Kevin and Shawn
To respond to your question of what I mean by the institutional church, I posted a brief blog this morning: http://thesidos.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-does-institutional-church-mean.html
Kevin, regarding your response.
First I am not sure what “radical homeschooling types” has to do with the question at hand. Anyway if homeschooling your children is radical, then I cheerfully say “Guilty as charged!”
To imply that the church was institutionalized in the first century requires that you assume the institutional church and then read that assumption into the text. For example you say:
“Still, if you truly believe that the epistles were open letters to be read by whomever, you are reading the NT with blinders on. Take Hebrews 1o:25, for instance. I cannot believe that the writer means, “Get out of bed, and go listen to dad!””
Why would you assume that the letters were read by “ordained” officers of the church? They were not addressed to the elders of the church in any of those locations, they were addressed to the entire church. When Paul mentions people by name, there is no hint of them being church officers. You have so embraced the cultural understanding of the church that you cannot read Paul’s letters to the church without forcing a picture of a preacher standing behind a pulpit reading those letters to the church while the laity sits in pews and listens attentively, perhaps taking notes on their church bulletin.
As far as Hebrews 10:25, I think “get out of bed and go listen to dad!’ is as Scriptural as “Get out of bed, put on your Sunday best and go sit in a pew to listen to a sermon”. Perhaps even more so because while we see Scriptural mandate for fathers to instruct their children (Ephesians 6:4), there isn’t single example of a sermon being preached to believers anywhere in the text. If you are interested I blogged about that passage (Heb 10: 25) and what it does and does not say (http://thesidos.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-scripture-doesnt-say-is-sometimes.html). The church in the first century clearly met in homes. They ate meals together instead of ritualized passing of “The Sacraments”. All of the brothers were expected and welcome to participate in a meaningful way in the church gathering, not sitting in silence while the clergy spoke. Triumphantly using Hebrews 10:25 to support institutionalization is not just far-fetched, it is flat out impossible.
Your list near the bottom of your comment bears answering because I don’t think you understand the idea of house churches at all. We generally don’t all stay at home and “do our own thing”, we meet together as the church but we do so without all of the religious trappings of intuitionalism:
1. Do you preach to your family? By what authority?
a) I do teach my children. I don’t make them listen to sermons though. As far as what authority I do that, by the authority of being a Christian and their father (see again Epehsians 6:4, you will notice that it doesn’t mention sermons, youth pastors or Sunday school). Where does Scripture require that preaching the Gospel requires obtaining permission granted by some ecclesiastical authority? Preaching the Gospel (which is not the same thing as delivering a sermon) is the privilege and duty of every Christian, not just a subset of Christians.
2. Do you administer the sacraments to your family? By what authority?
a) We have broken bread as a family and have broken bread in homes or other places with other believers without clergy present. As far as authority, what authority does Scripture mandate? The Bible never commands or implies that you need an ordained person to celebrate the Supper nor does it command or imply you need an ordained officer to baptize someone. If I baptize one of my children, which I have not done but would be perfectly willing to do, that is at least as legitimate as having a pastor do so.
3. When you teach falsely, stray doctrinally, or commit gross sin, how do you discipline yourself and, if necessary, excommunicate yourself?
a) If I am teaching falsely in the church, one of the brothers present would correct me. If I am in gross sin and refused to repent, they would deny me fellowship (1 Corinthians 5: 9-13) Notice in 1 Corinthians 5 that there is no mention of clergy or even elders. Discipline in the church is a function of the entire church, not the duty of the clergy. Even 9 Marks affirms this.
4. When you take up on an offering, do your just transfer money from savings to checking?
a) We give directly to ministries and don’t funnel our money through an institution. I support a Christian group that works with orphans in Haiti with money and time. I also support a local crisis pregnancy center by volunteering my time. I don’t see the need to put my money into the general budget offering of an institution. Something you might find interesting is that in the New Testament, offerings are always taken up for the purpose of alleviating suffering of Christians in need, not to pay the mortgage or to pay the pastor (I have written a lot about this as well: http://thesidos.blogspot.com/search/label/giving)
As far as this challenge:
“Sure there are some presuppositions there, but I’ll wager I can produce 5 Scriptures to your every one.”
Please do. You have yet to produce one, much less five! Thus far your arguments are all based in church tradition and presuppositions.
Wes
You are correct in your definition of institutions and I would go so far as to say you are completely accurate in your assertion that humans instinctively form institutions. Having said that, I think it goes without saying and that we would all agree that the church is not like any other organization and gathering. In fact I would say that our natural human tendency towards institutionalism is one of primary reasons we should shy away from it.
The Bible is painfully unspecific on the details of the gathered church. We see examples of the church meeting. We read what they were concerned with. We get overarching principles. We don’t get specific directions: what to do, how to do it, when to do it. For example, in Acts 2:42 we see that the church in the very earliest days was devoted to fellowship, breaking bread, the apostles’ teaching and prayer. What it doesn’t tell us is how that looked so Christians have filled in the blanks. Fellowship means a scheduled weekly meeting. Breaking bread means a ritualistic Lord’s Supper. Prayer means corporate prayer where one man prays and we all listen along. The apostles’ teaching means Sunday school and more importantly a lecture style monologue by the same guy every week for 45 minutes. The problem is that no where in Scripture do we see support for these interpretations and in several places what we see directly refutes this idea (see Acts 20: 7-12 and 1 Corinthians 14: 1-40 , esp. verse 26).
