Biblical Church

A Challenge to Unscriptural

Traditions and Practice

Other Resources by Beresford Job

Visit the Chigwell Christian Fellowship at:

www.house-church.org

and

www.housechurch.co.uk

Biblical Church:

A Challenge to Unscriptural

Traditions and Practice

Beresford Job

Bethany Publishing

Essex, England

Biblical Church: A Challenge to Unscriptural Traditions and Practice!

Copyright © 2007 by Beresford Job

First Printing 2007

Second Printing 2011

Published by Bethany Publishing

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise - without the prior written permission of the author except for brief excerpts quoted in critical reviews.

All scripture quotations in this book, except those noted otherwise, are from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.

Used by permission.

Quotations marked Revised Standard Version are from THE HOLY BIBLE, REVISED STANDARD VERSION.  Copyright © 1962 by A J Holman Company.

Used by permission.

Quotations from "Vine's Expository Dictionary" are used by permission of Thomas Nelson, Inc., publishers of "Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words", © 1984, Thomas Nelson Inc., Nashville, TN; a compilation work published under an exclusive arrangement with W.E. Vine Copyright Ltd. of Bath, England. First published in 1985 by Thomas Nelson Inc., as a compilation of "Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words", © 1968, which copyright is now restored by the GATT Treaty to W.E. Vine Copyright Ltd., Bath, England; and "Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament" © 1980, Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Cover Design by Andy Nicholson

Printed in the United States of America

International Standard Book Number: 978-0-9558191-0-0

To Belinda and Bethany -

You light up my life!

Acknowledgements

Preface

PART ONE: TRADITIONS

The Tradition of the Elders

Jesus and the Tradition of the Elders

Jesus' Campaign Against the Tradition of the Elders

The Tradition of the Early Church Fathers - Part One

Their Foundational Error!

The Traditions of the Early Church Fathers - Part Two

The Great Baptism Fiasco!

Apostolic Tradition

The Great Reversal

The Objections

The Conclusion

PART TWO: BIBLICAL CHURCH

An Irreducible Minimum

Biblical Church Leadership

To Submit or Not to Submit

Meeting in Homes

Open Gatherings

The Lord’s Supper

The Heart of the Matter

What the Experts Say

PART THREE: GETTING STARTED

Where Do You Go From Here?

Starting a Church

Making Church Gatherings Work

Frequently Asked Questions

Outside Help

Postscript

Acknowledgements

A lot of people have contributed towards making this book possible and I could not even begin to mention everyone who has contributed in some way to my endeavours. However, I would like to give special thanks to Philippa Nicholson for the hours of careful editing she undertook for me, and to her husband (and my best mate) Andy for, firstly, his editorial skills and, secondly, for designing the cover. Many thanks as well to everyone at the Chigwell Christian Fellowship for their ongoing support and love. I am truly grateful to be part of the church with them all. They have been longsuffering in the extreme over the years in listening to me thinking out loud and banging on concerning the things that burden my heart for the Body of Christ. And finally, a word to my wonderful and gorgeous wife Belinda, and to the other young lady in my life, my beautiful daughter Bethany: my heartfelt thanks to you both for putting up with me so well - and not just while I was writing this book either!

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

2 Thessalonians 2 v 15 (Revised Standard Version)

“And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ...So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.”

Matthew 15 v 3 and 6 (Revised Standard Version)

Preface

Amazing though the claim may sound this book will demonstrate that, when it comes to church life, the traditions, or established practices, which the vast majority of Christians generally observe and follow, are based on teachings which have little or nothing to do with the Bible. Far from being found in the Word of God, they rather originated with men who led the Christian Church after the Apostles of Jesus were dead and therefore after the writing of the New Testament had been completed.

Further, these traditions and practices are not just different from what we see in Scripture, in the sense of them being merely variations on a theme, they are virtually the opposite. Rather than just being minor developments whereby biblical practices have been adapted and applied in slightly different ways in differing circumstances and conditions, they are actually at complete variance with the teaching of the New Testament and go against it in many and various ways. They therefore cause those who adhere to them to, however unwittingly, go directly against what is taught in the pages of God’s Word.

Since the time of the Reformation the truth of the gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ has once again been understood and preached. However, the way we go about church life remains based purely on unscriptural and extra-biblical traditions and teachings. Moreover, these practices are, ironically, based on the teachings of the very men who collectively gave eventual rise to the Catholic Church and, therefore, to the loss of the gospel which precipitated the need of the Reformation in the first place. The contention of this book is simply that, as the truth of salvation through faith in Jesus was rediscovered by the Reformers, so the time has now come for a similar occurrence concerning church life. A time for believers to once more unearth and understand ignored and unacknowledged aspects of the teaching of Scripture, and renounce that which is found to go against it. It is time for the cry Sola Scriptura to be heard again – only this time regarding church life and practice!

I therefore invite you to read this book and in so doing to meet head-on some of the most important - and surprising - things you will have ever had to consider as a follower of Jesus. No serious Christian would question the simple proposition that we are supposed to do things the way Jesus wants us to, and yet, unbelievable though it may sound, we are conducting our corporate lives together as churches in a totally unbiblical way. And this I will demonstrate both clearly and irrefutably from the pages of Scripture, the work of top-ranking evangelical Bible-believing biblical scholarship and the written testimony of those who introduced the false teachings and practices in the first place.

PART ONE: TRADITIONS

Chapter One

The Tradition of the Elders

God-ordained vs. Man-made Traditions

The New Testament speaks of two kinds of tradition: that which is God-ordained and that which not only is not God-ordained, but which actually goes against the teaching of Scripture. Concerning the former we read from Paul:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.[1]

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter... Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition you received from us.[2]

Concerning the latter, however, we have the verdict of the Lord Himself:

‘And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ...So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.’[3]

‘You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast to the tradition of men.’ And he said to them,

‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition…thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on.’[4]

The Greek word used in the New Testament for ‘tradition’ is paradosis and it means that which is handed on or down. It simply refers to established practice, what one does as a matter of course regarding certain things. A tradition is therefore just the accepted way of doing things. What we see here in Scripture is the idea of biblical tradition versus un-biblical tradition, or biblical practice versus un-biblical practice, and this book is specifically concerned with examining the whole area of church practice. That is, what churches ought to be like; how they should be set up and how they should function. This book will therefore clearly demonstrate that, when it comes to church practice, the vast majority of believers throughout church history have based their church life and experience not on the teaching of Scripture at all, but on teachings and practices that were introduced by men who both led and influenced the Christian church after the Apostles of Jesus were dead, and therefore after the New Testament had been fully completed.

But in order to give us the necessary background to Jesus’ scathing words concerning such un-biblical traditions, we must first turn our attention to what Scripture refers to as the tradition of the elders.

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, ‘Why do your disciples transgress the traditions of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.’[5]

Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?’[6]

It is important to realize that Jesus’ conflict with the Jewish leaders of his day was not over the Law of Moses, and hence had little to do with the Old Testament. If you think about it, how could it have been? The Lord obviously never went against anything taught in Israel’s Scriptures. He was, after all, the very ‘finger of God’ who had inspired them in the first place. Why all the problems then? If the Jewish leaders considered themselves to be living under the authority of the Old Testament – particularly the Mosaic Law – and if Jesus was living likewise, then what on earth was the interminable conflict between them actually about? The answer is really quite astounding.

Building a Fence

Whilst in theory Israel considered itself to be under the authority of the inspired Scriptures, the reality was actually somewhat different. The Jews, and in particular the religious leaders, did not consider the Old Testament to be their actual final authority but appealed instead to something which had become known as the tradition of the elders. It was known by other names too such as the Oral Law, Pharisaic Law, the Laws of the Fence, and the Hedge. So what, exactly, was it? In order to properly understand where it came from and how it developed we need to go back to the time of Ezra.

When the Jews returned from their Babylonian captivity they were painfully aware that it was their prior unfaithfulness and disobedience to God’s law that had caused the dreadful punishment of exile. They obviously wanted to ensure that it didn’t happen again so Ezra set about thoroughly educating Israel concerning the Mosaic Law by having it regularly read and expounded in public.[7] He started up the school of the Sopherim (the Scribes) whose function it was to explain the 613 laws of Moses in order to help the people both understand and obey them, and therefore to remain faithful to God. They were, in effect, Bible teachers.

However, after Ezra's death a later generation of Sopherim felt that a change of approach was needed. They believed that the exposition of the Law of Moses - the Torah - on its own wasn't enough, and proposed that a fence, or hedge, be built up around its 613 laws. The idea was to develop secondary laws surrounding the original ones, and whereas you might break these fence or hedge laws, you would nevertheless be pulled up short by them before you went further and broke any of the actual Mosaic ones. Rather like the cables on modern aircraft carriers which catch the landing planes by bringing them to a dead halt before they overshoot the deck and crash into the water, so the fence would stop you before you actually broke any of the Mosaic laws. So the Sopherim set about developing a system of logic to enable them to deduce secondary laws that could be derived from the original 613. This Pilpul logic, as it was called (pilpul means pepper), carried the idea of being sharp and stimulating – just like pepper is to the taste buds.

For example, one of the Mosaic Laws forbade the boiling of a kid (baby goat) in its mother’s milk.[8] This related to an occult Canaanite ritual whereby such action was carried out with the milk then being sprinkled over their fields as an agricultural fertility rite. [9] The intent of this law was to keep Israel away from even the appearance of the demonic practices of the Canaanite nations; but let’s see what happens once Pilpul logic is applied.

In the normal course of events a Jew may well eat goat meat and drink goat milk, there being, of course, no problem with so doing. However, there is always a chance – no matter how slim – that the milk you drink could be from the mother of the goat you have just eaten. If it is, then both milk and meat mix in the stomach and the digestive process heats them up. Before you know it you have boiled a kid in its mother’s milk and broken the Mosaic Law. So the fence laws of ‘the Separation of Milk and Meat Products’ were introduced to circumvent this ever happening, and the Jews became forbidden to consume meat and dairy produce within a certain amount of time of each other. Laws therefore emerged concerning what and when you could eat, but which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Mosaic Law.

It went further though and Pilpul logic reasoned thus: you eat meat and cheese off the same dinner plate day by day - and there is no problem with this per se. However, there is still always the chance that you don’t get the plate absolutely clean and free of food afterwards. You may, for instance, leave a bit of cheese stuck to the plate. Then when you later come to eat some meat product off the same plate, there is the further possibility, albeit extremely unlikely, that if the meat is goat meat, and if the cheese eaten previously was goat cheese, then the cheese might have been made from the milk of the mother of the goat that you are now eating. And if that speck of cheese stuck to the plate comes off and gets consumed with the meat and heats up in the stomach….then you have once more violated the Law of Moses and boiled a kid in its mother’s milk. More laws were therefore added and ‘the Rule of Separate Dishes for Meat and Milk Products’ was brought in. And of course these fence laws were being added to and imposed on Israel without having come from the actual Mosaic Law in any way at all.[10]

Incredibly, to one Sabbath commandment were added some 1500 fence laws. As a further example of how all this worked out in practice it’s interesting to note that four of these were no reaping, no threshing, no winnowing and no storing, and that Pilpul logic therefore further concluded that this meant that it should also be forbidden to walk on the grass in a field on the Sabbath. So what was the reason for this? Well, it goes like this! You could never be sure, when walking through a field on the grass on the Sabbath, that there was not a stray piece of corn lying around somewhere. If there was, you might possibly step on it, and that, for the following reasons, would be absolutely disastrous.

Firstly, as you step on it, the action of so doing may well cause the wheat to separate from the stalk. Should you do so then you are guilty of reaping on the Sabbath. The same action of your foot on the separated wheat and stalk might also cause the wheat to be separated from the chaff, and you have now become guilty of threshing on the Sabbath. Thirdly, as you walk away, the hem of your garment could create a breeze which causes the chaff to be blown away from the wheat and you are guilty of winnowing on the Sabbath. And lastly, if a passing bird sees the tasty morsel of wheat on the ground and swoops down to eat it then you are guilty of that wheat being stored on the Sabbath. In one simple action of walking on a stray bit of corn in a field you have violated four fence laws surrounding the Mosaic Sabbath Law. And so it went on, developing layer upon layer of fence law upon fence law, of hedge law upon hedge law.[11]

This was, however, merely the first stage, and later developments took a rather different, and sinister, turn. At least the Sopherim kept it very clear in their minds that these fence laws were man-made and not in any way inspired by God. The principle they observed was that a scribe could disagree with a scribe over matters regarding the fence laws, but not over the Mosaic Law. In other words, they recognized that the Mosaic Law was inspired by God and therefore absolute. It was divine scripture, and therefore final. To break the Mosaic Law was a sin, but the fence laws were not in the same category in any way at all. They were merely a man-made attempt at helping Israel to remain in obedience and faithfulness to the inspired and supernaturally revealed Law of God.

