14 Comment(s)

1. Brian,

   I am continually amazed at the rose-colored
   glasses you seem to be looking through. When I sent you that article, I
   thought it would be something we would conclude agreement on, and
   
   in context, we did!

   I agree with you that hypocritical Christians
   create more work for the Christian apologist, in evangelism, than the best
   atheist could ever desire to create. In fact, you yourself seem to be
   alienated from biblical Christianity because of the scars of “institutional
   church,” as you commonly put it.

   When it comes to genuine Christianity, the
   issue is not if the person claims to be a Christian and somehow manages to
   impress you with his ability to “walk the walk.” The issue is that a person
   who is truly regenerate (2
   Cor. 5:17), will “walk the walk”
   because
   he has been given a new heart and new desires.

   If someone who professes faith in Christ does
   not live according to that profession, then he is a false convert and the
   truth is not in them (1
   John 1:6). This is not the fault of “institutional church” but one of
   inconsistency of the false convert, who is probably a
   
   product of the modern gospel rather than the biblical one, and unable to
   fake it good enough. Such is not a reason to reject “institutional church”
   for being filled with hypocrites, but rather a reason to find a
   church which is filled with true converts instead of false ones. 

   Ray Comfort properly teaches that there really
   are no hypocrites in the church because the church is the body of
   true believers, and
   true believers do not behave
   hypocritically: 
   

   “Hypocrite
   comes from the Greek word for “actor,” or
   pretender. Hypocrisy is “the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or
   virtues that one does not hold.” Hypocrites may show up at a church
   building, but in reality there are no hypocrites in the Church. In its
   ignorance, the world thinks that the church is the building, and that those
   who sit within its confines are Christians. However, the Church is the Body
   of Christ, which consists only of true believers; hypocrites are
   “pretenders” who sit among God’s people. They dwell as goats among the
   Lord’s sheep, bad fish among the good, tares among wheat until the day God
   separates them.” 

   Unfortunately, there are false converts who
   profess to be Christians, who come to church and behave hypocritically.
   Charles
   Spurgeon said, ““I
   am told that Christians do not love each other. I am very sorry if that be
   true, but I rather doubt it, for I suspect that those who do not love each
   other are not Christians.” 

   I agree with you that churches which operate
   the way you describe should be avoided. I disagree with your conclusion,
   that since some
   churches are like that, all should be avoided and therefore it is ok to
   avoid attending church.  

   Scripture teaches that one thing an obedient
   and consistent Christian does is assemble together for worship (Heb
   10:25). Another thing a non-hypocritical Christian does is he loves the
   fellowship of the saints (1
   John 1:7). Could it be that by claiming to be a Christian, and
   withholding yourself from attending church because of hypocrites, that in
   fact, you are being the very hypocrite you detest, and thus also a stumbling block to
   others? Could you consider that since you obviously have a misplaced view of
   "institutional church" and hypocrites, that you also may have a misplaced
   view of the gospel? Perhaps that is why you have a hard time discerning a
   true Christian from a false one, and a true Christian church from a fake
   one?

   If you are sincerely looking for a good church
   that does not behave in the ways you have described, I have several local
   ones listed on my webpage @
   
   www.tonyrose.com.

   -Tony Rose

   <))><

   Tony Rose | Mar 30, 2006 | Reply

2. Hey Tony. Thanks for the comment. If assembling together for worship and loving the fellowship of the saints can only be done by attending an institutional church then I’m absolutely in the wrong, and I’m a hypocrite, and I’m a stumbling block.

   But I don’t see any biblical or practical evidence that assembling together for worship and loving the fellowship of the saints can only be done (or even best be done) within the context of an institutional church.

   It certainly can be done within an institutional church but can also as effectively (or moreso) be done outside that context.

   Am I wrong about that?

   brian | Mar 30, 2006 | Reply

3. Hey Brian,

   I find it interesting reading your blog site. You challenge me to question and reaffirm what I believe.

   Worship can be done outside the four walls of a church building. You know this. Worship is a life-style. Worship is what happens when we fear our God and keep his commandments and statues, not just the singing. I am on a daily journey to learn what it truely means to fear God. Many , myself included, have taken God and made him into a image we can understand in our culture today. Each generation of Christian tends to do this in our feeble attempts to understand God. God is so much bigger than we can ever understand or explain to someone. All we can do is seek His truth through His Word.

   Please hear what Tony is trying to say to you. It does say in Hebrews that we should not forsake assembling together. That should be enough said for you to obey. I agree, I think you are hurt. Find a place you can heal. Don’t make the “institutional church” a stronghold in your life. What better worship to our One True God than obedience.

   Always let scripture be your guide. I love the way you are always seeking. But, once it is revealed and confirmed through other scripture and other strong Christians in your life, follow!!

   What a journey we are on!! I have so much to learn and submit too. I’ll be praying for your journey. Miss you guys.

   Melanie | Mar 31, 2006 | Reply

4. Brian,

   Thanks for the dialog and I appreciate the tone and acceptance of what I am saying in the spirit I am intended it. I know sometimes I challenge you in my responses, and I sincerely appreciate you recognizing that it comes from the love of speaking the truth rather than just debate for the sake of debate. In response:

   You are not wrong about what you say, at the face value of the words you use. I am not saying you are wrong about the location of the gathering, or that it can only take place in an “institutional church.” To say such as that would be to deny the many underground churches that assemble in all sorts of places, in cultures where Christians are persecuted. Certainly the fact that the Church doesn’t gather in a particular building in that example doesn’t mean they are doing it wrong. This isn’t about buildings, it is about believers.