Not only have we filled in the blanks but we have made our assumptions and pragmatic solutions sacred, inviolable and unquestionable. Believe me, when you question the sacred traditions of Protestantism the reaction you often get, especially from those who have a vested interest in maintaining the traditions of the institutional church, are likely to be visceral.
The big problem with your argument is that you take some situations and then apply the existing solution to them. In other words, the answer to any question or problem is the institutional church even when Scripture disagrees and reality has shown us otherwise. For example:
“Now, let’s also say that someone is doing something that brings a scandal on your group. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to rebuke this person? What if she doesn’t listen? Who will take this matter up? Once you believe that something must be done about scandals, then you are going to have to come up with some sort of method of discipline. ”
That is a legitimate question and one that in no way presupposed or implies an institutional church. Fortunately we already have an answer to this question in 1 Corinthians 5: 9-13. What should the church do in this case? Break fellowship with them and not even eat with them. What is instructive is that the church in Corinth is not told to get the elders to rebuke this man and bring him before a church trial and excommunicate him. They are to not associate with him and deny him the fellowship of the saints which includes eating meals together. How does that require an institutional church? In fact given the lack of intimacy in an institutional church, it is far more likely that he can get away with this and remain a member in good standing than if he were in a small, intimate church like a house church where everyone knows one another. Not only does your argument not presuppose the need for an institutional church, it actually argues against it. The same with false teaching. Last time I checked there were plenty of false teachers in institutional churches (Joel Osteen anyone?).
In contrast to your defense of the institutional church, here are the major flaws in it.
First and foremost, the institutional church doesn’t have any Scriptural support. Not in command, not in implication, not in example. The church in Scripture is marked by meeting in homes, sharing meals together, mutual edification and ministering to one another, a genuine priesthood of all believers that actually functions in that manner and is more than mere theological lip-service. To put it bluntly you were right to eschew making your defense of the institutional church from Scripture because it cannot be done without forcing our cultural traditions into the text. Furthermore…
The institutional church provides formalism and ritual in lieu of loving and edifying relationships between believers. In the institutional church, priority is given to structure, appearance and performance. That is one reason ministers spend so much time preparing sermons each week because the entire church gathering will be considered a success or a failure based on how “good” the sermon is. In return, the laity puts money in the plate and gets to check off a box on their religious checklist “Went to church this week? Check!” I wrote a post on this some time ago that likens the church in the Bible to a community garden with everyone working together and the institutional church as a grocery supermarket where we can get our religion as quickly and conveniently as possible (http://thesidos.blogspot.com/2010/07/gospel-grocery-stores.html).
The institutional church values performance over interaction. The institutional church is by design a gathering where the vast majority of Christians, week in and week out, are mute observers of a performance. Watching and listening to a man pray. Watching and listening to a man deliver a sermon. Only uttering a sound when given permission to sing hymns selected ahead of time by someone else. The only real purpose of having the laity in attendance is to provide an audience that sits quietly, pays attention and puts money in the plate. There is little difference between the institutional church meeting and seeing a play at the theater except that with theaters you pay before you go in and in institutional churches you pay in the middle of the service.
The institutional church replaces the Biblical model of “one another” that we see repeated over and over again with “one and all the others”, i.e. a pastor-centric church gathering. Especially in more conservative evangelical and Reformed traditions, the focal point of the meeting is the monologue sermon delivered by the same guy every week. That is troubling and ironic because there is not a single example of a monologue sermon to believers in the New Testament. Not one. What the Bible calls preaching is proclaiming the Gospel to unbelievers, not lecturing believers.
The institutional church divides Christians. I find it ironic that in your defense of institutionalism you list unity as something the institutional church helps foster. Nothing could be further from the truth. The disunity in the church is directly related to the institutionalization of the church and the stark reality that local churches see other local churches as competitors, groups that they compete with for the scarce resources of people and money. Churches go out of their way to differentiate themselves from one another. Come to our church, we have contemporary worship services! Come to our church, we are Reformed and follow the “regulative principle of worship”! Come to out church we are Baptist/Presbyterian/Pentecostal/Lutheran/etc.!
Finally, the institutional church is driven and sustained by fear. The clergy fears that the laity will go off the rails if left unsupervised (which won’t happen if the elders are fulfilling what they are called to do, Ephesians 4: 11-16 ). The laity fears that they will be called to do more than show up. The whole church is afraid of change and uncertainty. We like comfort, certitude and predictability and the traditional institutional church provides that. Sure it retards discipleship and leads to pastoral burnout coupled with a passive and flaccid laity but at least I know what I am going to get each week in the hour we have reduced the gathering of the saints down to!
Can anything good come from the institutional church? Certainly. There are lots of great Christians who love Christ and in turn love their neighbors in institutional churches. There are many leaders in the institutional church that I love and that have been incredibly profitable to the church, men like Albert Mohler and R.C. Sproul and John Piper. Again, as I stated earlier, the question we need to ask if not if the institutional church is an acceptable form for the church but if it is the best form and if it is the most Biblical. Because the institutional church tends to mute the majority of the church, reduce the relationships within the church to perfunctory formalism and divide the church between competing institutions, it is neither acceptable nor Biblical. In no way am I questioning the salvation or the orthodoxy of those who are in or advocates of the institutional church. I am simply calling on the Body to study the Scriptures regarding the church without making cultural and traditional assumptions.