But a later generation of rabbis came along called the Tannaim[12] who felt that the hedge erected by the Sopherim had too many holes in it. They therefore duly proceeded to build another layer of fence laws around the already existing ones. However, and this is the really important point to grasp here - they changed the underlying principle of operation. In the initial stage under the Sopherim it was still clear to all concerned that the Torah, the Mosaic Law, was from God and therefore completely inviolable, whilst the fence was merely a man-made help in keeping that Law. Everybody understood that whilst the Mosaic Law was divinely inspired and therefore absolute, the fence, or hedge, was most certainly not. However, the Tannaim changed this principle and said that whereas their fence was man-made and debatable; that is, not inspired by God or absolute in any way, they nevertheless declared that the first fence, that of the Sopherim, was. The first set of fence laws developed by the Sopherim thereby came to be considered as being as binding and authoritative as the Law of Moses itself. The first fence therefore came to be thought of as being as actually inspired as the Old Testament scripture itself. And to put this into historical context Jesus appeared on the scene shortly after the first fence laws of the Sopherim had been declared to be absolute and therefore binding. In AD 200 Rabbi Judah Hanasi compiled the existing fence laws and teachings into a document called the Mishna.[13] A commentary on the Mishna called the Gemara was eventually added with the entire compilation becoming known as the Talmud, every orthodox Jews’ final authority.[14]

Hey, who put that fence here?!

How on earth, though, did the Tanniam justify this process theologically? After all, if sources other than the Bible are going to be declared as being inspired and infallible then a pretty good reason needs to be put forward. How, then, did the Pharisees, the main propagators of these ideas, justify this theologically, and thus make it acceptable to Jewish thought? Well, we already have a clue in one of the various names this tradition of the elders was known by, and it’s the Oral Law. The Pharisees taught that when Moses was on Mt Sinai he was actually given two sets of Laws by God and not just one. There was the Written Law (the Mosaic Law as recorded in the Old Testament), and a secret Oral Law which he passed on clandestinely and which supposedly remained hidden until the right time came for its public emergence. According to the Mishna:

Moses received this law (Oral Law) from Mt Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders (the Judges) the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Great Synagogue (the Sopherim in Ezra's time).[15]

Though there is not even the slightest hint of this being the case in the Old Testament, the Pharisees nevertheless taught not that the Sopherim created the Oral Law, which is the simple historical fact of the matter, but that they just made it known having received it from the prophets, who had received it from the Judges, who had received it from Joshua, who had received it from Moses, who had received it from the Lord God of Israel. By the time of Jesus the tradition of the elders had therefore been elevated as being divinely inspired, and had been officially given equal authority with the Old Testament, the very Word of God itself.

But of course a completely unavoidable problem soon emerges, because it is a simple fact of logic that you can only have one final authority and not two. One authority must, by very definition, eventually win out over the other when they clash and go against each other, which, in time, they inevitably will.[16] So what of Israel and the tradition of the elders then? As the written Word of God the Old Testament claimed final authority in all matters, and the Jews acceded to that; but then the Pharisees go and put the Oral Law on a par with it. So which final authority won out when they eventually clashed? Which became Israel’s actual final authority, the written Law or the Oral Law? The Mishna declares:

It is more punishable to act against the words of the Scribes (Sopherim – Oral Law) than those of the Scriptures (Old Testament – the Word of God).[17]

And again:

Give more heed to the words of the Rabbis (the Oral Law) than to the words of the Law (Old Testament – the Word of God).[18]

My the time Jesus burst forth into history Israel had developed a religious system that acknowledged divine authority in both the Old Testament and the tradition of the elders. However, in reality it was the tradition of the elders that emerged as their actual final authority, winning out over the Old Testament Word of God whenever a choice needed to be made between them. By teaching that this Oral Law was given by God to Moses, as was also true of the written Old Testament Mosaic Law, they had what they believed to be a theological justification for going against the Old Testament Scriptures. The position they were then in was that they could go against the written Word of God regarding certain things whilst still claiming to be doing God's will! Man's will had taken precedence over God's will, but in such a way that it could be claimed that God's will was nevertheless being accomplished. Man-made established practice had ousted God-ordained established practice under the guise of obedience to God's will. The tradition of man had usurped and made void the tradition revealed in the Word of God; and all in the name of obedience and faithfulness to the Lord.

But what did Jesus make of this tradition of the elders, this so-called Oral Law, the Pharisaic Judaism of the day? And how did he handle both himself and others when he came across it? The answer to that question is crucial in enabling us to understand how we should tackle equivalent wrong traditions whenever we hit up against them.[19]

Chapter Two

Jesus and the Tradition of the Elders

Jesus Rejected as the Messiah

Before we can properly understand Jesus’ reaction to unbiblical teaching and practices we need to first appreciate something further of the relevant historical context, and to be aware that Israel’s religious leaders rejected him in the full knowledge that he was indeed their long awaited Messiah. If nothing else, this is made clear from the fact that the Lord expected John the Baptist to know he was Messiah simply on the basis of His fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture:

When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples to ask him, ‘Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?’

Jesus replied, ‘Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.’[20]

By quoting from the prophet Isaiah Jesus makes it clear that His fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures was complete and sufficient proof that He was indeed Israel’s Messiah. After all, Micah had predicted Messiah’s birthplace, and in his famous prophecy of the ‘seventy weeks’ the prophet Daniel had even provided a time frame in which that birth would occur. [21]  When a man arranges in advance not just the place of his own birth but also its timing, it is pretty obvious that he is someone rather special. Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah would have sunk without trace had he fallen at either of these first two hurdles: that is, the predicted time and place of his birth. So when the same man starts fulfilling Old Testament Messianic prophecy in other regards as well then it is somewhat evident that what you have on your hands is the undeniable appearance of the long awaited Messiah.

In this regard the teaching one sometimes hears, that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, or to be divine, is simply born out of ignorance of both the New Testament and its Jewish background. The Jews, as we will see, knew exactly what he was claiming for himself. Jesus was accused of blasphemy for the precise reason that he did indeed claim to be both Messiah and the Lord God in human form. Similarly, the idea often taught that the title ‘son of God’ referred to his divinity, whilst ‘son of man’ was a reference to his humanity is also deeply flawed. Against the background of the prophet Daniel and the visions he reported, ‘son of man’ was actually a Messianic title par excellence.[22]

However, as if completely fulfilling Old Testament prophecy was not enough on its own Jesus also proved himself to his people in another way altogether. It had little to do with scripture but absolutely everything to do with the tradition of the elders and the theological teachings that surrounded it.

The main feature of the Oral Law was an endless and continuous tendency to go beyond what scripture taught. This is always a serious error and Paul counseled the Corinthian church concerning it:

Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ [23]

That is to say, do not go beyond scripture. And even when it came to the issue as to how Israel would know if the Messiah had appeared, Pharisaic Judaism went beyond the Old Testament and outlined various other ways in which the Messiah would be known. We are now going to see how Jesus not only proved himself to be the Messiah according to what the Old Testament taught, but that he also did so according to the extra-biblical teachings of the tradition of the elders.

Investigations of Messianic Signs

At the time of the New Testament the Jewish religious leaders taught that there were two different categories of miracles. Firstly, there were miracles that anybody could perform if empowered to do so by the Spirit of God. Secondly, however, there was a category of miracle that only the Messiah could perform. Pharisaic Judaism actually taught that there were specific Messianic miracles.[24] What, then, should happen, according to this teaching, should a Messianic sign be alleged to have occurred? What was the procedure that needed to be followed?

The Oral Law taught that whenever a claim was made that a Messianic miracle had happened, a two-stage investigation by Israel’s religious leaders was to be implemented. The first stage was purely for the purpose of observation, and a delegation of leaders would be dispatched to the people concerned to observe for a period of seven days. During this time they were not permitted to ask questions or to raise objections, but merely to look on and observe. The objective was to establish whether or not a Messianic miracle had taken place, or whether the whole thing was a misunderstanding, or even some kind of deception. If, after this period of observation, a claim was subsequently considered to be of no significance, then the matter was simply dropped. However, if any such claim did appear to be significant – that is, if the claimed Messianic miracle had genuinely taken place – then a second stage was implemented which was designated the Interrogation stage. This involved sending out a second delegation, the object now being to ask questions and raise objections in order to ascertain whether or not the Messiah had actually appeared.

We must therefore now give our attention to three miracles performed by Jesus which, according to the teaching of the Pharisees, would have verified beyond doubt in their minds that he was indeed their long awaited Messiah.

The Healing of a Leper

The Mosaic Law had much to say concerning the illness known as leprosy. In Leviticus 13 there are detailed instructions to priests concerning how to diagnose lepers and what to do with them, and then chapter 14 gives instructions as to what the priest should do when a leper was healed. According to the text there was to be a sacrifice of two birds followed by a seven-day investigation in which to fully verify the healing. If it transpired, as a result of the investigation, that the healing of a leper had indeed occurred, there would be more sacrifices and sundry rituals on the eighth day, after which the healed person would be fully restored to society and a normal life.

However, whereas the instructions concerning the diagnosis of leprosy had been invoked and carried out countless times throughout Israel’s history, the second set of instructions, concerning when a leper had been healed, had never been invoked. Throughout Israel’s history, from the giving of the Law on Mt Sinai to the time of Jesus, no Jewish leper had ever been healed. There had been occasional exceptions, such as Moses and Miriam, but these are not examples of normal leprosy being healed, but rather just temporary bouts of the disease being imposed, and then quickly removed, by the Lord for reasons we need not go into here. Let us therefore turn to consider the healing of a leper by Jesus as recorded in the gospel texts:

While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, ‘Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.’

Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. ‘I am willing,’ he said. ‘Be clean!’ And immediately the leprosy left him.

Then Jesus ordered him, ‘Don’t tell anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.’

Yet the news about him spread all the more, so that crowds of people came to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses. But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed.[25]

Here, towards the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus heals a leper and sends him to the priest in accordance with the instructions we have already noted in Leviticus 14. He is, of course, fully aware that this would set off a Messianic investigation, as taught by Pharisaic Judaism. As we read the next part of Luke’s account we can see clearly that it did just that:

One day as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law, who had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem, were sitting there. And the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick. Some men came carrying a paralytic on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said, ‘Friend, your sins are forgiven.’

The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, ‘Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?’

Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, ‘Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.…’ He said to the paralyzed man, ‘I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.’ Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, ‘We have seen remarkable things today.’[26]

Two things emerge from the above. Firstly, due to the fact that, suddenly, religious leaders from all over Israel are coming to see Jesus, we can indeed see that the Messianic investigation – set off by the healing of the leper – has been implemented and is in full swing. Secondly, since they are only ‘thinking to themselves’ and not voicing their outrage audibly, we can thereby deduce that this is the first seven days of the process. It is the first phase of the proceedings, the Observation stage. However, we can further deduce that the initial investigation did indeed proclaim Jesus’ healing of the leper as being significant because later on in the same chapter they proceed to voice objections out loud. This therefore confirms that the proceedings had progressed to the second phase, the Interrogation stage:

After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. ‘Follow me,’ Jesus said to him, and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.

Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, ‘Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?

Jesus answered them, ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’

They said to him, ‘John’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking.’[27]

This Interrogation stage of the Messianic investigation continues throughout the rest of Jesus' ministry.

The Casting Out of a Dumb Spirit

By the time of Jesus’ first appearing Pharisaic Judaism had devised a formula for the casting out of evil spirits that consisted of three stages. Firstly, verbal communication was established with the demon in the demonized person. Secondly, the name of the evil spirit would be ascertained. Finally, the demon would be cast out through the use of its name.

It must be noted that this had nothing whatsoever to do with the teaching of scripture and was therefore pretty suspect. Certainly Jesus never used any such formula, and the instance recorded in the gospels of both Mark and Luke, in which a demoniac approached Him and Jesus asked for a name, can be explained by the simple fact that He was addressing the man himself and not the demons inside him.[28] The idea that demons have names accessible to human beings is simply nowhere found in the Bible. Further, why anyone would want to get into conversation with a demon anyway is completely beyond me. Anything an evil spirit says is totally irrelevant anyhow, and for the simple fact that you could never know whether what it said was true or false. After all, neither Satan nor his demonic hordes are exactly noted in scripture for their honesty! Far from conversing with the demons he cast out, Jesus rather took the complete opposite approach and told them to be quiet.[29]

However, with this Pharisaic formula for exorcism came a somewhat intractable problem: and that was encounters with demons that refused to speak. Jewish exorcists, therefore, could not cast out ‘dumb demons’, and precisely because they could not get them to speak, thereby revealing their supposed names. Indeed, they couldn’t get this type of demon to say anything at all. So the casting out of ‘dumb demons’ was thus designated a Messianic miracle. Only Messiah, they concluded, could cast such evil spirits out of people. With that in mind:

Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, ‘Could this be the Son of David?’[30]

‘Son of David’ was another of the main titles the Jews used for the coming Messiah, and we can see from the above that the common people of Israel were well versed in the concept of Messianic miracles. They, of course, knew Pharisaic teaching in all these regards precisely because it was the standard teaching of the day. Therefore, seeing Jesus cast out a ‘dumb demon’ immediately suggests to them that he is Messiah.[31]

The Healing of the Man Born Blind

The last Messianic sign we are interested in occurred because, like the healing of lepers and the casting out of dumb demons, the healing of someone who was born blind had never been known to happen. According to the Pharisees it was therefore another of the signs that only the Messiah could perform:

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ (Pharisaic Judaism taught that a fetus could sin.)

‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.’

Having said this, he spat on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. ‘Go,’ he told him, ‘wash in the Pool of Siloam’ (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

[The Pharisees said] ‘We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.’ (This was a completely dishonest statement as it was well known where Jesus came from and it could have been easily verified.)

The man answered, ‘Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. (This is an acknowledgement that He must be Messiah and had therefore come from Heaven.) We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.’

To this they replied, ‘You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!’ And they threw him out.

Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’

‘Who is he, sir?’ the man asked. ‘Tell me so that I may believe in him.’

Jesus said, ‘You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.’

Then the man said, ‘Lord, I believe,’ and he worshiped him.[32] (This is the healed man’s Messianic acknowledgment.)

People’s reactions to these Messianic miracles were quite singular. If the ordinary, non-Messianic miracles Jesus performed brought forth loud and amazed “Wows!”, then these Messianic ones solicited even louder double “Wows!”. Such miracles were clear testimony that the one performing them was indeed Israel’s long awaited Messiah. It is thus clear that the Pharisees knew full well that Jesus was he by his repeated fulfillments of both the Old Testament Scriptures and their own extra-biblical teachings and practices. Their problem, though, was that He was not the kind of Messiah they actually wanted, and it was this that led to such conflict between them.

We are now in a position to properly look at, and appreciate and understand, just how Jesus faced and tackled this problem of the tradition of the elders. We need to ask: What was His verdict on a situation whereby unbiblical practices and teachings were taking precedence over scripture, whilst those so doing claimed it to be a result of them acting on divine leading? This will provide us with a basis for knowing how we should handle the issue of non-biblical practices when we hit up against them.

Chapter Three

Jesus' Campaign Against the Tradition of the Elders

When we come to enquire as to how Jesus responded when he came up against the extra-biblical teachings and practices of the tradition of the elders, it seems that there are only three possibilities. Firstly, we could find that he accepted it all and, like the Pharisees and most Israelites, lived according to it. Secondly, we might discover that whereas he did not actually accept it all as being inspired, he nevertheless did his best to accommodate it wherever possible in order not to cause unnecessary offence. Or thirdly – and this, as we are going to see all too clearly, is what actually happened – not only did the Lord Jesus not accept any of it as being in any way inspired, he actually hated it and declared open warfare on it by breaking as many of its laws as he could on any occasion that presented itself.

The Case of the Blind Man

In order to see this divine offensive against the Oral Law we must return to the account of the Messianic miracle of the healing of the man born blind. There are two vitally important things that we must understand here. The first is that Jesus healed this man on a Sabbath and in so doing broke one of the most sacred of all Israel’s fence laws. For according to the tradition of the elders, healing was forbidden on a Sabbath.[33] It would, however, be reasonable to make the point that in breaking this particular rule Jesus was not so much laying down the gauntlet to the Oral Law as simply having compassion on the blind man in acting immediately. And should such prove to be the case then this particular incident would hardly appear to constitute the all out war I have stated that Jesus declared on the tradition of the elders. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. The all important thing here is, believe it or not, the mud. The second thing we need to understand is extremely significant precisely in this regard. According to the Mishna:

"To heal a blind man on the Sabbath it is prohibited to inject wine into his eyes. It is also prohibited to make mud from spittle and smear it on his eyes."[34]

Not only did the Oral Law forbid healing on the Sabbath, it also spelt out how not to heal on the Sabbath, specifically banning the healing of a blind man by the application of spittle and mud to the eye. It is a bit like saying that cigars are forbidden, but that Cuban cigars are especially forbidden. In other words, it is the kind of nonsense that spiritual legalism always leads to. Like a snowball rolling down a mountain it gathers momentum and gets more and more out of control.

With this Messianic miracle we therefore observe that not only did Jesus heal the blind man at a forbidden time, he also did so in a forbidden way. However, the final insult was yet to come, and Jesus sent the man to wash in the Pool of Siloam where the healing took place when he bathed. This becomes of tremendous importance once we realize that this all happened on a Sabbath of the Feast of Tabernacles, during which the laver in the Temple was filled using jugs carrying water taken from this particular pool. It was the centre of attention and interest at that specific time during the Feast, and Jesus sends a man there to be healed in full view of all present; including, of course, the religious leaders whose job it was to enforce these laws he was so publicly breaking. So we further see that not only does the Lord heal the man at a forbidden time and in a forbidden way, he further does so as publicly and as provocatively as he could by ensuring that his lawbreaking is evidenced by the occurrence of an actual messianic miracle at the most publicly attended place in Jerusalem at that particular moment. This is, indeed, open warfare on Israel’s tradition of the elders.

Friends in Low Places

We can see more of this by returning to the incident we referred to earlier in Luke’s gospel of the healing of the leper, the original miracle that sparked off the Messianic investigations in the first place. Once the healing had been properly verified as having been genuine, the procedure moves into the second phase, the Interrogation stage. What is the first thing Jesus then does?

After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. ‘Follow me,’ Jesus said to him, and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.

Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, ‘Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?’

Jesus answered them, ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’[35]

According to the tradition of elders there were two classes of Jew that were to be totally shunned – prostitutes and tax collectors. Jesus, however, initiates a conversation with Levi the tax collector and calls him to be a follower. He then goes to a dinner party held in his honor at Levi’s house. But of course Levi’s guests, precisely because he was a member of one of these two groups shunned by the Jews, were other members of those two groups. So Jesus happily, and extremely publicly, attends a dinner party where all the guests are either tax collectors or prostitutes. Here, having just got the attention of Israel’s leaders due to having performed a Messianic miracle which has been declared significant, Jesus attends a banquet exclusively attended by the two groups of people the tradition of the elders forbade contact with. Once again we observe unashamed and blatant warfare against a system of unbiblical teachings and practices which he absolutely despised, exposed and rejected. There is more to come though - lots more!

Baiting the Pharisees with a Bite to Eat

We earlier saw that pilpul logic developed some fifteen hundred fence laws concerning the Sabbath, and that this subsequently led to a ban on reaping, threshing, winnowing and storing. So just get a load of this:

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. Some of the Pharisees asked, ‘Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?’[36]

We see here Jesus marching his disciples through a cornfield on the Sabbath on a veritable frenzy of Oral Law breaking. Remember, of all the hedge laws the Sabbath ones were considered to be the most sacred. And here, in one act of what can only be regarded as corporate synchronized rebellion, the Lord not only breaks a whole group of these laws all at once - walking on the grass, reaping, threshing, winnowing and storing - he blatantly encourages his disciples to do so as well. This, as far as the religious leaders were concerned, was intolerable beyond words and became one of the main causes of them hating him so much and setting about securing His death.

On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shrivelled. The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shrivelled hand, ‘Get up and stand in front of everyone.’ So he got up and stood there.

Then Jesus said to them, ‘I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?’

He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ He did so, and his hand was completely restored. But they were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.’[37]

A Hand Washing Wash Out

Jesus literally uses opportunity after opportunity to bring such unbiblical traditions and teachings into utter disrepute, and does just about everything he can to go against them as publicly as possible, showing them up and exposing them for the sheer hypocritical nonsense they were:

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, ‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!’

Jesus replied, ‘And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honour your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honour his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

They worship me in vain;

their teachings are but rules taught by men.’

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, ‘Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean’, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean’.’

Then the disciples came to him and asked, ‘Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?’

He replied, ‘Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.’[38]

Why did the Pharisees and teachers of the law object to eating without hand washing? The Mishna states;

One should be willing to walk 4 miles to water in order to wash your hands rather than to eat with unwashed hands…

He who neglects hand washing is as he who is a murderer.[39]

This is, of course, ridiculous in the extreme, but it had nevertheless become more important to many of the Jews than the actual teaching of scripture – or even the very presence of Messiah in their midst.

Troublemaker or Truth Teller?

What Jesus was so effectively doing was to show the people that these traditions and teachings were not merely un-biblical – that is, not found in scripture – they were actually anti-biblical in that they went against the teaching of scripture. It was a choice: the Oral Law or scripture! This was not a both/and situation; for the simple reason that the tradition of the elders were actually in conflict with scripture. No, it was rather an either/or choice - as simple as that! It was either scripture; the authority and will of God as revealed in His written Word, or the teachings and traditions of mere men passed on by word of mouth. More than that, Jesus actually called it hypocrisy. We must be very clear on this point. To go against the will of God whilst claiming to be doing the will of God is the ultimate hypocrisy - and Jesus would have none of it!

It is interesting to note as well that after this wrangle between Jesus and the Pharisees the disciples were concerned that he had been too outspoken and dogmatic and had offended them by not being tactful enough. In other words, they told Jesus off. His reply reveals just how strongly he felt about people who propagate teachings and traditions which go against scripture as if they were of God, “Leave them, they are blind guides!”[40] Wow! That’s tough! But it is also the truth: and that’s what matters! We return to Luke’s gospel one more time:

Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus travelled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice, ‘Jesus, Master, have pity on us!’

When he saw them, he said, ‘Go, show yourselves to the priests.’ And as they went, they were cleansed.[41]

As the Lord’s earthly life was nearing its end, as the Pharisees and teachers of the law and other religious leaders were plotting his imminent murder, as the whole of Israel looked on at this man whose name was on everybody’s lips as their claimed Messiah, Jesus now performs ten consecutive Messianic miracles. In one tactically masterful act he commits the religious leaders to ten sets of initial investigations, ten sets of Observation stages and ten sets of Interrogation stages. In short, he keeps them virtually glued to his side in order that they hear every word he speaks and see every action he performs. He turns the tradition of the elders against its most ardent adherents and uses it to keep them as a captive audience to his ministry. Until the very end, like helpless fish on the end of the angler’s line, they hear again and again his message of rebuke against them; along with the equally important message of hope and forgiveness should they see fit to turn from their hardheartedness and sin and receive him as their Messiah and Savior. Never have people been as intensively kept captive under the umbrella of the proclamation of the gospel of salvation as were those hypocritical religious leaders.

Israel and the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day embraced a system that both caused and enabled them to go against the revealed written Word of God whilst superficially appearing to be in obedience to it. Jesus' verdict on them for this was hypocrisy. Did he respect their traditions? Did he tiptoe carefully around them so as not to cause offence? Was he careful to appear neutral so as not to become distracted by matters of secondary importance? No, he hated these false practices which were so prevalent – and with a vengeance too! Far from some softly, softly approach which circumvented people getting upset and being unnecessarily offended, he rather deliberately exposed and condemned the offending un-biblical traditions and teachings for all he was worth, provoking their adherents by precisely breaking the fence laws whenever, and as publicly, as he could. And this he did because such practices and traditions are not just un-biblical in some harmless or neutral kind of way; they are actually anti-biblical and cause people to act in direct disobedience to the Word of God. They constitute doing the will of man instead of doing the will of God. The Lord’s desire and example to us is clear: that extra-biblical teachings and practices that go against His written Word, whatever they are or wherever they may be found, are to be opposed and renounced.

Lessons for Today

It is, of course, very easy for the Christian church to look back at all this in amazement and say, "Naughty old Israel!" It is all too easy for us to scratch our heads in bemusement and wonder at just what the Jews thought they were doing. It is easy too to conclude how terrible it was that they observed practices, traditions and teachings that went so directly against the will of God as revealed in the Old Testament scripture. Little wonder, we may think, that God’s judgment eventually came upon them because of it.

But there is something more we need to know about this which many Christians don’t seem to want to admit to. It is something we greatly need to be aware of but which most believers fight tooth and nail in order to avoid acknowledging, something that desperately needs to be faced up to, but which many of the Lord’s people would just rather close their ears to and not even have to think about. And it is simply this: within a generation of the death of the Apostles the Christian church did virtually the exact same thing in regards to the New Testament that the Pharisees had done with the Old Testament through the tradition of the elders.

What we have seen about Israel at the time of Christ’s earthly ministry is merely the diving board into the actual swimming pool of what this book is really all about. Just like the Jews back then we Christians also believe in, and practice, traditions and teachings that go directly against the Word of God, yet to which we adhere virtually without question. Further, believers are often actually prepared to fight for, and protect, these false teachings and traditions, even standing against those who challenge them and accusing them, as did the Pharisees with Jesus, of being troublemakers and merely trying to be divisive. I therefore invite you to the next section of this book where we turn our attention to the task of revealing, and exposing, our very own Christian version of the tradition of the elders.

Chapter Four

The Tradition of the Early Church Fathers - Part One

Their Foundational Error!