   However, I perceive that when you write those words, and when I agree with them, we are not meaning the same thing.

   Additionally, I do not agree when you state that there is no precedence or evidence in which to claim it is BETTER to assemble as a church, in which we are commonly familiar, or that it can be “also as effectively (or moreso) be done outside that context.”

   Let me explain this way: The Apostle Paul, other writers of Scripture and Jesus himself, spent significant efforts explaining not only how Christians (true ones) should BEHAVE, but also how and why we ought to ASSEMBLE. Since so much effort was spent in Scripture telling us what KIND of people we should have as leaders, WHO we should and should not have as leaders, what other’s should be DOING, warnings about false teachers, etc…. it is reasonable to conclude that we should definitely be meeting and assembling in the church context. In giving such detailed instructions on matters of “church,” the writers of Scripture almost assume that the people already understand that the assembling should be taking place as a fundamental issue. Scripture does say, “Go off into your caves and homes and have church with your individual families.” No, it says to assemble together as a corporal group for the purpose of church, and then carry it with you to those other locations as well!

   Some of these reasons Scripture gives are: to teach/learn, encourage/be encouraged, placing ourselves under the authoritative leadership of Godly Christians for the purpose of accountability, etc. The question isn’t: CAN these things be done outside of normal church, but can they BEST be done outside of it. Should church be avoided in cultures were biblical churches can be found? In our culture, I don’t think you can make an argument that they can. I think in the context of churches in error (as you have described) that it would certainly be better to be absent from such a church than to be involved in learning error. We agree on that. However, to stop altogether on that logic assumes that you can’t find a single church doing it right. I don’t believe that is true.

   A church that has a biblical plurality of teaching elders can avoid the “only the vision of the pastor” problem you describe. They also can certainly teach you more than you can learn alone in your home. I would challenge you to do a study of “the one another’s” in Scripture and think about those in the context of a church. Encouraging one another, submitting to one another, admonishing one anther, bearing one another’s burdens, etc. certainly CAN be done in small groups and should be. But they can also be BETTER done in the context of a church atmosphere in cultures where that is allowed and possible.

   Moreover, if Scripture commands you to be within the context of a church body in order to be doing these things and you are not, you are not only depriving yourself of receiving these things, but you are also depriving others who are not receiving them from you! Can they be done at home? Sure. Can they be done BETTER at church? I think so. It isn’t either/or, it is both/and!

   To close on a more personal note, I would like to say Brian, that I understand your resistance to unhealthy churches and unhealthy “Christians.” And you are correct in identifying the abundance of them in the south. I told you before when you were so wrapped up in the emergent church thing that I perceived that the emergent church was correctly identifying these errors in modern “church—i-anity,” but that they (and you) were throwing the baby out with the bathwater by responding with creating “new church.” My advice then was to leave bad churches for good churches, not leave bad churches for starting something “as I like it.” I felt then that you and the emergent crowd was responding to your bad experiences with unbiblical authority by creating “church as I like it,” without ANY authority, which is equally wrong. What I see now in your life is that the emergent thing has exposed itself and its true colors, but you are still throwing the baby out with the bath water now, by not joining ANY church but just “doing it at home.” You are still responding to your bad authority experiences by tossing out ALL authority. The truth is Brian that we are to be under the authority of biblically based elders in a biblically based church. Church discipline is a vital part of a healthy church, but you are looking for a church where there is NO authority. You might find it, but it won’t be biblically based.

   I would challenge you to look for a church with the marks of a healthy church, that has Godly leaders who are doing things right. Approach them in a teachable spirit. If you perceive they aren’t doing something right, sit down and talk to them about why they are being unbiblical, or even better, to learn why what they are doing is biblical. Be teachable about true biblical authority. Don’t look for a church that “does it like I want to.” If we look for a church that appeals to us and the way we like things, we are approaching it backwards. Church isn’t there to entertain or please us as individuals. Church is to be a body of believers based on Scripture. It CAN be done “at home” and in small groups, and certainly we are to be priests in our homes and train our kids biblically. But we are ALSO supposed to be part of a local church to teach, learn, edify and be edified, fellowship, to hold others accountable and to be accountable corporally. Do both, don’t reject the latter because you can’t find the place that does it just like you want it done. Find one that is biblical, and then work in a Christian attitude to change the things you don’t like.

   I have several resources on my website at www.tonyrose.com that will help in this endeavor. I also would recommend Joshua Harris’ book: “Stop Dating the Church! Fall in Love with the Family of God.” It is excellent and may help you understand some of these things better.

   I continue to pray for you and your family to find a church home. Although I am not trying to encourage you to attend “my church,” you certainly are welcome to come and see a church that is working to do things right, biblically. Our pastor is a humble and Godly man who understands true biblical authority from both directions, and is a great expositor of The Word. There are other churches in our area doing the same, if you are willing to try and to be teachable in the process. I pray for that.

