Whenever we're dealing with hermeneutics (interpretation of the scriptures) there are a number of questions that need to be asked. One very important one is this: is the text we are looking at descriptive or prescriptive? In other words, is the text we are looking at simply describing stuff that took place (with little or no bearing/obligation upon us to respond to it in a given way)
or is the text clearly stating something in such a way that it demands a specific response from us as we read it?
Our discussion on "church" is the perfect example. What we see in the NT is this:
1. Christians gathering at the temple/local synagogue to hear the scriptures read (no Christian would have their own copy of the scriptures).
2. they would then leave these rather large gatherings and meet in necessarily smaller groups in their own houses in order to discuss what they heard from the scriptures, pray, and break bread.
Now, the whole house church movement (backed up by Viola, Barna, the Dales... which started
this set of posts) is centred on #2. They see the descriptions of meeting house to house and say that the truly Biblical model is based on small groups of Christians meeting not in church owned buildings but in homes.
But I don't know if they asked this important hermeneutic question: is what we see in the NT (when it comes to ekklesia) descriptive or prescriptive?
When the NT writers recorded what the ekklesia was doing was it simply a description of how they chose to meet? Ie. there is no obligation for future generations of Christians all around the globe to meet in this precise manner.
Or when the NT writers recorded what the ekklesia was doing was it prescriptive? Ie. how the early Christians met is the way that God requires all of us to be meeting.
Let's have a discussion around this.
What do you think?
7 comments:
Perhaps we need to take a look at where Christ taught the people from. It seems to me that he taught whereever it was convenient. He taught on a mountain, from a boat to the people on the shore, in a house, in the synagogue...I'm probably missing a few. My point is that if Christ could teach the people back then from a variety of different places, perhaps we can still do church in various settings, depending on what is convenient at the time. Church on the beach doesn't sound bad to me at all!!
Your right Tim, this is an important hermeneutic step. Paul gave us a lot of prescriptive things, how to choose leaders, the heart behind worship and communion. But Acts is a descriptive book. Not that we can't model after some of the things they did, but they were "doing" church for the first time (as a Christian church). What makes us think they got it "right" the first time. But the purpose of the church is more than what we "do". Is there one right way to worship God? Is there one right way to be salt and light to the world? The early church met the way they did because that's what they needed to do. Or maybe that's all they could do.
Sometimes I wonder what happened to the church with all the different denominations. But I think God planned it that way. People are different, and we need different churches to reach all people. Besides, not every church can be as Biblical as our church:)
Tim S.
Oh, man. I wish I could be in a Biblical church like yours, Tim :)
It seems abundantly obvious to me (and so far you all agree) that NT church gatherings are descriptive.
As Bryan already noted, if we take Jesus as our cue (usually not a bad notion), we have all sorts of different gatherings. Some small and intimate like a dinner gathering in a home. Some huge... literally thousands upon thousands on the hillside. But the thing about that is that some people wouldn't say that these gatherings were "church." They would say that the true NT church began at Pentecost.
So, if we only take into consideration everything post-Pentecost does that change anything? TimS doesn't seem to think so.
It would seem to me that the mode in which church is best achieved is done more so based on the immediate needs or demands made on her, not in a 'one size fits all' structure.
Perhaps I do not understand the distinction being made between pre-Pentecost verses post-Pentecost. Interacting with Christ Himself or the Holy Spirit is virtually the same thing, is it not? In the absence of Christ's physical presence we have the Holy Spirit.
Is church defined as an intimate interaction of believers motivated through the Holy Spirit, or is it an intimate interaction of believers following Christ? In either case, I do not understand how this would have any bearing on the significance of corporate church, whether it be pre-Pentecost of post-Pentecost. Are the benchmarks used factors like evengelical effectiveness, personal growth, structural methodology, etc?
Could you tell me how Barna makes these distictions and the qualifications he uses for his arguement?
Clint Langelaar
The only reason why I made the distinction between pre and post Pentecost is because some say that the NT church era began at Pentecost. Thus (for these people) any discussions about ekklesiology based on anything pre-Pentecost are irrelevant.
Those pushing the house-church movement (Barna included) often push the "evangelical effectiveness" angle. The ability for house churches to expand and reproduce is much greater than that of a "traditional" church.
However, one of my most recent frustrations coming out of these books (this one from "The Rabbit and the Elephant") was this:
"So what makes simple church different from a typical legacy church? Isn't it just like one of the legacy church's home groups or cell groups?" (pg. 69)
The chapter goes on to describe pretty much exactly what all of the Small Groups I've ever been a part of have been like. They don't answer the question at all.
That is what I struggle with. How are house churches/simple churches any different than basic Small Groups?
For sure, I assumed that the distinction between pre & post- Pentecost was their distinction and not yours. Its too bad Barna and company follow this line of thought, because as you pointed out, the Old Testament has authority and amazing insight.
Do you think that the reason home churches are seen as so successful might have to do with the social philosophies of the Western world? I tend to think that individualism plays a large part in how churches in the West operate and function. Home churches are able to give a lot of attention to the individual, hence I think the appeal.
I tend to disagree with the concept of small home churches, even though they might be evangelically successful. I find the entire concept to be counter-directional to how societies evolve and function. When Karen and I lived in Asia all the churches that we saw were enormous. These churches would birth daughter churches that would start off large and grow into their enormous mothers.
I think one factor contributing to their success (other then the obvious fact that they have more people their then you can shake a stick at) is their collective identity. They don't like "I", they like "WE". Thinking that way tends to change how you understand most aspects of your personal faith (at least for myself).
If I had to face off against an army of rabbits or a pack of elephants, I tend to think that the latter might be more formidable.
What do you think Tim?
I really appreciate these last several entries you have done on this issue, its really interesting.
Clint Langelaar
Thanks for your thoughts, Jilliefl1.
You are right, it is important to know that this one book does not summarize his entire perspective on "church." Thanks for the link, as well.
As I mentioned in the comments of one of the previous posts, I have no doubt that Frank's intentions are the best, and that he is a good, Godly man.
I just happen to disagree with him.
I have nothing against house churches in and of themselves (the Holy Spirit will guide people to gather as He leads them) I just don't think that Viola makes a good case for them.
The picture he paints of Church History is extremely one-sided. I think this is dishonest. There are MANY more knowledgeable historians out there that offer MANY alternate perspectives/interpretations of history. Rather than addressing these other perspectives he simply ignores them. That is poor scholarship. That is what I am critiquing; not his love for God or His Bride.
Post a Comment