The Usual Suspects

In the years following the death of the Apostles the Christian Church was led, and greatly influenced, by a group of men that history has named the Early Church Fathers. Much that they did is to be greatly admired. However, they also transformed church life and practice and changed it into the opposite of what the Apostles had taught. There were quite a few of them and their time frame spanned some hundreds of years, but for our purposes here we are going to look at just six of them, and limit ourselves to the two centuries following the death of the original Apostles.

1. Clement of Rome was one of earliest leaders of the church at Rome and wrote a famous letter to the church at Corinth in AD 95. He died in AD 100.[42]

2. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, wrote seven letters to various churches whilst traveling to Rome where he was eventually martyred in AD 110.

3. Justin Martyr was a noted apologist for the Christian faith who was martyred in Rome around AD 165.

4. Irenaeus studied under Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna, and became Bishop of Lyons in France in AD 177.

5. Tertullian was another apologist and was converted in AD 193. His many writings date from AD 196-212. He lived in Carthage in Africa.

6. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, converted in AD 246 and was made a Bishop within just two years.

Before we actually turn to their writings to see just where everything started to go wrong, there are a couple of things we must be very clear about. Firstly, although the New Testament was fully written by the time of Clement of Rome in AD 95, it was not fully compiled, verified and available as a complete work for years afterwards. We need to bear in mind that these men did not have the New Testament – and hence the complete Bible – available to them in the same way that we do now. It is therefore perfectly understandable, indeed, almost inevitable, that some of their teachings and practices turned out to be at variance with what the original Apostles taught. After all, when we look at how badly the Christian Church has done through the centuries even with the completed scriptures fully available, we should not be surprised to see error creeping in amongst those who only had parts of the New Testament to refer to. However, what is inexcusable is that the wider Christian Church, once having the fully compiled New Testament, did not assess the Church Father’s teachings in the light of it to either retain or reject things accordingly.

Here we see the major difference between the Early Church Fathers and the Pharisees’ tradition of the elders. The Pharisees introduced false teachings and practices that went against the Old Testament scriptures they already had, whereas the Early Church Fathers were not in an equivalent position as regards to the New Testament. The charge of hypocrisy, though properly laid at the door of the Pharisees, is out of place regarding the Church Fathers themselves; although it must be said that the same is not necessarily the case with those – including believers today – who continue with unbiblical teachings and practices whilst having the New Testament fully available.

Also, we will be concentrating on what they got wrong, but this is not to say that they did not get anything right. Quite the contrary! These men preserved, guarded and spread the truth of the good news about Jesus in the face of great adversity, often paying the price with their lives. They were without doubt brave men of God who protected the early church from heresies and deceptions that could have all but completely destroyed the Christian faith. I am not in any way intending to just write them off as if they were wrong about everything they did and taught. Quite the contrary, we ought to both honor and respect them.

Church Leadership – the Divine Design

Although we will be looking at several of their teachings and practices that went against the teaching of the Apostles in the New Testament, we must initially concentrate on just one. Not only is it chronologically the first of their doctrinal errors, it was also the most serious, and became the seedbed in which the others grew and flourished. Indeed, the foundational deception into which the Early Church Fathers fell went to the very heart of church life and concerned the nature of the government and leadership of the Christian Church. As a starting point to examining this, we must see what the New Testament teaches about it:

From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. When they arrived, he said to them: ‘You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

‘And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me – the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace.

‘Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God which he bought with his own blood.’[43]

Here Paul addresses the elders (Greek: presbuteros) of the church from Ephesus. He charges them, firstly, to watch over the church as overseers (Greek: episkopos, translated as bishop in some Bible translations) and, secondly, to be shepherds (Greek: poimeno, sometimes translated pastor). Here are three synonymous terms being used for the same group of men: elders/presbyters, bishops/overseers and pastors/shepherds. The term bishop, or overseer, relates to their task relative to the church as a corporate body of people whilst pastor (or shepherd) is associated with their task relative to individuals within the church. Whereas you would oversee a corporate group of people you would pastor, or shepherd, individuals within that group. Finally, the term elder pertains to the idea of age, and therefore maturity, and is the necessary personal qualification for the task. Basically, the elders of a church are simply the older, spiritually-mature brothers in the Lord. Further, elders are always encountered in the New Testament in a plurality, originating from, and having been raised up in, the local church in which they are eventually recognized as such. We see this again in the writings of the Peter:

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers – not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.[44]

The Apostle here instructs the elders amongst those he is addressing to be both shepherds (pastors), and overseers (bishops). Again, we see that these are synonymous terms for the same function.

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.[45]

Writing to Titus in Crete Paul again uses the term elder and overseer interchangeably. They are simply synonymous terms for the same function, just different words describing varying aspects of leadership and used of the same people. The equation is therefore: an elder equals a bishop/overseer, which equals a pastor/shepherd. And of course the fact that elders in the New Testament were men whom the church had known for years before they were recognized as such means they would have been looked on as being just the same as everyone else and not as some leadership elite. It is difficult to think of yourself as being someone more important and special than others, because a leader, when you are functioning among people who have seen you grow up in the Lord from an immature believer and know both your weaknesses and past mistakes. There are few illusions to labor under in such a scenario, and people are far less likely to put such a one on a pedestal. Or to put it another way, one is far less likely to think of oneself as a big cheese when no-one is saluting.

Throughout this book I will be drawing on three written sources: the Bible (obviously), the writings of the Early Church Fathers themselves and acknowledged biblical scholarship of the highest caliber. It is, of course, the Bible that will show us the truth concerning the Lord’s design for church life, whilst the Fathers’ writings will make clear where, and how, they ended up going against it and changing things. But the reason I am going to draw so heavily on top-ranking biblical scholarship is because when it comes to what scripture does say about these things, I want to make it absolutely clear that nothing of what I am going to be contending for is based merely on my own personal views or opinions. I want it to be as clear and unmistakable as possible that I will simply be passing on what the scholars have long agreed about regarding what the New Testament reveals concerning these issues. It is absolutely vital that the reader understand that what I am going to be espousing concerning church life and practice is simply what any competent Bible scholar would confirm as being the scriptural facts of the matter and the clear teachings and practices passed on to others by the Apostles in what is now our New Testament.

A.M.Renwick was Professor of Church History at the Free Church College in Edinburgh. In 1958 he published what has become a definitive work on the subject of church history. In it we read:

When we come to consider the permanent officers of the Church we find that in the days of the Apostles elders and deacons were appointed and their duties defined. The office of elder is variously described in the New Testament as bishop, pastor, teacher, preacher, minister and steward. The various terms mentioned referred to the same officer, but each presented a different aspect of their work. Thus ‘pastor’ indicated their duty to 'shepherd the flock' of Christ. Bishop, a word used to translate the Greek ‘episkopos’, indicated that as ‘overseers’ they had to 'feed the Church of God' (Acts 20) That the ‘presbuteros’ and ‘episkopos’ (elder and bishop) were the same is shown by many facts...Furthermore, the qualifications for bishop and elder were the same. Scarcely any scholar today would dispute the words of the late Dr J.B.Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, and an undoubted authority: ‘It is a fact now generally recognised by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same Officer in the Church is called indifferently bishop, and elder or presbyter.’[46]

Donald Guthrie, formerly Vice-Principal of London Bible College, writes:

It was Paul’s practice to appoint several elders (the same thing as bishops) to take charge of each church.[47]

William MacDonald, a respected American author and Bible teacher of 40 years standing, writes:

Elders in the New Testament sense are mature Christian men of sterling character who provide spiritual leadership in a local assembly…..The Greek word episkopos, translated ‘bishop,’ ‘overseer’ or ‘guardian,’ is also used in reference to elders, describing their function as undershepherds of God’s flock. The names ‘elders’ and ‘bishops’ are generally understood to refer to the same persons…

...In modern usage, ‘bishop’ has come to mean a prelate who supervises a diocese or a group of churches in a district. But the word never means this in the NT. The scriptural pattern is to have several bishops in one church rather than one bishop over several churches. Nor should an elder be confused with the modern pastor, who is primarily responsible for preaching, teaching and administering the sacraments in a local church. It is generally acknowledged that there was no such person in the early church…

The primitive assemblies were composed of saints, bishops, and deacons (Phil. 1:1) – that is all. The clerical system did not arise until the second century…... It is clear that in the early church, elders were appointed by the apostles and their representatives (Acts 14:23; Tit:1:5). This does not mean, however, that the apostles and their delegates had the power to make a man an elder. In order to become a bishop, there must be both divine enablement and human willingness. Only the Holy Spirit can make a man a bishop or guardian (Acts 20:28)…

…It is not a question of our electing them but of recognizing those whom God has raised up for this work.[48]

In his definitive Bible Dictionary, under the heading for Bishop, W.E.Vine informs us:

Lit: an overseer. Note: Presbuteros, an elder, is another term for the same person as bishop or overseer.[49]

Later, under the heading for Pastor, he writes:

...this was the service committed to elders (overseers or bishops).[50]

No one who has done their historical, linguistic and exegetical homework would suggest that what I am saying here about church leadership and government is anything other than what the New Testament itself teaches. It is not merely my own personal interpretation or subjective understanding. It is, as any Bible scholar will confirm, what the New Testament incontrovertibly reveals.

However, the situation raises a monumental question, and it is this: Why, then, was a doughty old trooper for the Lord like J.B.Lightfoot part of a church structure which he clearly realized the New Testament did not teach? [51]  Further, why has church leadership, for nearly two millennia, been established and set up so differently to what we see in the pages of scripture? It is in the answering of these questions that we now turn to the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

The Shift in Church Leadership

In a letter to the Corinthians Clement of Rome writes:

The high priest has been given his own special services, the priests have been assigned their own place, and the Levites have their special ministrations enjoined on them. The layman is bound by the ordinances of the laity.[52]

Clement argued that a variation on the Levitical Priesthood in the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament should be adopted as the leadership and government of the Christian Church. As early as AD 95, with John the Apostle probably still alive, the first anti-scriptural distinction between priest and people – the clergy and the laity – is introduced into the New Covenant Church era. Clement took what the Apostles had taught – that is, a church leadership comprising a plurality of locally grown men known as bishops/overseers, pastors/shepherds and elders/presbyters - and introduced the idea of a hierarchical Priesthood, separate and distinct from the so-called laity. Even a brief examination of scripture reveals what a travesty of New Testament truth his idea was:

As you come to him, the living Stone – rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him – you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ…

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.[53]

In these verses the word people translates the Greek word laos, which is where our English word laity comes from. The same people referred to as laos (believers) are also called a holy and a royal priesthood. So as far as the New Testament is concerned all believers in Jesus are priests. It has nothing whatsoever to do with church leadership. We later read in the same letter concerning the function of elders:

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers – not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.[54]

The interesting thing here is that the Greek word translated “…those entrusted to you...” is kleros, and this is actually where the English words cleric and clergy originate from. When it comes to ecclesiastical terminology, scripture reveals that all believers, whether elders or not, are priests, whilst non-elders, as those entrusted to the care of elders, are kleros. Therefore, the idea of a clergy/laity divide in relation to church leadership and government is not only alien to the New Testament - it is also a linguistic and verbal nonsense. The concept of the clergy/laity divide is the result of the completely wrong use of New Testament words and terminology which scripture uses in totally different ways. If we use the terminology correctly then biblically speaking, all believers are priests and non-elders are clergy. However, Clement introduced the idea of a system whereby clergy replaced eldership and everyone else comprised the laity. Even before John the Apostle is with the Lord in glory we see the beginnings of an imposition of a system in which churches, in complete contradistinction to what he and the other Apostles of Jesus had taught and passed on, were to be led and governed by a hierarchical priesthood. As we move on to the next Church Father we can see just how this developed, and what it all too rapidly turned into.

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (AD 110) writes:

Your reverend presbytery…is tuned to the Bishop as strings to a lyre…Let us then be very careful not to resist the Bishop, that through our submission to the Bishop we may belong to God… Clearly then we should regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself…[55]

I advise you, be eager to always act in godly concord; with the Bishop presiding as the counterpart of God, the presbyters as the counterpart of the council of the Apostles…Thus, as the Lord did nothing without the Father (being united with him), either by Himself or by means of the Apostles, so you must do nothing without the Bishop and the presbyters.[56]

When you are obedient to the Bishop as to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are not living as ordinary men but according to Jesus Christ…It is therefore necessary that you should do nothing without the Bishop…Likewise let all men…respect the Bishop as the counterpart of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of the Apostles: without those no church is recognised.[57]

All of you follow the Bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father…Let no-one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the Bishop…It is not permitted to baptise or hold a love-feast independently of the Bishop. But whatever he approves, that is also well pleasing to God; that all your acts may be sure and valid.[58]

This is nothing short of incredible. A mere fifteen years after Clement of Rome set the ball rolling in regards to establishing church government by priesthood, the ensuing hierarchy was developing an increasing number of tiers. Not only were individual churches led by priests, as opposed to locally grown elders, they were led by priests who are now collectively under the authority of an all-powerful Bishop. Not only do we have a ‘big chief’ – the very thing which the application of New Testament teaching was designed to prevent – we have one who is over multiple churches and vested with an authority that is, for all intents and purposes, considered to be on a par with the Lord’s himself. But of course such hierarchy and denominationalism, forever two sides of the same coin, is the immediate and inevitable result of the Early Church Fathers teachings, and is the legacy which Christian churches have been blighted by ever since. The very thing apostolic teaching and practice was designed to avoid regarding church leadership was soon blatantly taught and implemented, and churches became tightly controlled by a human hierarchy rather than knowing, and depending on, the leading of the Spirit through each believer who comprised them.