   Tony Rose | Mar 31, 2006 | Reply

5. Here are some resources I recommend to you:
   Joshua Harris, "Stop
   Dating the Church"
   "Christians belong in churches—the only places
   where we can thrive and grow spiritually. In this book, Joshua Harris makes this
   case with wisdom, clarity, and graciousness."
   —Charles W. Colson

   "It’s time for believers to take the church seriously, which is why the message
   of this book is so essential."
   —John MacArthur
   Nine Marks.org and Mark Dever’s Book, "Nine
   Marks of a Healty Church"
   Todd Friel, "How
   To Find A Good Church"

   Tony Rose | Mar 31, 2006 | Reply

6. Tony-

   And thanks to you for your tone and reasonableness as well. With your last lengthy comment (the one before the resource links) I feel that we’re reaching a middle ground.

   I think we’ve collaboratively eliminated the two unhealthy and unbiblical edges in this debate - the unbiblical institutional churches and the unbiblical isolationist “it’s just me and Jesus and that’s all I need” Christians.

   So what we’re left with are the biblically operating institutional churches (which we both agree exist) and other non-institutional forms of biblical church (house churches, coffee shop churches, etc.). That’s where I’d like to focus the rest of our discussion here, because that’s where I think the real meat of our disagreement is.

   In want to clarify some of the language we’re using. You seem to frame your argument as “being in a biblical church” vs. “not being in a biblical church”. I don’t agree with this dichotomy. The decision process we’re in is “being in a biblical institutional church” or “being in a biblical non-institutional church”.

   You say we should follow biblical guidelines about how to assemble, and I couldn’t agree more. Both institutional and non-institutional churches should follow those guidelines unequivocally. Church (ie the people of God) should gather together in groups larger than and different than a nuclear family. I’m not advocating isolation like this in any way.

   It’s similar to the argument many home school opponents use - that home-schoolers are anti-social isolationists who want to cocoon themselves inside their house all day so they can just do whatever they want. And there are surely home-schoolers out there like that, just as there are surely Christians out there like that. But what I’m advocating for is an acceptance of broad networks of believers who gather and teach (and receive teaching) outside of an institutional structure. Just as many home-schooling networks are forming. The home-schooling networks don’t invalidate the existence of institutional schools, and house church networks don’t invalidate the existence of institutional churches. They should be able to coexist and celebrate the different styles, structures, and strengths of the different models.

   Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

   brian | Mar 31, 2006 | Reply

7. Brian,

   I concur on the areas of agreement and the focusing down to the issue you describe, and I think I see exactly where we differ. I don’t think we actually differ on the organization of “church,” as much as I am trying to point out a matter of the heart.

   Sometimes it is best to clarify what I AM saying by defining what I am NOT saying. I am NOT saying that “being in a biblical non-institutional church” is wrong. I am also not comparing that to a “biblical institutional church” and saying the latter is right and the former is wrong.

   Please understand that if I am talking about a “church” gathering at a church building and you are talking about a “church” gathering at a home, and they are both BIBILCAL churches, then we are talking about the same thing and are both in correct biblical fellowship. The gathering of the saints is what makes “the church,” not the geography of where, or the schedule of when. However, when you and I are saying “church” I think we may mean different things.

   When I say “a biblical church gathering” I am not talking about location, I am talking about a gathering of true and genuine believers, where a biblical leadership structure exists. That makes a biblical church.

   I perceive that when you talk about “a biblical church gathering” you are talking about a gathering of true and genuine believers (primarily laity) where a biblical leadership structure does NOT exist. That does NOT make a biblical church.

   Now don’t hear me wrong. I am not saying that believers can’t assemble together for fellowship, or even teaching, without leadership PRESENT. But I am saying that church that exists without ANY leadership in existence, for the PURPOSE of gathering WITHOUT leadership, is wrong. Additionally, a group of laity meeting without leadership PRESENT is still under the authority of the leadership of the church (i.e. the elders should know of and agree with the teaching going on).

   I hear you wanting to take my arguments into a geographical discussion of buildings and schedules, and I am not talking about those things. If a church wants to gather outside a building at non-standard times, go for it. Christian liberty permits that (I gather with the saints at a typical church because that is when and where the saints gather; not because I am trying to earn points for those tallying them up for judgment). If however, rebels who want to “do our own thing without anyone having authority over us,” then I say that is an issue of the heart, and spiritually speaking, something is wrong in the heart of an individual with that attitude. I am not judging you personally on this, but I know that much of the emergent church is founded on this type of rebellion, and I see that in much of your writings; thus, my being compelled to write and respond to your writings on these matters.

   Let me give you an example. From Sunday to Sunday, I can’t wait to get to church. I love going to church. My church or anyone else’s church. Why? Because I love the gathering of the saints and the fellowship with other believers! Last week I went on a business trip, and was out of town on Sunday. I regretted missing my local church, but while on the road I took the opportunity to visit Mark Dever’s church in Washington, D.C. I loved it. I immediately felt a tie to those believers because we had an identity in Christ even though they were strangers. I got to witness believers being baptized and the fellowship was sweet. When it was over I hated to leave. I believe this is the desire of a regenerated heart – it longs to be with other believers WHENEVER and WHEREEVER it can.

   I do not disagree with home churches or small groups that meet. I love them too! My point is, why does that have to happen INSTEAD OF biblical institutional church? Why not IN ADDITION to it? I am suspicious of the heart that says, “I am not going to church because I don’t like the hypocrites and I am going to stay home and do it my way.” I think there is an underlying heart issue in that attitude.