Kevin,
I have to agree with you! Thank you also for amusing me with your practical points at the end of your last post. House churches sound more like family devotions to me… And those should be apart from institutional (church, corporate worship, fellowship of the saints, etc). We are called to belong to a body (many parts coming together, worshipping together, working together for a common purpose)of believers. The body of believers would include your family, but I believe it would be sinful to exclude (limit) people who are not part of that family or circle. How else do we go out into the world and bring the gospel to those yet to be saved? And strengthen godly relationships with those already saved? If each family has a house church. how can we build the body of Christ, as we are required to do as believers and how can we love our neighbor if we cannot engage with him? If you have church at home, are others welcome outside of your family? If yes, what if the group becomes too large for your home? Do you buy a bigger home? Tell people they can no longer come? Move service to a larger location? Who is responsible to make these decisions? Just questions that come to my mind when some believers separate from the body of believers… Either way, you will not be able to obey what God requires of us by separating, or at some point the people gathering will naturally become institutional. Personally (no offense Aurthur), many cults start from house churches, because the “leader” can preach whatevever they want whether it is Biblical or not…
Wes,
This is an interesting post, and it raises various questions, such as whether Christ founded the Church as an institution, what authority he gave its leaders, what promises He made concerning it, where that institution is today, and how we rightly determine the boundaries of that institution (i.e. what is difference between a branch within that institution, and a schism from that institution). If Christ did found the Church as an institution, then it seems to me that we could not be justified in simply forming our own organization based on what we think the Scripture says — because we would be obligated to remain in the institution Christ founded. But, if Christ did not found the Church as an institution, then how does that fit with your thesis? Thanks!
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
“What the Bible calls preaching is proclaiming the Gospel to unbelievers, not lecturing believers.”
The preaching of the gospel is for believers and unbelievers.
“So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.”(Romans 1:15)
Also see: Romans 16
@Arthur:
yes, I know of people in house churches. My wish is that they repent of their sin of schism and turn to a true church of Christ.
Hi Bryan, the institution is the organization that Christ defines in His Word. Whatever organization has those characteristics is that institution. Whatever does not have those characteristics is not that institution.
@Arthur:
>The Bible is painfully unspecific on the details of the gathered church.
I get it you have not read the Bile according to the proper redemptive-historical hermeneutics.
>The apostles’ teaching means Sunday school and more importantly a lecture style monologue by the same guy every week for 45 minutes.
These types of responses show the fundamentalist reductionist hermeneutic of treating the Bible like an encyclopedia, and it betrays the fact that the person doing so does not know how to read the Bible according to its own merits.
>What should the church do in this case? Break fellowship with them and not even eat with them.
And who gets to decide that the person is to be broken fellowship with? You? What if you think the person is wrong, but 5 others think the person is right, in a church of 11 people?
>In fact given the lack of intimacy in an institutional church, it is far more likely that he can get away with this and remain a member in good standing than if he were in a small, intimate church like a house church where everyone knows one another.
The amount of stereotyping is just astonishing. “lack of intimacy in an institutional church”. Really? Which institutional church had you attended?
Just because everyone knows one another doesn’t mean anything. I have heard of house churches that split because a significant percentage of the members followed one teaching, while the rest opposed them, EVEN though they all know one another. The naivete displayed here is astonishing.
>The institutional church provides formalism and ritual in lieu of loving and edifying relationships between believers
More stereotyping. Are there instance where institutional churches do commit such sins? Yes, but such blanket generalization shows a lack of knowledge of how churches function.
Furthermore, what is so loving and edifying when house church members encourage each other in their rebellion against Christ and His Church? Who gets to determine what is “loving” and “edifying”? Is being “loving” and “edifying” limited to warm feelings in the belly every time believers meet in a house church?
>In the institutional church, priority is given to structure, appearance and performance
WOW!! Again, which institutional church have you been a part of?
>That is one reason ministers spend so much time preparing sermons each week because the entire church gathering will be considered a success or a failure based on how “good” the sermon is.
This betrays the total lack of understanding the nature of preaching. Preaching is to bring the Word of God with the preacher as an embassador of God to the people. Insofar as it is biblical, the preached word functions as if God Himself was speaking to the people through the preacher.
>In return, the laity puts money in the plate and gets to check off a box on their religious checklist “Went to church this week? Check!”
Again, another misrepresentation. Those who treat church in this manner are sinning. Religiosity is not the reason for attending Church.
>The institutional church is by design a gathering where the vast majority of Christians, week in and week out, are mute observers of a performance.
Misrepresentation. The congregation are participants IN listening to God speak through His Word through the preacher, and are then to apply God’s Word to their lives and go out to witness for Him.
>There is little difference between the institutional church meeting and seeing a play at the theater except that with theaters you pay before you go in and in institutional churches you pay in the middle of the service.
Whoever has this idea of “church” has to repent.
>The institutional church replaces the Biblical model of “one another” that we see repeated over and over again with “one and all the others”, i.e. a pastor-centric church gathering.