We now move forward ninety years and turn our attention to one Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus; otherwise known as Tertullian (AD 200):

The supreme priest (that is the Bishop) has the right of conferring baptism: after him the presbyters and deacons, but only with the Bishop's authority...Otherwise the laity also have the right...But how much more is the discipline of reverence and humility incumbent upon laymen (since it also befits their superiors)…[59]

The distinction between the order of clergy and the people has been established by the authority of the Church, and by the honour which is hallowed by the special bench of the order (the priesthood).[60]

Two things should be noted here. Firstly, Tertullian is quite clear that priests are the ‘superiors’ of the laity. Secondly, church tradition is declared to be authoritative. In complete contradistinction to the teaching of the New Testament, Christian churches are now being led and governed by a fully developed priesthood under the authority of a Bishop, with the men comprising this clergy-elite being considered to be the ‘superiors’ of the mere laity. But the truly important point to note here is that this whole ecclesiastical system is now said to possess the authority to sanction itself. Instead of the Word of God, the final authority is now seen to be that of church tradition as laid down and taught by the very hierarchical priesthood that should never have existed in the first place.

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (AD 250):

If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is Himself the High Priest of God the Father, and first offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be done in remembrance of Himself, then assuredly the priest acts truly in Christ's stead, when he reproduces what Christ did, and he then offers a true and complete sacrifice to God the Father, if he begins to offer as he sees Christ Himself has offered.[61]

By the middle of the third century the priesthood had become a vicariously sacrificing one, and what would eventually become the travesty and blasphemy of the Catholic Mass is now present in embryonic form.

The Theory of the Apostolic Succession

This initial and foundational false teaching of the Early Church Fathers - that is, the introduction of priestly and ecclesiastical hierarchy over churches – gave bishops and priests such authority and power that it was inevitable that any other teachings they introduced, whether in agreement with scripture or not, would be virtually unquestioningly accepted. Hence my earlier reference to it as being the seedbed in which other errors were destined to grow and flourish. We will go on to look at some of them in detail in the next two chapters, but we must first gain an understanding, as we did with the Jewish tradition of the elders, as to just how they managed to get away with all this, and what theological justification they put forward for it. After all, one does not declare oneself to be the final authority in matters pertaining to faith and doctrine without something pretty solid with which to back such an assertion up. And what they did was to develop a concept which later came to be known as the Doctrine of the Apostolic Succession.

We must keep in mind that the Early Church Fathers faced all manner of problems with emerging heresies concerning Jesus and his salvation, all of which were claimed by their adherents to have the inspiration of God behind them. Some taught that Jesus was not actually God at all, but merely an angel. Others claimed He was indeed divine, but that he was merely an apparition and only appeared to be a man, but was not actually a real human being at all. Gnostics were increasingly gaining entry into churches and teaching that salvation was wrought through secret knowledge, whilst others taught redemption through almost anything except simple faith in Jesus. It was, to say the least, a tough time, and the Fathers did not, as we saw earlier, have the fully compiled and available New Testament as we do today. Their dilemma, therefore, was how to convince people that they, and not the heretics, were right concerning the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ and his saving work.

Dr John Drane is a lecturer in practical theology at Aberdeen University, adjunct Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, California, and visiting Professor at Morling College, Sydney. He is a scholar of stature and knows his subject well. He observes:

It is important to realise that the movement towards a more authoritarian church hierarchy originated in the fight against unacceptable beliefs. At a time when Gnostics were claiming a special authority because of their alleged endowment with the Spirit it was important for the mainstream church to have its own clear source of power. It was of little practical use for the church's leaders to claim – even if it may have been true – that they, rather than their opponents were truly inspired by the Spirit. They needed something more than that, and they found it in the apostles. In the earliest period supreme authority had rested with them. So, they reasoned, anyone with recognised authority in the church must be succeeding to the position held by the apostles. They were the Apostle's successors, and could trace their office back in a clear line of descent from the very earliest times. They stood in an apostolic succession.[62]

The essence of this is that the Fathers’ simply claimed for themselves the same type, and measure, of authority that the original Apostles of Jesus possessed. They argued that what they taught was necessarily correct precisely because they, as those standing in a direct line back to the original Apostles, were saying it. And whereas this may have been fine and dandy for when they were in agreement with God’s Word, it sure wasn’t so good concerning that which they were deceived about.

Clement of Rome:

The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the Apostles from Christ: in both cases the process was orderly, and derived from the will of God...The Apostles…appointed their first-fruits, after testing them by the Spirit, to be Bishops and deacons for those who were going to believe.[63]

We must immediately remind ourselves here that Clement’s idea of a Bishop was vastly different from that of the Apostles. He may be using the same terminology as they did, but what he meant by it could not have been more different. As we have already seen, Ignatius argued that the Bishop was the counterpart of God, whilst the Presbyters (Priests) were the counterpart of the Apostles. Their authority was therefore absolute and unquestionable. They therefore ought to simply be obeyed.

Irenaeus - Bishop of Lyons:

By ‘knowledge of the truth’ we mean: the teaching of the Apostles; the order of the church as established from the earliest times throughout the world: the distinctive stamp of the Body of Christ, preserved through the episcopal (Bishops) succession: for to the Bishops the Apostles committed the care of the church which is in each place, which has come down to our time, safeguarded without any written documents.[64] (cf. Jewish Oral Law)

Irenaeus acknowledges the teaching of the Apostles (that is, the New Testament scriptures) as being authoritative, but then goes on to add that the ‘order of the church’ – that is, church tradition – as established by the succession of Bishops, is authoritative too. The thing to particularly note here is that whereas the teaching of the Apostles was passed on in written form (the New Testament), this ‘order of the church’ was precisely passed on ‘without any written documents’. It was simply passed down by word of mouth through the Bishops, yet was considered to be authoritative and binding in precisely the same way as scripture! And this is, of course, a virtual re-run of Israel’s Oral Law: the idea that you can have legitimate extra-biblical teachings and practices which are as authoritative and binding as that which is actually contained in the written Word of God. The problem, however, remains exactly the same. What do you do when your two authorities disagree with each other? Israel, as we have seen, went with the Oral Law, with their tradition of the elders, over scripture; and we are now in the process of discovering that the Christian Church has done much the same thing. Historically, Christian churches have supported, and submitted to, this tradition of the Early Church Fathers rather than being in obedience to the teaching and traditions of the Apostles of Jesus as found in the pages of the New Testament.

Writing on the procedure for choosing a Bishop, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, states:

Therefore we should be careful to observe and keep the procedure we received from the divine tradition and from the practice of the Apostles, which is kept among us...[65]

And there you have it, the two authorities now destined to vie with each other for preeminence: the ‘divine tradition’ and ‘the practice of the Apostles.’ Cyprian here confirms for us how the teaching and traditions of the Early Church Fathers came to be seen, and comprehensively accepted, as being as authoritative as that of the original Apostles. And although he and Clement et al did not themselves have the fully compiled and available New Testament, the Christian church at large certainly did later on. However, rather than correcting the teachings and practices of the Fathers’ which were not in line with it, this idea of a ‘divine tradition’ of purely oral origination prevailed, and came to be seen as the key to rightly interpreting the New Testament. In precisely the same way that Israel ended up testing and judging the Old Testament by their traditions, instead of the other way round, so the Christian Church, rather than testing the teaching of the Early Church Fathers by the writings of the New Testament, said that the only way to properly understand the New Testament was through the lens of the Fathers’ teachings. As with Israel the wisdom and will of man succeeded over the revealed written will and Word of God in scripture. No longer was church life and practice to be based purely on the teaching of Paul, Peter, John and the other New Testament writers, but rather on the writings, teachings and traditions of men who came after them.

When it comes to church government, any idea or semblance of a clergy/laity divide - that is, priests, bishops, ordained ministry, pastors of churches, leaders set apart from the people and over them - is based on purely the teachings and practices of the Early Church Fathers and has nothing whatsoever to do with the New Testament. A final quote from W.E.Vine is appropriate here:

The New Testament knows nothing of a sacerdotal (priestly) class in contrast to the laity.[66]

Lessons for Today

Why is such a class of leadership so common in the Christian church? Because of the tradition of the Early Church Fathers! It’s as simple as that! Church leadership, as experienced and practiced by the vast majority of believers throughout church history, is not based on the teaching of scripture at all, but merely on the ideas and practices of men who came along after it was written, and who ended up in profound disagreement with it. Neither does it much matter in what particular guise these ‘traditions’ come. The ultimate is obviously Catholicism with its Pope, Archbishops, Bishops and Priests, with the Anglican Church - minus, of course, the Pope - coming in a fairly close second. And of course such churches have gone further down the road with all this than, for instance, the Baptists or Pentecostals; but they nevertheless all still practice the same fundamental false teaching – leadership by one man who comes in as the expert from the outside and who, precisely by virtue of him being the leader, stands apart from the people.

The fundamental error is that of having any kind of ‘big chief’ at all, whether nationally or locally, regardless of what form it takes. Even so-called ‘house churches’ with hierarchical ‘apostles’ and ‘senior elders’ are in the same boat here. Any kind of ‘stand apart’ leadership is wrong. An elder is not the first among equals; he is just one amongst equals. And I do not mean by that just the other elders, I mean amongst everyone in the church. It really is as simple as that. The fundamental difference between a biblical and unbiblical church leader is that the former is a part of the church, whereas the latter is apart from it.

Whether you have the Catholic or Anglican Priest, a Methodist or Baptist Minister, the Pentecostal Pastor or the Senior Elder in a supposed ‘house church’, it is the tradition of man as opposed to the Word of God. Leadership in the New Testament churches was by home grown men who were simply seen as the older, more mature brothers, supplemented by traveling ministries which functioned more widely than just the particular church ‘back home’ of which they were primarily a part. However, no one but the Lord Himself was seen as being in charge. Churches governed themselves on the basis of collective, consensual decision making by all those who were part of them. It was the responsibility of all, and not just some, to establish from God’s Word, through prayerful consideration, what His will was concerning whatever issues arose amongst them. This the Early Church Fathers changed into an ecclesiastical structure which was virtually the complete opposite of what was originally intended. The opposite of a locally grown, non-hierarchical leadership is a hierarchical leadership with one person in charge who has come in from the outside. Whether Anglican Priest or Pentecostal Pastor, it is still the opposite of what we see in scripture.[67] Ray Simpson is an ordained evangelical and Spirit-filled Anglican priest. He writes:

I can justify staying in the Church of England because it is committed to the teaching of the Bible and the Early Church Fathers.[68]

Although most believers do not realize it, they are adhering unquestioningly to teachings and practices which have nothing whatsoever to do with the New Testament, but which originated from ideas and traditions introduced by men who arrived on the scene after the canon of scripture was closed. It can be said, with complete justification, that the vast majority of churches, when it comes to how they organize themselves and function, are completely and totally unbiblical. The choice before us is clear: should we adhere to Apostolic tradition as revealed in the pages of the New Testament, or the totally unbiblical tradition of the Early Church Fathers?

Chapter Five

The Traditions of the Early Church Fathers - Part Two

The Great Baptism Fiasco!

Baptism according to the Apostles

The Early Church Fathers’ teachings about hierarchical leadership and the Apostolic Succession were accepted by most of the Christian church and were inevitably followed by other doctrinal errors which, equally inevitably, flourished. One of the most serious shifts away from New Testament practice flowing directly from this was their developing ideas and teachings regarding baptism. But firstly, what does the Scripture show us concerning it?

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call.’

With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’ Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.[69]

But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.[70]

As they travelled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?’ And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.[71]

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord – Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here – has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.[72]

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.’ So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.[73]

The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’

They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.[74]

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’

They answered, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’

So Paul asked, ‘Then what baptism did you receive?’

‘John’s baptism,’ they replied.

Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.[75]

While the teaching of the Apostles held sway, the early believers simply baptized people as soon as humanly possible after conversion, and preferably on the same day. There was no form of baptismal preparation, and neither was there any need for special church gatherings or for leadership to be present at baptisms. If someone was instrumental in bringing someone to faith in Jesus then they baptized them there and then; as simple as that! What, however, did the Early Church Fathers teach and practice in this regard?