   I know several churches in town that began by several small families gathering together in a small group or “church” as you would call it. I think that is fine. But eventually it grew into a more institutional church because biblical leadership was established and practiced. I think any “home church” that forms is fine, but if it is biblical it will eventually become more institutional because it will be bound by Scripture to “establish itself” biblically by having biblical leadership established. I think this is fine, and if that is what you are doing by “staying home” I am not opposed to that in the slightest bit.

   However, I think that if your home group is meeting with others who “don’t like institutional church” and you are meeting for the purpose of rebelling against it; and since THAT is the purpose you are founded on, you resist forming biblical leadership and continue to meet as a small group on THAT foundation, I think that is in error and unscriptural. If however you establish biblical leadership within and “gather” in the organization that is outlaid in Scripture, well, you become exactly what you were rebelling against, and are now an established institutional church.

   The distinction we are having opposition on Brian is biblical authority and biblical leadership. If you are gathering as a small group because you can’t find a biblical church, and then form one, there is no problem. If you are gathering as a small group because you want to avoid being under the authority of biblical leadership, you are in error. I am not judging your heart, but I am saying that there is a heart issue involved in one who claims to be a Christian but is constantly seeking to avoid biblical authority.

   I don’t understand, as a Christian who loves Christian fellowship and “the church,” why your heart doesn’t long for and desire to join a biblically based established fellowship. If it is because you haven’t found one, I can understand that and will pray that you find one. If it is because you can’t find one where you can fly under the radar of biblical authority, and are resisting being under leadership, then there is another issue I need to pray for you on.

   I know your experience in the past with unbiblical authority has made you suspicious of anyone acting authoritatively. My admonishment to you would be for you not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are many biblical churches with proper authority in existence, and I would encourage you to find one and then pray for God to help you work through your authority issues and be teachable and learn from them. You are right to discern and flee bad authority; you are in error to use that as an excuse to avoid proper biblical authority and leadership.

   Tony Rose | Mar 31, 2006 | Reply

8. Please forgive my ALL CAPS. I am not intending to shout at you! Your blog software doesn’t take kindly to my bolding of text for emphasis, so I am using CAPS for emphasis when responding.

   Tony Rose | Mar 31, 2006 | Reply

9. The gathering of the saints is what makes the church - YES! So we pretty much agree that a church can be biblical without regard to when and where and how they gather. We’re now left with only one issue - church leadership.

   You perceive that I’m talking about a gathering of believers where a biblical leadership structure does NOT exist. I’m not so concerned about why you perceive this (I’m sure I’ve said plenty of things that can be reasonably construed as such). But can you define what you mean by “biblical leadership structure” and especially the nature and practice of its authority? I absolutely agree with the necessity of a biblical leadership structure, but I wonder whether we agree on what a biblical leadership structure is and what its authority looks like.

   You say a church of several families gathering together in a home will necessarily become more institutional as it grows, and I don’t necessarily agree with that - it depends what you mean by institutional. If by institutional you mean the more formal recognition of biblical roles (like elder, deacon, apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher) and a more formal collectivization of tithes and offerings for distribution to those who need it and for some of the work of the church, then yes it will become more institutional.

   But when I say a church is institutional I have three primary things in mind:
   (1) More and more of the collected money supports the hierarchy of the institution (mostly on facilities and staff) rather than being used directly for ministry.
   (2) More and more of the focus is on the gathering time (a few hours of the week) and location (the building) rather than on our whole lives (the other +/- 165 hours per week and what happens in our homes and workplaces and third places).
   (3) More and more of the authority resides in those few in positional power (the senior pastor, the head deacon, the chair of the finance committee) BY VIRTUE OF THEIR POSITION rather than being more distributed across a large plurality of leaders BY VIRTUE OF THEIR VIRTUES.

   Rather than a house church only being allowed to grow by getting bigger and more institutional (the elephant model), it should be allowed to grow by producing and raising healthy daughter churches (the rabbit model). Small and quick and resource-efficient rather than large and lumbering and resource-intensive.

   As you say, the question we’re now at is biblical authority and biblical leadership. Give me your definition of that and we’ll go from there.

   brian | Apr 1, 2006 | Reply

10. Brian,

    Good response and I appreciate the clarity. I think we are closer in agreement than otherwise thought.

    I don’t want to belabor the point since you said you are not so much concerned with it, but yes, much of your writings in the past have led me to the conclusions that your idealistic view of “church” is indeed one with the ABSENSE of authority. You seem to reject all authority as non-biblical authority, on the basis of bad experiences, linking the two things together for an attitude of: “I’ve experienced biblical authority (when you haven’t) and I don’t like it, so I reject all authority.” As I have often stated, recognizing and rejecting erroneous authority is a firm stance, but it is not the basis for rejecting ALL authority, or for revamping a church with an authority structure that “I am familiar with or like,” rather than what Scripture defines as appropriate. From your writings though, I question whether you have indeed experienced a truly biblical church, and true biblical authority, and therefore, I think your apparent rejection of all authority is without base. If my analysis and conclusion on this is inaccurate, I apologize, and perhaps we can sharpen up my understanding of what you are saying, but it does come from your constant writings in defense of the emergent church and its proponents, coupled with your critiques of “institutional church.” Perhaps it is my fault in understanding your words, and/or perhaps it has been your McLaren style of un-clarity! This discussion, I think, is getting somewhere though, so I’ll continue.