The radical egalitarian impulse disregarding all authority is the hallmark of the anarchist house church movement. One wonders why they even bother worshipping God since everyone is so equal. Oh wait, according to Viola, the Church evantually gets around to being the 4th partner in the perchoretic dance of the Trinity, essentially in the end God and Man become equal. So I guess we are worshipping God in order that one day we would all be “gods” (theosis).
Of course, to say that we are to serve “one another” does not mean that no authority exists at all. I have yet to see any house church advocate use the “one another” motif in the way they interact with their children. Surely if we are all to be equal and pay full attention to the “one another” motif, children have just as much right to tell their parents what to do- as parents teach their children, so in the same way children should be lecturing their parents and the parents meekly accepting the lecturing. Oh wait, that perfectly describes the decadant liberal Western model of “parenting”.
>That is troubling and ironic because there is not a single example of a monologue sermon to believers in the New Testament. Not one.
I guess Paul’s preaching at Troas to the believers (Acts 20:7) does not count.
>The institutional church divides Christians.
Seeing the “house church” model of church growth by splitting, pot, meet kettle.
>Finally, the institutional church is driven and sustained by fear. The clergy fears that the laity will go off the rails if left unsupervised (which won’t happen if the elders are fulfilling what they are called to do, Ephesians 4: 11-16 ). The laity fears that they will be called to do more than show up. The whole church is afraid of change and uncertainty.
Again, while there may be such churches, such is a sweeping generalization.
The radical egalitarian impulse of the “house church movement” is heter-orthodox at best, stemming from the heretical views of the spiritual Franciscan Joachim of Fore. It denies the use of means in any way, even of means instituted by God. Instead, it is a sure recipe for disaster, where we have thousands of houe churches many of which do not see eye to eye, and having unity in their disunity and opposition to the so-called “institutional church”, their perpetual bogeyman.
If the “institutional church” as they have defined it cease to exist, the movement would cease their raison d’etre and turn to infighting I am sure.
Kevin,
Kevin: you bring up good points but Arthur’s Anabaptistic hermeneutic will never be touched.
Chew is right, yet short strong responses will likely not convince Arthur. Most of Arthur’s stereotyping has likely come from personal experience and vague definitions. It will take time and patience to convince him. That is why I stared with a simple question that he graciously sought to answer in his blog.
I hope to respond and better understand his position soon.
Shawn
“It will take time and patience to convince him.”
Or perhaps convince you?
Daniel
Your response is merely a litany of “nuh uh!” statements. Any chance you might appeal to Scripture in any of your responses instead of a laundry list of insults?
Robin,
“Personally (no offense Aurthur), many cults start from house churches, because the “leader” can preach whatevever they want whether it is Biblical or not…”
No offense taken, I appreciate that you are taking the time to think through this. Just curious though. Does what you describe ever happen in institutional churches?
As far as this…
“If each family has a house church. how can we build the body of Christ, as we are required to do as believers and how can we love our neighbor if we cannot engage with him? If you have church at home, are others welcome outside of your family? If yes, what if the group becomes too large for your home? Do you buy a bigger home? Tell people they can no longer come? Move service to a larger location? Who is responsible to make these decisions?”
That is an excellent question. What did the early church do? They didn’t build ever larger buildings to meet in. They didn’t deny fellowship with other believers. They simply met in more and more homes and found their identity in Christ instead of “my church” and “your church”. In fact many of the house church people I know (actual people, not strawmen) are more involved in outreach than people in more traditional churches because they are not caught up in the programs and rituals of the institutional church.
I think maybe you are misunderstanding how house churches work which is understandable given the misrepresentations on the part of Daniel and Kevin. A “house church” doesn’t mean each family stays at home and meets by themselves. Multiple families get together and meet in different houses. The numbers vary. To hear some of the above comments you would think that we lock ourselves behind closed doors and never let our kids out of the house. Nothing could be further from the truth but misrepresenting us is easier than actually dealing with the issues.
Hi Wes,
Thank you for this series. I have become convinced over the past few years that aspects of the institutional church are contrary to the NT, but it is helpful to test my understanding by reading opposing views.
It seems to me that you argue for the necessity and inevitability of something that looks like a modern denomination: assuming believers want to meet, they will need leaders, a method for recognizing/appointing these leaders, a confessional statement to maintain doctrinal purity, a method for dealing with “scandals”, official membership, associations of churches, and standards for affiliated churches.
First, though I probably see Biblical leadership differently than you, each of the characteristics you mention can exist in home/simple/organic churches (though I’ve never come across formal church membership outside of an institutional setting, the idea being, I believe, that if you are a member of Christ’s church, you can be a member of our expression of it). So none of your “what’s right” about the institutional church seems to require the institutional church (with the possible exception of official membership).
The characteristics of the institutional church which are troubling to me, which you do not mention, include
a) clericalism – a paid professional clergy distinct from, and I believe contributing to passivity among the “laity”. Contrast this with the NT picture of the priesthood, giftedness, and needed service of every member.
b) church-owned real estate, complete with mortgage, insurance, and maintenance etc.
c) church meetings in which most believers typically do not have the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution. Contrast this with the NT vision for meetings which feature mutual edification and accountability.
d) church budgets which focus on salaries, buildings and overhead. Contrast this with the NT where gifts went primarily to missions and the poor.
You also say certain individuals need to study the Bible. I’m curious – why shouldn’t all believers study the Bible?