The Baptism Shift

In his letter to Smyrna Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (AD 110) writes:

It is not permitted to baptise…independently of the Bishop.[76]

The Fathers’ obsession with hierarchy and authority impinged upon every area of the Christian life, including the baptism of new converts. Within a generation of the death of Paul the Apostle, baptism was regulated by church leaders and was far from being something you did straight away when someone became a believer. We must remind ourselves yet again that the word Bishop meant something different to Ignatius than to the writers of the New Testament.[77] Ignatius’ Bishop was a priest-over-priests, the hierarchical area authority over the already hierarchical clergy-leaders of individual local churches. In Acts Philip is not even an elder in a local church in the biblical sense, let alone a clergy-leader as taught by the Fathers, yet he baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch immediately without a second thought. He did not think it necessary to procure permission from anyone. Yet as early as the turn of the first century we see that baptism was being changed in accordance with the teachings and practices of the Early Church Fathers and was no longer practiced as revealed in the pages of the New Testament. Justin Martyr (AD 150) further informs us:

All who accept and believe as true the things taught and said by us, and who undertake to have the power to live accordingly, are taught to pray and entreat God, fasting, for the forgiveness of their former sins, while we join their prayer and fasting. Then we bring them to a place where there is water, where they are regenerated in the same way as we were...[78]

Two staggeringly important things stand out here. Firstly, a time lapse has been introduced between someone becoming a Christian and then being baptized, and a mandatory period of prayer and fasting has become necessary. Immediate baptism, as instructed by Jesus and the Apostles, has been overruled by the Fathers and replaced by baptismal preparation. The simple teaching of the New Testament in this regard now becomes a convoluted process of believing on Jesus, repenting over a period of time with prayer and fasting, and then being baptized – but only after permission has been obtained from the Bishop.

Secondly, Justin Martyr is here teaching baptismal regeneration. He blatantly promoted the idea that someone was born again not when they believed on Jesus, but when they were baptized. According to Justin, in order to be saved one must now believe on Jesus, pray, fast, and be baptized after getting permission from the Bishop. How dreadful and terrible it is to here see the wonderful simplicity of the teaching of the Lord Jesus in the New Testament becoming obscured by completely unbiblical, so say nothing of nonsensical, requirements and considerations.

The apologist/philosopher Tertullian (AD 200) writes:

…the unwed should be deferred; for temptation is waiting for them alike in the case of the virgins because of their maturity, as in the case of the widowed because they are without partners. Let them wait until they marry, or until they are strengthened for continence (sexual abstinence.) Those who understand the importance of baptism will rather fear its attainment rather than its delay...[79]

Tertullian here says that it is best not to get baptized if you are single, unless you could be absolutely sure that you would never commit sexual sin. Baptism is now considered to be so grave and solemn an act that one had to be considered virtually beyond serious sin before one could receive it. But why on earth would he say something like that? He continues:

But there are other sins very different from these, as being too serious and ruinous to receive pardon. Such are murder, idolatry, fraud, denial [sc. of Christ], blasphemy and, of course, adultery and fornication...Christ will no more intercede for those: he who has been born of God will never commit them: if he has committed them he will not be a son of God.[80]

By the turn of the second century the Early Church Fathers’ believed that baptism covered past sins, but not those committed subsequent to conversion. Therefore, should one commit such sins after having been baptized, salvation would be forfeited. Forgiveness no longer depended on personal confession to the Lord in prayer but on the act of baptism itself. According to Tertullian, Christians should never commit what one might call ‘serious sins’, and if they did then they were eternally lost as an unbeliever. A Christian, he taught, was therefore a believer who was beyond serious sin. And of course the Bishop would know when someone had actually reached that point and could be safely baptized. And lest you be wondering how anyone, let alone Tertullian, could teach such un-biblical nonsense, then his next quote should make things somewhat clearer:

All waters…after the invocation of God attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit straightway comes upon them from the heavens and is upon the waters sanctifying them by His own power; and being thus sanctified they are imbued at the same time with the power of sanctifying…[81]

Incredibly, Tertullian argued that a person was born again when they were baptized, and not when they actually believed in Jesus, because the new birth was caused by the supernatural properties of the baptismal waters. The words uttered by the priest invoked the power of God and brought down the Holy Spirit upon the water, thus causing it to be imbued with supernatural power. This is, of course, superstitious nonsense, and more to do with occultism than with anything revealed in the Word of God, yet it is what the Fathers came to see as the very basis of entry into the Christian faith. By the end of the second century being born-again depended not on believing in Jesus, as stated by the New Testament, but on the un-biblical and ritualistic administrations of priests.

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (AD 250) concurs:

A man is born not by imposition of the hand, when he receives the Holy Spirit, but in baptism.[82]

Baptismal regeneration is stated here again quite clearly as Cyprian makes the somewhat strange statement that someone can even have the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands yet, if not baptized, would nevertheless not be born-again. Even the baptism of the Holy Spirit could, as far as the Fathers were concerned, precede the new birth if received prior to water baptism. Cyprian then speaks of yet another innovation about to appear on the Christian scene:

If remission of sins is granted even to the worst offenders, and to those who have previously committed many sins against God, when they have afterwards believed, and if no-one is shut out from baptism and grace; how much less ought an infant to be shut out, who being newly born has committed no sin, except that being born of Adam’s line according to the flesh he has at his first birth contracted the contagion of the ancient death? Indeed the infant’s approach to the reception of remission of sins is the easier from the fact that the sins remitted are another’s, not his own.[83]

The logic is, I readily grant, irrefutable. Once you believe that people are born again when they are baptized, because the waters cause the new birth to take place, it then makes perfect sense to just baptize people as babies and get them ‘saved’ right at the beginning of their lives. It is sobering to realize that the practice of infant baptism, as adhered to by countless genuine believers, was not even formulated until the mid-point of the third century. Its introduction completed a process whereby baptism, as so clearly and emphatically taught in the pages of the New Testament, was all but completely abolished and replaced by something entirely different. Two things must be carefully noted in regards to this.

Firstly, nowhere does the New Testament envisage a time gap between conversion and baptism. Any delay is nothing more than a preparatory, and therefore probationary, period – the opposite of the notion of grace – making believing in Jesus not quite enough; whilst scripture makes clear that it most certainly is. Whereas few believers would take things as far today as they did in the time of the Fathers, with their mandatory fasting and the like, the idea of baptism classes or baptismal preparation of any kind is nevertheless rooted in the same fundamental error. Unlike the New Testament believers we seem to be unwilling to take someone’s statement and confession that they have believed on Jesus and want to be His disciple at face value. We seem to want further corroborative proof of their intention, a way to further verify or test it before we actually believe them and get on with their baptism. The New Testament church never did this. If there is one example in Scripture of someone who claimed to have been converted, yet who we might be glad not to have baptized, it is Simon Magus:

When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, ‘Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.’

Peter answered: ‘May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.’

Then Simon answered, ‘Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.’[84]

Our reaction would probably have been, “Whew! It’s fortunate we didn’t baptize him! It just goes to show how important it is that we don’t baptize people too readily. We need to take the time to test their sincerity a bit!” Yet in the preceding verses we read:

Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, ‘This man is the divine power known as the Great Power.’ They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic. But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.[85]

What we precisely do not see here is a summit meeting of the Apostles resulting in a change of church policy concerning the established practice - the apostolic tradition - of immediate baptism. They carried on the exact same way after this incident as they had done before it, and people were baptized immediately upon conversion. Yet we still feel the need, with all our unbiblical practices, understandings and doctrinal allegiances, to do things differently from the New Testament believers. Even though they received their teachings and practices directly from the Apostles, who in turn had personally received them directly from the Lord Jesus himself, we still do things other than the way in which scripture so clearly reveals they should be done. The choice, again, is clear. Do we go with the Bible as the Word of God, or with unscriptural, and therefore completely wrong, traditions?

Secondly, it should be clearly understood that the particular practice of infant baptism is based purely on the teachings and traditions of the Early Church Fathers, and is nothing whatsoever to do with the teaching of the New Testament. The idea that babies should be baptized was the invention of church leaders during the third century. Any such notion is completely absent from scripture. In this regard just cast your mind back to the quote in the last chapter from Ray Simpson, the Anglican priest, when he argued that he could justify staying in the Anglican Church because it was based on, “...the teaching of the Bible and the Early Church Fathers.”[86] He is perfectly aware that these things don’t come from the Bible. After all, if they did then why would one ever need to give credence of any kind to the Early Church Fathers and the resultant concept of ‘church tradition’?

David F.Wright, Senior Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History, University of Edinburgh, writes,

At the birth of the Church converts were baptized with little or no delay. But a course of instruction prior to baptism soon became customary, especially for non-Jewish converts. Hippolytus of Rome again provides valuable evidence. A convert’s occupation and personal relations were scrutinized, and then came pre-baptismal instruction which took 3 years (even longer in Syria). Good progress, or the imminence of persecution could shorten the period...More intensive preparations, including fasting, exorcism and blessing, immediately preceded baptism. The converts were often taught by laymen, such as Justin in Rome or Origen in Alexandria. By the 4th Century the clergy had taken over the instructions of converts, and the bishop had become personally responsible for the concentrated teaching and discipline immediately before baptism (Here lay the origin of Lent: from the 2nd Century baptisms normally took place at Easter.)....Careful preparation for baptism was seen as essential because baptism was commonly thought of as dealing with a person's past corruption but not his future faults. This explains the practice of delaying baptism, the development of a system of penitence to cover sins after baptism, and even Tertullian's insistence on purity before baptism so that baptism became almost a prize. The systematic teaching of converts along these lines flourished in the 3rd and 4th Centuries. As infant baptism became increasingly common the practice faded.[87]

Whether it’s infant baptism as in some churches, baptism classes or any other form of baptismal preparation, all are based on the tradition of the Early Church Fathers and have nothing whatever to do with the teaching of scripture. For centuries we have, tragically, either baptized people when we should not (infant baptism), or not baptized them when we should (baptismal preparation).

Another important related issue here is that of the practice of church membership, because baptism, whether of infants or believers, came to be seen as the basis of becoming a member of, or joining, a church. It is certainly true that our translations of the Bible talk about being a member of the body of Christ, but the relevant Greek word is melos and it means a literal part of a human body. If you cut off your arm you then dismember yourself. It carries no connotation, as our word member does, whereby one might become a member of the local golf club or a political party. Nowhere in scripture is a church likened to being an organization that one joins in order to become a member. The New Testament church, whether in its universal mode (that is, all believers throughout time), or its local manifestation of believers gathering together as an individual and particular church, is always seen as an organism that one is born again into. John Drane observes:

Instead of the community of the Spirit that it had originally been, the Church came to be seen as a vast organization. Instead of relying on the Spirit’s direct guidance it was controlled by a hierarchy of ordained men, following strict rules and regulations which covered every conceivable aspect of belief and behavior (cf. the Oral Law) and when the Spirit featured in this scheme it was taken for granted that what the leaders decided was what the Spirit was saying. By the middle of the 2nd Century the change was complete. At the beginning the only qualification for membership of the Church had been a life changed by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, at the start there had been no concept of church ‘membership’ at all... But by the end of the 1st Century things were rather different. Now the key to membership of the Church was not found in inspiration by the Spirit, but in acceptance of ecclesiastical dogma and discipline. And to make sure that all new members had a good grasp of what that meant, baptism itself was no longer the spontaneous expression of faith in Jesus as it had originally been. Now it was the culmination of a more or less extended period of formal instruction and teaching about the Christian faith. And in all this we can see how the life of the Spirit was gradually squeezed out of the Body of Christ, to be replaced as the church's driving force by the more predictable if less exciting movement of organized ecclesiastical machinery.[88]

Lessons for Today

Rather than being a spontaneous act having come into a relationship with Jesus and repented of sin, baptism became a ritualistic entry ticket into the organization of the now institutionalized church. The importance of baptismal preparation was that it became the means of making clear to the baptismal candidate the importance of submitting to the church's hierarchy and leadership. Baptism was actually the vehicle of religious indoctrination and enslavement into an unbiblical religious institution founded and based on the teachings and practices of the Early Church Fathers. To this day, when it comes to Christianity’s practice of baptism, the traditions of the Early Church Fathers hold sway far more than the simple teaching of the New Testament. However, other deceptions grew in the seed-bed of the Fathers false teaching concerning hierarchical priestly leadership, and it is to these we turn our attention in the next chapter.

Chapter Six

Apostolic Tradition

Open Gatherings

Church gatherings in New Testament times would be virtually unrecognizable to those whose only experience is that of being part of churches which adhere to the legacy left us by the Early Church Fathers. Inevitably, a hierarchical priesthood led to such things as church services and the eventual embracing of the practice of having religious buildings in which they were conducted. We need to be aware that both of these are completely at variance with the practices taught to churches by the Apostles, as outlined in the pages of the New Testament. Few Bible commentators would disagree with the assertion that chapters 11 to 14 of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians deal with the subject of when a church meets for its weekly gathering. Here, more than anywhere else in scripture, we have a fly-on-the-wall view of a church meeting as instructed by the Apostles, and we can see just how different it is from the church gatherings that the vast majority of believers have known since the time of the Early Church Fathers.

Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honourable we treat with special honour. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honour to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honoured, every part rejoices with it.