    Brian, when you define what you are rejecting as “institutional,” as being: (1) support of the hierarchal institution, (2) focus on being “Christian” at church and not all week, and (3) authority based on position instead of virtue, we are in much agreement. I reject those definitions as well. Where I differ with you is in your perception that churches which don’t have these improper focuses don’t exist.

    In your first post on this subject, “Unbuckling the Bible Belt: Organic Church” you claimed that you had only gone to church three times in a couple of months and didn’t miss it. Moreover, you said that your “fasting from institutional church” was a form of practicing Lent perhaps! Now I can certainly understand your desire to be away from a church that is perhaps defined as you have above in points 1, 2 and 3! But I find that what seems to be your lavishing in NOT going to church, or NOT seeking a new church, to be in contradiction with Scripture. I am sure you have heard of the comparison of the log on the fire, and how it goes out faster if it rolls away from the pile of other logs, which certainly applies here. You continue in your previous post saying that you are replacing “institutional church” with the spiritual focus of your children and family. Those are great things to be focused on, but they aren’t to replace the gathering of the saints as “church,” nor should they replace your desire to find a healthy church. It is this concept of “I’m taking my toys and going home” vs. “I had a bad church experience and so I am going to find another,” that I am questioning in your attitude.

    Brian I speak to you on this from experience. I grew up in an unbiblical church and didn’t get saved until a geographical move got me out of it. After being saved, I joined a biblical church (by the grace of God) where I grew tremendously as Christians should. Upon moving back to the South, I struggled much as you are now, with trying to find a biblical church. My wife and I spent years in the search, never finding one, until we slipped into a similar type of attitude you are expressing. Our experience is that it is a destructive path, leading to less spiritual focus, not more. Ultimately, the lone log burns out. We’ve been there and done that, and my hope is that sharing my experience might help prevent you from going through that rut too. I have discovered through that process that there ARE biblical churches, and our personal lack of experiencing or finding them doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, or that we should reject all “institutional churches.” Not all of them are as you have defined above as 1, 2, and 3.

    I know I haven’t answered your question from your last post. I will do that in a follow up post. But I wanted to write this so you would understand where I was coming from in my responses, and that our disagreement may not be so much in what a biblical church leader or biblical authority looks like, as much as it is over the point of your “doing it at home” instead of “finding the right church.”

    Tony Rose | Apr 4, 2006 | Reply

11. Tony-

    Quick comment as I await your followup:

    We’re not forgoing meeting with other Christians or prayer, worship, service, confession, repentence, etc. We do that on a weekly basis with a committed group. But we do it at someone’s house instead of in a dedicated building. I should have been more clear about that.

    If we’d just been “doing it at home” as a family and not being together regularly with other Christians then you’d be right to call me out about it.

    brian | Apr 4, 2006 | Reply

12. Brian,

    Thanks for that clarification, that helps readers understand your position better. As I said, this is not about buildings or schedules, because someone’s house is still a building, and I am assuming you all gather at the same time. The issue is, “What are you doing there?” - And the things you list are certainly proper things to be doing.

    The only critique I’d have of that is if it were being done in that matter for the purpose of avoiding biblical leadership and authority. I’ll discuss that in my next post as a response to your asking the question specifically above.

    tr

    Tony Rose | Apr 4, 2006 | Reply

13. Brian,

    In regards to your asking about biblical authority and leadership, I’ll say that I was pleased to hear you say that you “absolutely agree with the necessity of it,” as that was a bit contrary to what I thought you were defending. To hear you put it like that, and that really our disagreement is over “what that looks like,” is encouraging.

    Let me add here, that I am not claiming to be an expert on this subject, and Scripture should be our ultimate authority on these matters. Whether you and I agree on “what it looks like” is really pointless as far as the truth goes. We are both, as Christians, obligated to believe what the Scriptures say on the matter, not what we personally think or believe on it. Where I am wrong and you are wrong, we should both be willing to have our minds transformed by the Word of God on this and all matters. And that brings me to the first point on this, which is biblical authority. Before we can agree on church leadership and authority, or any other issue, we must first agree on biblical authority in resolving this and all matters. Otherwise, opinions are merely opinions. For the sake of this discussion, I am going to assume we are on the same page with accepting the bible as the final authority, regardless of “whether we agree” on the church leadership and authority issue.

    Scripture tells us to, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you” (Hebrews 13:17). Additionally we are instructed to give “double honor” to the elders who “direct the affairs of the church,” “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching” (1 Tim 5:17). From Scriptures like this it is logical to conclude that leaders, who have authority which should be submitted to, should exist within the local church. It is also reasonable to assume that there are affairs of the church, such as preaching and teaching, which are legitimate things to be done by these leaders. Although Scripture never suggests a specific number of elders for a particular congregation, the NT clearly refers to “elders” (or “overseers”) in the plural in local churches (e.g., Acts 14:23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; Titus 1:5; James 5:14). Although not practiced in most churches today (but is a growing trend) the NT practice of having, where possible, more elders in a local church than simply a lone pastor, and having them be people who are rooted in the congregation, is God’s design for the church. This does not mean that the pastor does not have a distinctive role, nor does it mean that the congregation is not involved in the decision making process. Ultimately, the congregation (of which the elders are part of) is the final authority.