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
There needs to be some recognition that weekly Christian worship began in the tradition of, and is in fact a continuation of, the worship of the institutional Jewish Synagogue. It is correct to say that institutional organization was not the focus of MOST of the New Testament, minus verses here and there. However, this is easily understood. There’s no need to state the obvious. Now, if Christian worship and fellowship was to be patterned remarkably differently from the institutional Jewish Synagogue worship, that would have required quite a bit of deconstruction by explanation!
Thanks Arthur, for explaining that to me. I’m not so naive that I cannot open myself up to why people believe different ways are the right way for them. Everyone has an opinion. And Jesus preached in churches, houses, and even right outside, regularly(and maybe even monologue like at at times?). However, to think churches should not exist, would be as wrong as saying meeting in houses should not happen. There are many “churches” that have started in a house. As far as cults starting only in house churches? I know that is not the case either. There have been well known cases where large churches have turned cult like…Waco. But this is rare compared to the vast number of good Bible believing, true gospel teaching, well meaning, God loving, compassionate serving the community, intimate fellowship with other believers, praising, glorifying, sharing from the heart spiritual experiences, living for Christ daily examples, who attend a “church”…whether it be 15 people or 5000 people. And in any case, things come up. People disagree. Whether it’s blood family, legal family, or church family. And even end up splitting sometimes. Even a house church is type of institution if mostly the same people gather regularly for the same purpose. Somebody has to decide; hey we’re going to meet next Sunday at 10am…at Joe’s house, and we’re going to discuss John 2, and Bob is going to give the opening prayer, and Nancy is going to make the coffee for before/after, and then each family will decide which organization they are going to help by volunteering or dropping of a monetary donation in the coming week(s), etc…
A few thoughts. First, this is an excellent article, Wes, thanks for reposting it. A few thoughts from my experience with a church that grew from a bible study and is now a PCA Church. I’ll use John’s comment as an outline because some of it correlates with concerns I’ve had.
a) clericalism – a paid professional clergy distinct from, and I believe contributing to passivity among the “laity”. Contrast this with the NT picture of the priesthood, giftedness, and needed service of every member.
A) The apostles were paid clergy. Even when Paul refused payment to teach a lazy church a work ethic, he pointedly told them it was his due, and elsewere he accepted support. He also mentiones other apostles recieving support (for example Peter apparently brought is family along). Consider also John’s letters on this matter of supporting ministers. Our church is currently blessed with a pastor with scolarly gifts, that is something that takes extensive education and considerable time each week. Our church is a small church that probably can’t compensate him as well as we should, but we have been blessed. Not everyone has that gift, and those who do need to be given the resources to use their gift. Having a paid “person who is gifted to teach” should not encourage passivity. We are also blessed with many volunteers, most everyone in the church contributes in various ways, we have no other paid staff, for example, the church officers take turns doing the janitorial work each month. We could not function without the many diverse gifts of our members, we truly would be a crippled body if we lost just a few.
b) church-owned real estate, complete with mortgage, insurance, and maintenance etc.
B) A church building. As we grew from a mission church, we started to exaust the available affordable rental facilities in town. Our ministry opportunities were being limited by our ability to find space apart from what we rented Sunday morning. We were able to purchase a building that was cheap sq footage and basically needed a new roof. In the five years we’ve been there we have made considerable improvements, almost entirely with volunteer help and funds donated outside the general titheing budget. It would simply be bad stewardship for us to not own a building, and very difficult to meet our needs. Also, in the first century or so of the church, they just did not have the ability to have a building (they were being persecuted more or less during that time).
c) church meetings in which most believers typically do not have the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution. Contrast this with the NT vision for meetings which feature mutual edification and accountability.
C) We have a great worship team (we are blessed to have some talented members, a pianist, one of our elders plays guitar, my wife plays drums or flute, or subs on the piano, ect. members take turns leading in prayer, when we were smaller we had open prayer when everyone who wanted to pray could. I would like to know more specfically what you mean, and possibly there is a lot more that could be added here.
d) church budgets which focus on salaries, buildings and overhead. Contrast this with the NT where gifts went primarily to missions and the poor.
D) I think if you consider my response to a and b you will see that “the worker deserves his wages” and that I think that for many churches, a building is just good stewardship. Organizations require resources to run, wether it be funds disbursed from a formal budget, or members donating use of their house. Even in a small church, I have found if everyone is willing to tithe (and for anyone who feels that’s legalism, I always say feel free to give 11%), property can be maintained, a teaching elder paid, diaconal needs met, and missions and benevolences supported. ‘In the NT, gifts went primarily to missions’: yes they were paying the missionary that was preaching to them many times (a paid clergy), ‘and the poor’: taking care of their members, I believe there can be merit in a church having a mercy ministry, but it has to be pointed out that generally what we see in the NT is money being distributed to their own members in need or to meet the needs of members of sister churches.
These are just a few thoughts, Wes’s post could be expanded into a short book with a hundred scripture quotes.
@Arthur:
it seems you are not willing to interact with the points. So are you interested in really knowing the truth, or you are merely interested in your personal vendetta against the “institutional church”?
Mark B,
Thank you for the good counterpoints, each of which deserves its own dedicated post.
My response to Wes’ post was that most of “what’s right” about the institutional church does not require the institutional church, but is equally at home in a non-institutional church.