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts.[89]

Paul likens a church gathering to the functioning of a biological body with each believer present being a particular part of it. His primary point is that every part of a healthy body does its bit by functioning in whatever way it was designed to do. He further makes it clear that there is something wrong when only one or two parts are moving whilst the rest remain dormant and take no active part. The simple fact of the matter is that, in New Testament times, when any particular and specific church met for its weekly gathering, it was far from being anything that could be thought of as a worship service led from the front. Rather, it was for a time of sharing together in which all were to take active verbal part, and which was completely open, spontaneous and collectively participatory. The practice of believers sitting in rows in a large public building as passive onlookers while someone led a religious service from the front would have been utterly foreign to the early church. The notion of a church service would, quite simply, have mystified them. Of course, during their gatherings they engaged in sung worship, in teaching one another from scripture, in praying and seeking the Lord together; however, the format was that of open, spontaneous participation by all without any need whatsoever of someone leading from the front. Indeed, given that they precisely gathered in small numbers in each others’ homes there was not actually a front for anyone to lead from. They simply met together in each others homes in order to encourage and build each other up spiritually, and to worship the Lord together as the Holy Spirit led them. They also, as we shall shortly observe, ate a meal together – the Lord’s Supper!

As Paul continues in his teaching concerning the manner in which a church should gather, and the format it ought to embrace, he digresses in chapter 13 to emphasize the importance of love in an attempt to bring the Corinthians into a greater balance concerning it in relation to the subject of the use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. He nowhere discourages the use of such gifts but does move on in chapter 14 to outline the ground rules that should govern their use, and in particular the gifts of tongues, interpretation and prophecy.[90] In so doing he outlines the organizational basis upon which a church gathers; or to put it another way, the format he had taught them to adopt. Regarding their gathering together as a church he writes:

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret… Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.[91]

This is, of course, at complete variance with the way in which the vast majority of believers go about church gatherings. When a church met at the time of the Apostles, those who comprised it had the clear understanding that the idea was for everyone present to take part. Whether striking up a song of praise, bringing a gift of the Spirit, presenting a teaching, sharing a testimony, praying, or speaking verbal adoration to the Lord, all present were completely free to participate as the Spirit led them. This is light years away from the phenomenon of church services, with professional leaders directing affairs from the front whilst others sit passively in rows listening to, and looking at, only the leader. Far from being a religious service a biblical church gathering, as revealed in the pages of the New Testament, is rather an extended family of God’s people getting together in someone’s home, sitting in the round with everyone able to look at everyone else, with the aim of strengthening and encouraging each other, and encountering the Lord together as led by His Spirit. Dr John Drane observes:

In the earliest days...their worship was spontaneous. This seems to have been regarded as the ideal, for when Paul describes how a church meeting should proceed he depicts a Spirit-led participation by many, if not all...There was the fact that anyone had the freedom to participate in such worship. In the ideal situation, when everyone was inspired by the Holy Spirit, this was the perfect expression of Christian freedom.[92]

In this regard Dr Henry R.Sefton writes:

Worship in the house-church had been of an intimate kind in which all present had taken an active part... [this] changed from being ‘a corporate action of the whole church’ into ‘a service said by the clergy to which the laity listened.’ [93]

A.M.Renwick adds:

The very essence of church organisation and Christian life and worship...was simplicity...Their worship was free and spontaneous under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and had not yet become inflexible through the use of manuals of devotion.[94] (That is, liturgy and a ‘service’ led from the front.)

The Church Family Meal

As mentioned earlier, believers in the New Testament also gathered together in their respective churches in order to share a meal together, the Lord’s Supper. This was, in essence, what Jesus had instructed the disciples to do at the Last Supper - itself a meal - and one of the other things Paul dealt with in his first Corinthian letter:

When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

And when I come I will give further directions.[95]

In the same way that he corrected the abuses of the gifts of the Spirit on the assumption that the gifts actually existed and that the Corinthian believers were meant to continue using them, Paul here also corrects them for their abuse of the corporate meal on the obvious assumption that that is precisely what the Lord’s Supper actually is, a full meal. Indeed, the Greek word he uses for Supper is deipnon, and it simply means ‘the main meal of the day towards evening’. And what we are seeing here is that not only did the early believers consider a church to simply be an extended family of the Lord’s people, they actually observed an organizational procedure and format, as taught by the Apostles - who had been taught these things by Jesus Himself - which actually facilitated behaving as such. When New Testament churches gathered on the Lord’s Day those who were present would build each other up by sharing together openly, freely and spontaneously, and by eating a meal together. Once the biblical teaching that a church is simply an extended family of God is properly grasped and understood, then far from seeming to be in any way strange, such a format is actually precisely what one would expect to see. What doesn’t then fit at all, being just completely inappropriate in every way, is what the Early Church Fathers replaced it with – church services in public buildings! It is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Canon Leon Morris, Principal of Ridley College, Melbourne, concludes:

This verse (1 Corinthians 11 v 21) reveals that at Corinth the Holy Communion was not simply a token meal as with us, but an actual meal. Moreover it seems clear that it was a meal to which each of the participants brought food.[96]

Donald Guthrie, former Vice-Principal of the London Bible College, asserts:

In the early days the Lord’s Supper took place in the course of a communal meal. All brought what food they could and it was shared together.[97]

I.Howard Marshall, formerly Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Aberdeen, adds:

[The Lord’s Supper]...was observed by His disciples, at first as part of a communal meal, Sunday by Sunday.[98]

Dr John Drane continues:

Jesus instituted this common meal at Passover time, at the last supper shared with His disciples before His death...the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death of Jesus, and it looks forward to the time when He will come back again. Throughout the New Testament period the Lord’s Supper was an actual meal shared in the homes of Christians. It was only much later that the Lord’s Supper was moved to a special building and Christian prayers and praises that had developed from the synagogue services and other sources were added to create a grand ceremony.[99]

Meeting in Homes

The other vitally important thing implicit in all this to which we alluded earlier was that the New Testament churches met in people’s homes. As ever, we shall let the experts speak for themselves.

Dr Colin J.Hemer, a Tyndale man at Cambridge, writes:

The earliest Christians had no special buildings, but met in private houses, as mentioned in several places in the New Testament.[100]

In this regard we recall our earlier quote from Dr Henry R.Sefton:

Worship in the house-church had been of an intimate kind in which all present had taken an active part... [this] changed from being ‘a corporate action of the whole church’ into ‘a service said by the clergy to which the laity listened.’[101]

Lessons for Today

Far from being merely my own personal opinion, or some unbalanced subjective interpretation of scripture peculiar to myself and sundry other wayward believers, this is merely what those who really know their biblical history and exegesis unanimously agree on and acknowledge that the early church was like. The difference between their position and mine is not regarding our understanding of what the New Testament church was like; that is simply a matter of reading the New Testament record and we are all in complete agreement in that regard, it is rather that I am contending that we should solely adhere to and observe apostolic teaching and practice and that nothing should have ever changed. The Early Church Fathers, insofar as they departed from apostolic teaching, and therefore from the teaching of the New Testament, were in error, whether concerning the subject of church life, baptism or anything else. I am simply arguing that Jesus – and he passed on and committed everything he wanted to be taught to the Apostles - knew best, and that it is not possible to come up with better ways of doing things than what we see already revealed in the pages of scripture. The New Testament contains not the slightest hint that its teachings and practices were supposed to be replaced by something different later on. It is therefore clear that we were never intended to depart from the church practice we see revealed in its pages.

The Big Four

God’s Word therefore reveals that the New Testament churches – as established and instructed by the Apostles, who received their teaching directly from the Lord Himself – bore four distinctive characteristics which are flagrantly different from the majority of churches which have existed since the Early Church Fathers came on the scene. Firstly, each church was self-governing. Leaders were non-hierarchical and recognized by the local assemblies of which they were already a part. Traveling ministries augmented their leadership and served widely amongst the churches, but it was all seen to be an advisory and facilitating leadership and not a hierarchical one. Secondly, the New Testament churches met in people’s homes, and therefore each individual assembly was meant to be numerically small. Thirdly and fourthly, the small numbers were necessary in order that the Lord’s chosen format for church gatherings could actually work in practice; that is, free, open, spontaneous, participatory sharing and worship together wherein all were free to take part, and the eating of a meal together, the Lord’s Supper.

Not only did the early Christians believe that a church was simply an extended family of God’s people, they met together, as directed by the Apostles, in such a way so as to actually behave and act as such. Form follows function, and the minimal, yet crucial, church structure that we see in scripture is the necessary framework which enables assemblies to be what they actually are and to thereby live their corporate lives accordingly. Once the Early Church Fathers altered this format it was inevitable that churches became something other than they were intended by the Lord to be.[102]

With what we have thus far covered in this book a fuse has been lit. I should therefore take this opportunity to warn my reader that, in the next few chapters, the dynamite is going to go off.

Chapter Seven

The Great Reversal

Choices: the Apostles or the Early Church Fathers?

Just as Israel went against the Old Testament Scriptures with the Tradition of the Elders, the Christian Church has embraced the traditions and teachings of the Early Church Fathers and gone against the inspired traditions and teachings of the Apostles of Jesus as revealed in the pages of the New Testament. In both cases it can be said that not only are such teachings and practices un-biblical, they are actually anti-biblical. Sobering though it might be, we would do well at this point to remind ourselves of these anti-biblical teachings and traditions of the Early Church Fathers.

Their foundational ‘seed-bed’ error was that of imposing hierarchical church government on churches and introducing a clergy/laity divide, with the Bishop presiding as the big chief at the top of the pecking order. In so doing they totally transgressed the Bible's teaching about church government, thereby bestowing on leaders far too much authority and power. Once church leadership was imbued with such authority and power the necessary safety mechanisms against deception were disabled, and it was inevitable that further deception and error would result. Such ecclesiastical hierarchy rapidly caused the existing churches to become a multi-national organization rather than the independent local organisms they had previously been.

Baptism was undermined in two ways. Initially, through the practice of having a probationary period of spiritual preparation; and then later, through the introduction of infant baptism, which eventually all but won the day completely. The notion of official church membership was introduced - initially through the agency of baptism - thus further strengthening the process whereby the Christian Church became an organization one joined rather than an extended family one was born again into.

The free, communal, unstructured Spirit-led worship and sharing that characterized the churches whilst the teaching of the Apostles held sway was replaced by church services presided over by the ‘expert’ priestly leaders. This shift resulted in believers becoming passive onlookers rather than active participants. Further, rather than continuing to be the church family Sunday dinner that the Apostles had taught it should be, the Lord's Supper was reduced down to, and therefore became, merely a ritual with bread and wine set in the context of a church service.

Eventually, with the declaration by a supposedly converted Roman Emperor that Christianity was to become the official religion of his Empire, cathedrals designed for large audiences which had previously been used by the now banned pagan religions were handed over to the Christians Priests. And of course having by then become an organization rather than a multiplicity of little extended families, and having services and rituals with bread and wine instead of participatory gatherings with a full meal, the Christian Church quite logically no longer considered believers homes to be the best place in which to meet. Now big was beautiful and intimacy irrelevant, and leaders could conduct everything from raised platforms in newly received religious buildings whilst underscoring their authority even moreso by now being ‘above’ the people literally as well as spiritually. For longer than America has been a nation the early Christians met in homes; but now, with the first, and virtually ultimate, example of the utterly disastrous error of the merging of Church and State, the last piece of the original apostolic design and blueprint, as given by the Lord Jesus Himself, was rejected and overruled. The transformation of the Christian Church at the hands of the Early Church Fathers was complete.

Which road are you on?

The important thing to realize here is that the issue before us now is not going to be merely how far particular churches take such traditions and practices: but the mere fact that they are embraced and practiced at all! It is not how far down a wrong road we might find ourselves to be, but that we are on a wrong road in the first place!

Obviously, Catholics are more deeply immersed in such un-biblical practices than Anglicans and Episcopalians - who are, in turn, in deeper than Baptists or Pentecostals. However, all such churches are, nevertheless, equally based on unbiblical practice: it’s really just a difference of degree! For example, Baptist Ministers would not consider themselves to be priests, as would Catholic and Anglican Church leaders – and that is a good thing – but they are, nevertheless, still going against the Bible's teaching that church leadership should be by locally raised up indigenous eldership. Remember, it is the whole idea of hierarchy and having someone ‘at the top’ that is wrong. It is the notion of a stand apart leadership, separate from the people, that constitutes the error - and especially when this leadership is by one man. As noted in an earlier chapter, part of the difference between biblical and unbiblical church leadership is that an unbiblical church leader is apart from the church, whereas, by way of contrast, a biblical leader is simply a part of the church. It is the practice of having an ‘expert’ brought in from the outside to lead a church that is the problem, and not what particular theological and denominational flavor of leader he is.[103] Of course, for a Baptist Minister one could substitute Pentecostal or Free Evangelical Church Pastor, or Senior Elder in a charismatic Restoration-type church – or whatever!