    As Mark Dever puts it in his pamphlet “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church,” “Nothing other than the local assembled congregation is the final court of appeal under Christ. Again and again in the NT, we find evidence for what seemed to be an early form of congregationalism. In Matt 18 when Jesus was teaching his disciples about confronting the sinful brother, the final court is not the elders, nor a bishop or pope, nor a council or convention. The final court is the congregation. In Acts 6, the apostles gave the decision for the deacons over to the congregation. In Paul’s letters, too, we find evidence of this assumption of the congregation’s final responsibility. In 1 Cor 5, Paul blamed not the pastor, elders or deacons, but the congregation for tolerating sin. In 2 Cor 2, Paul referred to what a majority of them had done in disciplining an erring member. In Galatians, Paul called on the congregations to judge the teaching they had been hearing. In 2 Tim 4, Paul reproved not just the false teachers, but also those who paid them to teach what their itching ears wanted to hear. Elders lead, but they do so, biblically and necessarily, within the bounds of recognized by the congregation.” (p. 56-57).

    It could be said Brian, that the plurality of elders we see in the NT, who are leaders with authority, combined with the congregational responsibility, both being bound by the Word of God as the ultimate authority, is God’s way of preventing such disasters as dictator pastors, protecting the flock from false teachers, while also allowing God-fearing elders to lead in a Godly leadership role. It is a Divinely designed system, that when properly setup and executed, keeps leaders and individuals alike, under check, while also providing effective leadership for the proper teaching of the Word of God. The fact that some, perhaps even many, have distorted and maligned God’s design doesn’t mean that we should abandon ship in striving to have a properly balanced NT church.

    Where I see emergents going wrong in this “house church” promotion, is that they have experienced dictator pastors, and have properly rejected that model, but instead of seeking a church where proper elder roles ARE practiced, they want to form congregations with NO leaders, in order to escape the tyranny. One reason that this model is equally invalid is that by removing leadership altogether, they lose the teaching they get from leaders who are the ones usually best equipped for the exposition of the Word of God. The result of this is that error enters by the “blind leading the blind” type of teaching.

    Have you ever been to one of these types of Sunday School classes or bible studies, where a group of people, who are equal in their ignorance of the Scriptures, sit around and discuss what a particular verse “means to me?” No one is ever confronted because contracting “truths” are “ok,” because the postmodern mindset allows for such inconsistencies. This is contrary to Biblical teachings, where what the text means “to me” is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the text “means!” Proper biblical hermeneutics is required in order to come up with what the proper meaning of the passage, and by expunging all leadership from the gathering, those best qualified to do that are eliminated. The sheep are left to stammer around without a shepherd, and error creeps in. Error begets error, and from this one thing, much more error is accepted. This is one of many problems with ignoring the biblical structure of leadership and authority.

    I can hear you typing already, saying “Tony, do you think laity can’t have a bible study alone?” No, I am not saying that at all. I am often involved in small groups and studies where this is true. But they are extensions of a church where the leadership model exists; they aren’t the church entity itself. The teachers are under the authority of the plurality of elders, who are accountable to the congregation. Truth is protected, the flock is edified, and no one is unaccountable, instead of everyone being unaccountable.

    I am not saying that all house churches have this problem or that all are “emergent.” But the ones who are gathering in rebellion to authority are susceptible to such errors. If a group of people rebelling against leaders gather together, and a leader emerges, what happens? Either the purpose for gathering must be abandoned, OR the autonomy of “the all” must be maintained. This is what Jesus would call, “a house divided.”

    Brian, I don’t think, at least I would hope that we would not be in disagreement at this point. I think that our clarity needs to be established over what you are calling “institutional church.” When you have criticized “institutional church,” what comes across is that you believe that all churches which meet in a designated building, at a designated time, and isn’t a “house church, is wrong. I liked the clarity you provided when you answered my question about your home church eventually becoming “institutional.” To quote you, you said, “If by institutional you mean the more formal recognition of biblical roles (like elder, deacon, apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher) and a more formal collectivization of tithes and offerings for distribution to those who need it and for some of the work of the church, then yes it will become more institutional.” Well, that is exactly what I meant, which is why I was having a hard time with what appeared to be your critique of all non-house churches.

    The three things that you described as what you actually were calling “institutional” were:

    “But when I say a church is institutional I have three primary things in mind:
    (1) More and more of the collected money supports the hierarchy of the institution (mostly on facilities and staff) rather than being used directly for ministry.
    (2) More and more of the focus is on the gathering time (a few hours of the week) and location (the building) rather than on our whole lives (the other +/- 165 hours per week and what happens in our homes and workplaces and third places).
    (3) More and more of the authority resides in those few in positional power (the senior pastor, the head deacon, the chair of the finance committee) BY VIRTUE OF THEIR POSITION rather than being more distributed across a large plurality of leaders BY VIRTUE OF THEIR VIRTUES.”

    And I could not agree with you more. I thought of this dialog on Sunday when we sang the hymn “Jesus Is All The World To Me.” As I sung those words I thought of these three things you mentioned.

    “Jesus Is All The World To Me,” so we should collect money to support the hierarchy of the institution? Do those concepts jive? Of course not! Certainly there are legitimate uses of money to provide a place for the corporate worship of the group. But someone who builds buildings to impress the world with their riches (i.e. Robert Schuller, etc.) is not someone who can legitimately claim that “JESUS Is All The World To Me.”

    Similarly, someone or some group which exists to just meet a few hours a week to impress one another with how holy they are, and ignore the teachings of Christ throughout the week, is not someone who can say that “JESUS Is All The World To Me.”