The concerns I listed are hallmarks of the western church, related to but not specifically addressed in Wes’ post. To explore them further will mean digging into the Word a bit, and taking the discussion somewhat away from Wes’ post. Wes, I’ll trust you to moderate as you see fit 🙂
I’m not sure I would describe the apostles as “clergy”. The eleven would remember clearly when Jesus told them “you are all brothers”! There’s Jesus, and then there’s the rest of us. No separate class designated “clergy” (the word “clergy” actually comes from the Greek “kleros”, meaning lot, portion, or inheritance; in 1Pet 5:3 the entire flock is God’s “kleros”, not specifically leaders.)
I also don’t think I would describe the apostles as being “paid”, though by the Lord’s command they could and did receive support (food, lodging, clothes etc.). The NT world was familiar with wages, but nowhere in the NT are apostles said to receive wages.
And beyond that, the NT differentiates between traveling workers (apostles, or missionaries), and local leaders (elders, overseers). Teachers, which probably included but was not limited to elders, were to receive “good things”, which may have included financial gifts (Gal 6:6); and elders were to receive “honor”, which also may have included financial support (1Tim 5:17-18). However, local non-itinerant leaders were expected to do secular work (2Thes 2:6-10, and especially Acts 20:34-35). This makes perfect sense: at home, Peter could jump in his boat and make some money, while away from home, he could not. A local church leader, not traveling, would have somewhere to live and could continue to work his trade.
It‘s a blessing the way you describe how the members of your church are engaged! But if there is a full-time paid minister, isn’t it natural to expect him to do most of the teaching, encouragement, outreach, organization, visitation, etc.? In the absence of a full-timer, the rest of us are more likely to realize that the work of the church depends on us! There are certainly leaders who see their job as “equipping the saints to do the work of ministry” (Eph 4:12), but it’s natural to see paid staff and assume the work of ministry is their job, since they’re getting paid for it.
Please forgive the multiple comments, but it is interesting to read some of the writings of the church fathers on ministers and secular employment. While I regret their movement into priesthood and clericalism, apparently the idea that local leaders would do secular work persisted for hundreds of years:
“For we ourselves, besides our attention to the word of the Gospel, do not neglect our inferior employments. For some of us are fishermen, some tentmakers, some husbandmen, that so we may never be idle.”
Apostolic Constitutions, 3rd – 4th Cent
“By pursuing his trade of weaving linen, he continued to earn the means of supplying his own wants and of providing for others. He never deviated from this course of conduct till the close of his life, although he exceeded all the other priests of that province in age; and although he presided over the people and property of the largest church.”
Sozomen describing Zeno
“Following the example of their holy father in Christ, I mean the holy apostle Paul, the priests of God, if not all, yet the more part, in addition to the preaching of the word, laboured with their hands.”
Epiphanius, 4th cent
“For although our clergy do seem very numerous, they are men inexperienced in travelling because they never traffic, and prefer not to live far away from home, the majority of them plying sedentary crafts, whereby they get their daily bread.”
Basil to Eusebius, 375
“Let a cleric however learned in the word of God get his livelihood by a craft.
Let a cleric procure his food and raiment by a craft, or by agriculture without interfering with his official duty.
Let all clerics who are strong enough to work learn both crafts and letters.”
Fourth Council of Carthage, Canons 51, 52 and 53
And an article on this subject: http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=88
Robin,
I appreciate what you are saying and the concern you have for God’s people. I certainly agree that there are many, many wonderful Christians doing great things for the Kingdom in institutional churches. God sovereignly used a Baptist preacher in an old school, very traditional institutional church to bring me to saving faith in His Son. We have spent most of our time as Christians in institutional churches and many of them were a great blessing to us. I was a pastor in a small Baptist church for two years and preached expository sermons twice every Sunday. My purpose is not to say “Is there anything good in the institutional church?” and more to raise the question, is the institutional church the best way for the church to meet? Obviously I don’t think that it is and all I ask is for my fellow believers to do is to study the Scriptures, really study them, and see if what the Bible is describing is what we see in our traditional model. I came to realize that it wasn’t. I don’t claim to have all of the answers but just because we don’t have all of the answers is no excuse to cling to our traditions and stop looking. I encourage you to think through this issue for yourself.
Daniel,
I am quite interested in finding out the truth. Are you or are you more interested in defending the traditions you have been taught at seminary? I do appreciate that you at least are willing to engage in the conversation instead of posting things that are inflammatory and then running away so you deserve credit for that. I also see that you are a student at Westminster Seminary in California so I get where you are coming from doctrinally.
If you would like me to slice and dice the comments that you posted after slicing and dicing my comment, I can do that. Your comment is slightly over 1000 words already, counting what you copied and pasted from my comment and your comments. My reply will be similarly lengthy but if that will prove my willingness to engage, so be it.
Alternately, I have written quite extensively about these issues, I would welcome you to read them and interact with the points I have made. I have posted over 130 blogs dealing with the church:
http://thesidos.blogspot.com/search/label/the%20church
Around a dozen of them deal directly with institutionalism:
http://thesidos.blogspot.com/search/label/institutional%20church
Whichever you prefer is fine. I certainly am happy to engage in the points you raise. In fact I wrote about your contention that Paul was preaching a sermon in Acts 20:7 to the church in Troas here: http://thesidos.blogspot.com/2011/04/was-paul-preaching-sermon-when-he-met.html . Whichever you prefer, I am more than willing to accommodate.
test
John,
I was going to reply back to Mark B. but your response was spot on! It is very easy to read the Scriptures with our church traditions as a filter. We read that elders are worthy of double honor and automatically assume that “honor” = “a permanent salary and benefits”.