    The NT clearly teaches what types of individuals are to become the leaders and elders of churches, and as you put it “by the virtue of their virtue,” is good, as long as it is in accordance with the Scriptural requirements. A group of people who come together and elect a group who is “in charge,” based on their positions in the secular world or their influence in the church, are not people who are genuinely proclaiming ““JESUS Is All The World To Me.”

    The point here is the same as I have made originally. True regenerated, born-again, Christians are not going to be doing these things you are properly calling out as “wrong.” If the totality of your “institutional church” experience has been witnessing this type of stuff, I can see why you would want to stay home. And I don’t claim that this couldn’t be the case, with the great apostasy that is going on today. Mainline denominations which have abandoned the authority of Scripture, as well as independent churches, are full of unregenerate church goers who behave this way. But the stones aren’t crying out yet, and I would challenge you not to abandon all hope of “institutional church.” There are very good “institutional churches” around, practicing biblical church structure, authority, and genuine Christian service. But you won’t find them staying home.

    In conclusion, I know I have recommended Mark Dever’s book “Nine Mark’s of a Healthy Church” on a number of topics and occasions. However, I cannot stress enough how much I think you will get out of this book in regards to this and other important topics. The last chapter of this book is on biblical leadership and authority, and I have quoted from it in this response and taken some of what I have said directly from it. You can read a pamphlet version of it online for free at:
    http://filemanager.silaspartners.com/dox/9marks/pubs/9marks-booklet-english.pdf

    You will read on the opening page, the MISSION he states, which agrees with much of what you have stated!

    “Given: Hypocrisy makes the church irrelevant.
    Given: True, gracious purity is an important tool for assurance, edification, and evangelism. And yet today such purity is too often neglected.
    Then: Our mission is to call the church to be the attractive bride of Christ that He has bought her and made her to be. We do this by instructing and encouraging pastors and other church leaders.”

    I think you will like the OBJECTIVE he states as well. His goal is much of the same as some of the emergents, but he is tackling the issues by the Word of God rather than being tossing by the winds of the culture:

    “With a renewed prominence given to the authority of Scripture among many evangelical Christians, an increase in secularism and a decline in denominational loyalties, traditions are being widely questioned today. We believe there is an openness to and even a hunger for re-thinking the church in evangelical circles. Now is a moment of opportunity to redefine the church in a healthier, more biblical way. The Center for Church Reform seeks to change the manner in which pastors and leaders understand the local church. We want to refocus attention on the value of healthy congregations. We want to reconnect careful biblical theology with church practice. CCR provides an educational forum to discuss, examine and
    debate the elements of a model local church. In addition to teaching we wish to present a model which is constantly being reformed by the Word of God.”

    He goes on to lay out the important 9 Marks, and explains them Scripturally:

    1. Expositional Preaching
    2. Biblical Theology
    3. A Biblical Understanding of the Good News
    4. A Biblical Understanding of Conversion
    5. A Biblical Understanding of Evangelism
    6. A Biblical Understanding of Church Membership
    7. Biblical Church Discipline
    8. A Concern for Promoting Christian Discipleship and Growth
    9. Biblical Church Leadership

    “New models are a dime a dozen. But is there really anything new under the sun? We actually think we need to return to an old, neglected model and recover it for today. If the church is to fulfill her mission, she must again become distinct from the world (John 13:34-35).

    9Marks is committed to helping local churches pursue, develop, and maintain nine of the most important marks of any healthy church. In identifying and promoting these nine, we are not intending to lay down an exhaustive or authoritative list. There are other significant marks of healthy churches, like prayer and fellowship. We want to pursue those ourselves as well, and we want you to pursue them with us. But these nine are the ones we think are most neglected in most local churches today, with the most damaging ramifications. So we think it is wise for us to concentrate on these nine and let other parts of the Body universal promote other important marks of a healthy local church. Here’s a brief summary of what we mean by each of the nine marks. “
    1. Expositional Preaching
    This is preaching which expounds what Scripture says in a particular passage, carefully explaining its meaning and applying it to the congregation. It is a commitment to hearing God’s Word and to recovering the centrality of it in our worship.

    2. Biblical Theology
    Paul charges Titus to “teach what is in accord with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). Our concern should be not only with how we are taught, but with what we are taught. Biblical theology is a commitment to know the God of the Bible as He has revealed Himself in Scripture.

    3. Biblical Understanding of the Good News
    The gospel is the heart of Christianity. But the good news is not that God wants to meet people’s felt needs or help them develop a healthier self-image. We have sinfully rebelled against our Creator and Judge. Yet He has graciously sent His Son to die the death we deserved for our sin, and He has credited Christ’s acquittal to those who repent of their sins and believe in Jesus’ death and resurrection. That is the good news.
    4. Biblical Understanding of Conversion
    The spiritual change each person needs is so radical, so near the root of us, that only God can do it. We need God to convert us. Conversion need not be an emotionally heated experience, but it must evidence itself in godly fruit if it is to be what the Bible regards as a true conversion.

    5. Biblical Understanding of Evangelism
    How someone shares the gospel is closely related to how he understands the gospel. To present it as an additive that gives non-Christians something they naturally want (i.e. joy or peace) is to present a half-truth, which elicits false conversions. The whole truth is that our deepest need is spiritual life, and that new life only comes by repenting of our sins and believing in Jesus. We present the gospel openly, and leave the converting to God.
    6. Biblical Understanding of Membership
    Membership should reflect a living commitment to a local church in attendance, giving, prayer and service; otherwise it is meaningless, worthless, and even dangerous. We should not allow people to keep their membership in our churches for sentimental reasons or lack of attention. To be a member is knowingly to be traveling together as aliens and strangers in this world as we head to our heavenly home.

    7. Biblical Church Discipline
    Church discipline gives parameters to church membership. The idea seems negative to people today – “didn’t our Lord forbid judging?” But if we cannot say how a Christian should not live, how can we say how he or she should live? Each local church actually has a biblical responsibility to judge the life and teaching of its leaders, and even of its members, particularly insofar as either could compromise the church’s witness to the gospel.

    8. Promotion of Christian Discipleship and Growth
    A pervasive concern with church growth exists today – not simply with growing numbers, but with growing members. Though many Christians measure other things, the only certain observable sign of growth is a life of increasing holiness, rooted in Christian self-denial. These concepts are nearly extinct in the modern church. Recovering true discipleship for today would build the church and promote a clearer witness to the world.

    9. Biblical Understanding of Leadership
    What eighteenth-century Baptists and Presbyterians often agreed upon was that there should be a plurality of elders in each local church. This plurality of elders is not only biblical, but practical — it has the immense benefit of rounding out the pastor’s gifts to ensure the proper shepherding of God’s church.
    More in depth explanations and resources can be found by clicking on each header at:
    http://www.9marks.org/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID314526|CHID616736|CIID,00.html

    I’ll buy you a copy if you’ll read it!

    Tony Rose | Apr 5, 2006 | Reply

14. Tony-

    Back in comment #9 I asked for your definition of “biblical authority and biblical leadership” since that seemed to have become the crux of the issue. In your most recent comment you wrote about many, many things. In the interest of clarity and focus I’m just going to respond to your particular points about “biblical authority and biblical leadership” and leave the rest for a future discussion.

    You say Scripture should be our ultimate authority, and I absolutely agree as long as you mean Scripture is the ultimate authority inasmuch as it is the revealed Word of God and that the true authority is ultimately Jesus as revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. Where I disagree with your use or interpretation of Scripture I’ll explain it as such (a disagreement with your interpretation, not a disagreement with Scripture) and will base my disagreement on the foundation of the Word as much as possible (admitting that my own reading of the Bible is inextricably interlaced with my own fallible interpretation as well). That’s a really long-winded way of saying the most important thing about church leadership:

    Jesus Christ is the Head of the church. “He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything” (Col. 1:18).

    All else springs from this and is subservient to this, and we have to unflinchingly hold to this in both theory and, most importantly, in practice. Now, on to your points.

    I affirm the validity of Hebrews 13:17 (”Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.”), but that must be balanced with (or even superseded by) Jesus’ words in Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. Therefore pay attention to what they tell you and do it. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy loads, hard to carry, and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing even to lift a finger to move them. They do all their deeds to be seen by people, for they make their phylacteries wide and their tassels long. They love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’ But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one teacher, the Christ.’”

    You say, “It is also reasonable to assume that there are affairs of the church, such as preaching and teaching, which are legitimate things to be done by these leaders.” I agree but also assert that it’s reasonable to assume that preaching, teaching, etc. are equally legitimate things to be done by all mature disciples.

    I absolutely agree with your quote from Mark Dever that “Nothing other than the local assembled congregation is the final court of appeal under Christ.” If the kingdom of God has an org chart it’s very flat and very wide, with Jesus as the head and all believers reporting directly to Jesus. I was once part of a church that had an org chart in its deacon handbook that had a multi-layer org chart for the congregation with Jesus at the top, then the senior pastor, then the associate pastors, then the lay leaders, then the rest of the congregation. Absolutely hideous.

    I agree with you that “the plurality of elders we see in the NT, who are leaders with authority, combined with the congregational responsibility, both being bound by the Word of God as the ultimate authority, is God’s way of preventing such disasters as dictator pastors, protecting the flock from false teachers, while also allowing God-fearing elders to lead in a Godly leadership role.” I think a sports analogy might be helpful here. Most churches operate with the congregation as the team, the senior pastor as the head coach & general manager, the associate pastors (if any) as the assistant coaches, and the lay leaders (deacons, elders, Sunday School teachers, etc.) as team captains; God is relegated to being the absentee owner, sitting aloft and aloof in a luxury suite. I think the biblical example, though, is moreso the congregation as the team and the church leadership (pastors, deacons, elders, small group leaders, etc. etc.) as equal team members who have been appointed captains by their fellow teammates; God is in the trenches with the team as their coach. A cheesy analogy, but I hope a helpful illustration of what I’m getting at.

    I’d like to hear more about the plurality of elders at your church and other biblical churches you’ve seen. Because I’ve heard the term “plurality of elders” used to refer to the senior pastor & associate pastors, but that’s an asinine use of the phrase (senior elder and associate elders?). The only way a plurality is really a plurality is if all the elders are of similar stature and power (for lack of a better word), even though their assigned roles may be different.

    Here’s an article on the topic that I think you’ll get a lot from (just as I’ve gotten a lot from the Mark Devers article): http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=421.

    brian | Apr 10, 2006 | Reply

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.