Wes,
I think that if a person believed that Christ left us only with an ideology, and not with an institution, he too would say that ‘the Church’ is whichever organization(s) hold and teach that ideology. And that implies to me that your position is substantively equivalent. If Christ left only an ideology, then we find ‘the Church’ by finding the present group of persons whose doctrine is sufficiently close to what we think Christ taught, based on our reading of Scripture. That group ipso facto becomes ‘the Church’ for us, while other groups become ‘the Church’ for other persons who arrive at different conclusions from Scripture concerning the nature of the doctrine Christ taught. If there is no group whose doctrine is sufficiently close to what we think Christ taught, based on our reading of Scripture, we start a new group, and that group becomes ‘the Church.’
But if Christ founded an institution, and entrusted the deposit of faith to that institution, then there is an entirely different paradigm. Instead of locating ‘the Church’ by seeing who sufficiently agrees with one’s own interpretation of Scripture, we locate the deposit of faith (and its proper interpretation) by first locating the institution Christ founded, and submitting to her teaching concerning the deposit entrusted to her by Christ.
So, the paradigm for locating the Church depends very much on whether Christ founded an institution and entrusted the deposit to it, or left only an ideology (or set of doctrines).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
This discussion is interesting. I’m still hoping for some of the theologians here to address from scripture whether a house church is or is not ok for a Christian.
Also, I’m wondering what one should say to a brother who says he is going to start a church (fellowship, etc.). Suppose a brother decides to start meeting in his home and invites others and a small fellowship develops from this. Does he have to get permission from someone? If so, from who?
The Reformation brought us the definition of what constitutes a true church. A true church will:
1. Exhibit sound doctrine Sound Doctrine (John 8:31, 47; 14:23; Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 3:16-4:4; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 9-11)
2. Faithfully and Rightfully Administer the Sacraments (1 Cor. 10:14-17, 21; 11:23-30)
3. Rightfully Administer Discipline (Matthew 18:17; Acts 20:28-31a; Rom. 16:17-18a; 1 Cor. 5:1-5, 13; 14:33, 40; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 5:6, 11; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; 1 Tim. 1:20; 5:20; Titus 1:10-11; 3:10; Rev. 2:14-16a; 2:20).
Of course, having a biblical understanding of proper church government is not a salvation issue but it is very important as the church constitutes God’s kingdom here on earth.
I started off my life brought up in the Episcopal church. I have attended and been a member of several non-denominational churches a couple congregational baptist churches. I have since become convinced that the Presbyterian form of church government most closely exhibits the church structure given to us in the Scriptures.
The arguments for this form of government are compelling and and can be deduced by good and necessary consequence from the Word of God in the New Testament.
One short book that helped me to understand was a book called “The Apostolic Church Which is it?” It is not very long and, while it does not address house churches in particular, it compares the various common forms of church government and examines how they comport with the Bible. It is available here: http://rdd.me/zkhsosrv
John
Thanks for your thoughful response. On ther issue of paid clergy, it almost seems we are arguing semantics. Can we agree that the new testament shows that teachers were to be supported? As for words like clergy and institution which seem offensive to some here, I don’t use them either. I mean, not not once this week did I say to my pastor “Hey clergy, how’s your work at the institution going?” 🙂 As for pastors to engage in tentmaking, I don’t think anyone said that was improper, and it is sometimes necessary, however, if the church body is able to support a pastor I think that’s awesome.
We ALL read the NT through various filters, but on the other hand we should be able to agree on some of the basic principles that are laid out. One of the key points raised in the post is that (regardless of what terms you want to use) if we as Christians are trying to follow the mandates given to us in the Bible, we are going to end up with something that looks like a confessional Presbyterian/Reformed church. It was specifically stated that there are problems in the institutional church, pointing out the problems does not mean it NESSESSARILY follows that the solution is to destroy the institutional church, nor does it respond to the basic premise raised. For example, as Christians, we believe many things that the world finds abhorrent, but the solution to reaching the lost is not to eviscerate the gospel…
Mark,
I’d say your idea, of a church thinking through the pros and cons of supporting teachers, would be a big step in the right direction. In my experience though, it is a given that the pastor is an employee who gets salary and benefits (and btw, most of the pastors I know are *extremely* godly and dedicated – I love and respect the people, but question the system).
I think we would agree about the most important things, but see this differently: I see local leaders of NT churches as mature members of the church, who supported themselves in their various trades. Elders were not considered members of a specialized profession, like bankers or lawyers, and did not hold an M.Div or receive special tax treatment. As they were not a distinct class, and spent time at a regular job, it would be expected that the entire church share the work of the ministry.
With this setup, wisely established by the apostles, elders would be able to model hard work and giving to the needy, mingle with lost people, and not be a financial burden on the church.
And there seems to be a bit of a move in this direction – I’ve read about pastors seeing this in the Bible and choosing to leave church employment in favor of secular.
Mark,
I guess I don’t see how the mandates of Scripture lead to something like a modern denomination. I would say that in general the contemporary Western church is loaded with traditions (for example: pulpit, Sunday School, order of service, worship service, sermon, youth group, paid fulltime minister, church building – none of these is found in the NT). There is nothing wrong with tradition per se, it’s just “the way we do things”. But if our traditions interfere with the commands of Scripture, then there is a problem. So I think a better question is, how do our traditions line up with the commands of Scripture?
For instance, we are commanded to make disciples – are monologue sermons a good way to do this?
We are commanded to help the poor – do buildings, salaries and overhead interfere with this?
There are about 50 “one another” commands – does the way we do church facilitate that kind of community?
Dear friends, thank you for taking the time to participate on this thread. I do not have time right now to answer everything that has been set forth here, but please feel free to continue the discussion. Thank you all for taking the time to do so here at Johannes Weslianus.
One point that I would make is that I still think the fundamental issue that I raised in my post is still unanswered. Shawn Mathis asked right at the beginning, “What is an institution?” Before we can debate whether or not we should have an institution, we must have a clear idea of what an institution is. In my opinion, the house church movement is an institution of its own. It is an organization with rules, boundaries, and leaders. The reason is because all human societies necessarily institutionalize.
The issues raised here with the house church groups (though not necessarily the main target of this article) indicate that we both believe in institutions. The question is what type of institution we want to have. The questions involve things like whether we should have leaders, whether they should be supported financially and to what degree, whether churches should own property, whether it is wrong to meet in a building, and how worship should be done.
I also think that it is really wrong to think that because people sit and listen that they are doing nothing. Mary sat at the feet of Jesus and listened to Him. According to Jesus, she chose the good portion, and it would not be taken away from her. Being part of a group necessitates that we lose some of our individuality and act together. A soldier is not doing nothing because he is not a general. A student is not doing nothing because he is learning. The worshipers in heaven are not doing nothing because they simply join the large crowd that is adoring Jesus.
Wes
I also think that it is really wrong to think that because people sit and listen that they are doing nothing. Mary sat at the feet of Jesus and listened to Him. According to Jesus, she chose the good portion, and it would not be taken away from her. Being part of a group necessitates that we lose some of our individuality and act together. A soldier is not doing nothing because he is not a general. A student is not doing nothing because he is learning. The worshipers in heaven are not doing nothing because they simply join the large crowd that is adoring Jesus.
Amen! There absolutely is a place for listening attentively while someone else speaks. In 1 Corinthians 14: 29-33 Paul writes:
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
So I say again amen to listening quietly and attentively when someone is speaking, especially if that person is Jesus! However what does Paul say a few verses before that in 1 Corinthians 14:26 ?
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
So yes there is a place for us to listen but to listen to one another, not for all of us to listen while only one man speaks. If all we ever do is sit quietly, we are not functioning as the Body should. The expectation here clearly is that when the body gathers that every brother should come prepared to somehow participate because that is how the Body is built up, by the whole church edifying and building up one anther (see Hebrews 10: 24-25) and it is likewise apparent that Paul is not talking about sitting quietly as “participation”.
I would also say that there is a difference between humans forming institutions and Christ building His Church. House churches are sort of an institution, that is true, but the problem is when the church becomes institutionalized, i.e. when the institution becomes preeminent.
I also think Les asks a significant question:
I’m still hoping for some of the theologians here to address from scripture whether a house church is or is not ok for a Christian.
(Full disclosure: I know Les personally and love him as a brother in Christ even though he is a Presbyterian and an SEC fan!)
In other words, is it sinful for Christians to meet in house church type fellowships (as Daniel stated) or is it simply a matter of a difference in a secondary issue that is not something to divide over?
Sid, Wes, others,
I am back from presbytery.
I have posted a response to Sid’s posting on my blog,
http://polymathis.solideogloria.com/2011/04/what-does-institutional-church-mean.html
Carrying this over to my blog, I suppose, will help Wes alleviate moderating all the comments.
@Arthur:
while we do learn “traditions” at seminary, we learn how they develop through the Church’s meditation on Scripture. We do not believe that we are the first Christians who have meditated on the teachings of Scripture, and think that those who go before us have nothing to teach us.
As you have read, I am a seminary student. Seeing it is now term time, time for interaction is rather limited. Reading through all 130 or more posts will take up time I do not have.
You can chose one narrow topic and we can interact on that if you so wish to.
Shawn,
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond, I posted a brief reply to your post and linked to it from my blog! And you can refer to me by my first name!
Daniel
We do not believe that we are the first Christians who have meditated on the teachings of Scripture, and think that those who go before us have nothing to teach us.
Good to know, I don’t either! I have learned quite a bit from Calvin and Luther and Spurgeon among many, many others. I have also learned a lot from the Anabaptists and others. I even learn from men that I disagree with vehemently on many issues.
I appreciate that you are busy. I am occasionally busy myself with a full-time job and eight children at home that we homeschool. Why don’t you pick a topic, here are some suggestions: a) preaching b) clergy c) the sacraments or d) something else of your choosing. If you like, we could post and counter-post at our blogs rather than replying back and forth here.
@Arthur:
the topic of preaching would be a good one to explore. Why don’t you contact me via email to discuss if you desire to go further?