Returning, by way of further example, to Baptist churches, we can observe that whereas they obviously don’t practice infant baptism, and that is a good thing, they nevertheless do (usually) practice baptismal preparation, often also seeing it as the way into membership of the church. Such is often the case with Pentecostal, Free Evangelical and Restoration type churches as well: and whereas delayed believer’s baptism is obviously better than infant baptism, we must nevertheless continue to pose the question: why not just do as the early church did? Why not just stick with what Jesus taught the Apostles and commanded them to pass on to others?

By way of a parallel let us take an example from moral conduct. If one church was being very sexually immoral (as, for instance, were the Corinthians) and another one was being a little bit immoral, then the answer for both is equally the same. Given that churches shouldn’t be immoral at all, both should simply repent and stop being immoral. Being very immoral is obviously wrong, but then so is being a little bit immoral. The issue is not the degree of the immorality, but its mere presence. A Christian who is in some way immoral monthly is as out of fellowship with the Lord as one who is daily. The issue is the immorality itself and not the frequency.

I am not, of course, meaning here to imply that observing unbiblical practices and teachings are in the same league as questions of actual morality. No! Of course not! I am merely drawing a parallel which makes the necessary point. And that point is simply this: a church which embraces some wrong practices is as much in need of correcting them, and becoming biblical, as another church with many wrong practices. If we return to the subject of church leadership, then whether it’s Pope, Archbishop, Bishop, Priest, Baptist Minister, Pentecostal Pastor or Senior Elder in a Restoration church (or even a Senior Elder in a house church for that matter), the same fundamental false teaching and practice is at the root of them all. The Bible teaches non-hierarchical locally raised up eldership in order to, amongst other considerations, minimize the risk of deception by not giving any one person too much power or influence over others. There are, of course, multiple and differing ways of going against that practice, but the issue isn’t how we go against it, but simply that we do go against it. It therefore needs to be corrected.[104]

Going with church tradition, rather than the teaching of the Bible is, whichever way you cut it, disobedience to God's Word. For instance, a church either has, or is moving towards, biblical eldership, or it practices something else. God has, quite simply, revealed in His Word what He wants. Is it not, therefore, a bad thing when we think we can improve on his ideas?

Baptism is either on conversion, or it is for infants - but it cannot be both/and! Further, it is either immediate on conversion, or it should be delayed for some reason. We are either all priests in the body of Christ, or Catholics and Anglicans (and many others) are up the creek without a paddle in saying that only their ordained leaders are. The Lord's Supper is either a proper meal, or it's not. The gathering of a church is either meant to be open and spontaneous and free for all to take part, or it is supposed to be led by someone from the front. Church gatherings are either supposed to be in people’s homes or they are to be in religious or public buildings. These things are, quite simply, mutually exclusive! They are one or the other, they cannot be both.

We must make sure we grasp the implication here clearly. When it comes to church life and practice, most of what we see today, and throughout history, is the exact opposite of what is taught in the New Testament. We are comprehensively, systematically and ideologically different from what we see in the scripture at the deepest and most foundational level. If you take the teaching of the Apostles concerning church life, structure and format as revealed in the New Testament then and turn it inside out and upside down, what you end up with is church life as experienced by the vast majority of believers throughout virtually the whole of the Christian era.[105] Whereas the particular ways of doing things which result from this can be almost infinitely variable, it is nevertheless all the same basic system. It is based on the teaching of men who, when it came to church life, taught and implemented virtually the opposite of what Jesus had taught the Apostles.

The Great “Not-To-Do” List

What follows is a list of things that, in general, believers pretty much take unquestioningly for granted and are accepting of. However, what they all have in common is that they actively go against what scripture teaches. Far from being merely un-biblical in some sort of harmless or neutral kind of a way, they are actually anti-biblical in that they fly in the face of everything we read in the New Testament concerning church life. It is not even a comprehensive list (this chapter would be both too long and arduous if it were), but it is enough to illustrate the enormity of our departure from scripture in such regards:

·         Priesthood, as in any kind of clergy/laity-divide. This includes such things as special dress, dog collars and clerical vestments.

·         Non-priestly leadership, but which nevertheless still creates a hierarchical structure with one man at the top, whether locally or nationally, and which embraces a stand-apart authority based on status of position. Included here would be special titles such as Reverend, Right Reverend, Pastor, Elder so-and-so, Apostle so-and-so, Prophet so-and-so, Evangelist so-and-so, and any idea someone being the Senior Elder.

·         Set liturgical worship, or worship services led from the front. Such are found in virtually every church any believer has ever been to.

·         Infant baptism or pre-baptismal instruction involving any kind of delay after conversion.

·         Denominationalism (the logical outcome of hierarchy) in any form. The New Testament churches needed no names beyond geographical identity and never gathered around a particular person, doctrine or practice. The only multi-church groupings seen in scripture are that of individual assemblies in the same locality.

·         Bread and wine Communion Services.

·         Any form of church membership or ‘signing on the dotted line.’

·         Religious buildings (wrongly called churches) as places of worship. The New Testament churches met in believers houses.

And so I could go on. But why, we must ask, do we continue to hang on to it all? As I have so clearly demonstrated, even ‘establishment’ Bible scholars agree concerning what the New Testament churches were like, and they concur fully with my simple observation that what we have seen since the emergence of the Early Church Fathers is other than what we see in the New Testament. And the answer is that, however unwittingly, we still take seriously the notion that the Early Church Fathers’ doctrine of the Apostolic Succession is somehow legitimate.[106] Even when they become aware of the facts concerning this, many believers still seem to want to buy into an unbiblical church life based on the idea that God was somehow behind them in the changes they made and that the Early Church Fathers were more authoritative than the Apostles and, therefore, than scripture itself.[107] Against the backdrop of the millions of Christians worldwide who would pride themselves on believing that the Bible is the final authority on all matters pertaining to faith and practice, it becomes unnervingly clear just how inconsistent we have actually been.[108] Remember, the Early Church Fathers didn’t have access to the fully compiled New Testament, so it was, as we noted, hardly surprising they got some things, even some very serious things, wrong. But now that we do have the New Testament fully available to us – and we have had it available to us for a very long time – our failure to use it as our only yardstick, and put right what has been so very wrong, is something for which we are fully responsible. The continued acceptance of anti-biblical practices, once we have seen from scripture that they are indeed anti-biblical, is hypocrisy. I do not say that the wrong practices themselves are necessarily sinful, or that to observe them out of genuine ignorance is either, but once we do become aware of the truth then we are duty bound to act. It makes void the Word of God for the sake of giving pre-eminence to the traditions of mere men. It is then the self same hypocrisy which Jesus so blatantly and roundly condemned in his day.

Our Greatest Challenge

To discover from scripture that you are wrong about something is not hypocrisy. Indeed, I would describe my own Christian life as the continuing and ongoing process of discovering from scripture just what I am wrong about. However, to realize that something you are doing is wrong and then do nothing to put it right, but rather seek to justify it by other means; then that is hypocrisy! It is what Israel did regarding the Tradition of the Elders, and it brought scathing rebuke on them from the Lord. Possibly the greatest challenge we are facing as believers is whether or not we are willing to conform to what the New Testament teaches concerning church life and whether or not we are prepared to renounce the tradition of the Early Church Fathers and to be obedient to what the Bible teaches in regards to church practice!

Chapter Eight

The Objections

Challenging the Status Quo

This is radical stuff! I don’t, however, mean in the sense of how the word gets used to describe something as being merely different or controversial, but rather it’s technically more accurate meaning of going to the root of a thing.[109]  When Jesus told the religious leaders of the day that the axe was being laid to the root of the tree,[110] he meant that their fundamental problem, their plight at the foundational level, was the belief they held that they were right with God, and therefore Heaven-bound, simply by virtue of being Jews. However, believing what they did virtually guaranteed that they would reject their very own Messiah and end up with the opposite. Jesus confronted the root causes and, therefore, got right to the heart of the matter. It is also what we must do regarding the issue of church life.

It is, however, going to be somewhat of a rough ride. Whenever Christian thinking and practice is challenged at a fundamental level then church history sadly demonstrates that those believers who are unwilling to honestly look at whatever is being addressed will rather just seek to attack, vilify and discredit those doing the challenging. And of course this must not just be put down purely to failures of approach, lack of wisdom or graciousness, or anything else for that matter, on the part of the dissenters. Those issuing the challenge may, or may not, present their case well. They may, or may not, raise the necessary issues lovingly and humbly. Anyone swimming against the tide of Christian opinion does indeed need to greatly attend to the importance of so doing in a Christ-like manner and gracious spirit: but the truth of the matter is that there nevertheless does seem to be a principle at work in Christian history whereby believers in the last reformatory move of God strenuously resist those in any current such move quite irrespective of other factors.

The Reformation is itself a case in point, although one does need to bear in mind that those who did the resisting in that particular instance weren’t actually believers. However, the principle remains the same. So-called ‘Christian’ thinking was challenged at a fundamental level, the issue then being the very nature of salvation, and of course all hell soon broke loose against the challengers from those who wanted the existing status quo to prevail.[111] Far more pertinent to us here, though, is that even the Reformers, who were undoubtedly genuine believers, persecuted other genuine Christians whose only crime was to want to go even further in the implementation of newly recovered biblical truth. The Anabaptists, for instance, taught that the baptism of infants was wrong and that only believers should be baptized. They further maintained that there should be a separation between church and state, and purity not just of doctrine, but of practice as well. In short, they wanted to live in accordance with the teaching of the New Testament somewhat more comprehensively than did the Reformers who, having understood that salvation is through faith in Jesus alone, were happy to leave things there and not go much further. [112]

Another example would be the advent of Pentecostalism at the turn of the last century and the retrieval of the experience of the baptism with the Holy Spirit and the miraculous spiritual gifts. Again, Christian thinking was challenged at a fundamental level and, once more, all hell broke loose against genuine believers at the hands of other genuine believers who saw them as nothing more than dangerous tongues-speaking maniacs and deceivers.[113] But now, keeping the strands of church history in dynamic motion, there are those of us who are saying that it is time to move on to the next area of biblical truth that has been lost and ignored down the ages: church practice! Acknowledging with great gratitude how the Reformers regained the truth of salvation (whilst mourning their treatment of those who wanted to go further), and how the Pentecostals rediscovered the power and ministry of the Holy Spirit, the cry is now going up that we need to go full circle and put in place what may well be the last piece of the Reformatory jigsaw puzzle: biblical church practice!

However, those who labor to teach and implement such truths and practices, far from being heralded as ‘prophets at the cutting edge of what the Holy Spirit is doing’, are rather more likely to be seen as subversive and divisive troublemakers of the first order. At the very least – and I thank God that here in the West in the 21st Century we live in reasonably civilized times where public executions at the behest of established church authorities, such as befell the Anabaptists at the hands of the Reformers, cannot happen – we will be badly spoken of and rejected as being undesirable, weird, or even a new and dangerous cult. Even in the most promising of scenarios where brothers and sisters do take us seriously, we are nevertheless still going to be bombarded with both strident and deeply felt objections to what we are saying. However, this should not be seen as a negative problem, but rather something we should positively welcome. It isn’t easy, of course, but any opportunity to get this issue on the agenda with Christians must be considered a bonus. So let me deal with the main objections that I have had leveled at me regarding all this over the last thirty years.

Objection One: God blesses these so-called deceptions and un-biblical churches!

Yes, of course he does! Not only do I agree entirely with the statement, I am further extremely grateful to him that he does. The Lord, in his grace, will bless whatever he gets his hands on and decides to. If not, then what chance would any of us have? If the Lord waited until we were right, or biblical, before he used or blessed us in some way, then none of us would receive any blessing at all. Indeed, the greatest blessing of all is our very salvation, but he did not wait until we were right and biblical before he bestowed it upon us. Quite the contrary! We received that blessing precisely because we weren’t right or biblical! We were lost sinners deserving of nothing but eternal judgment (we still deserve it); but it is precisely the Lord’s grace that has burst in on our lives. Think about it! G-R-AC-E! God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense! As believers, brought into the New Covenant of grace, we do not receive what we do deserve, but precisely what we do not. However, just because the Lord blesses us, whether right or wrong, biblical or unbiblical, that doesn’t mean we have an excuse to just disregard what scripture teaches or to go against it in any way. The test for something is never, “Does it work?” or, “Is the Lord’s blessing on it?” No, the test is always and only, “Is it biblical? Does it conform to the teaching of scripture?”

For instance, there are sadly all too many churches where the leaders put more energy into extracting money out of their congregations, whilst living in their expensive houses and driving their Mercedes and BMWs, than just about anything else. Now that, as I trust my reader well understands, is not biblical; but is rather just about the exact opposite of what scripture teaches about church leadership and money. However, does God bless such leaders and their churches? Well, I certainly wouldn’t want to presume to say he doesn’t! So yes, in his grace, of course he does! But that does not make it alright to financially fleece the saints for your own monetary greed. When we say that the Lord uses unbiblical practices and blesses unbiblical churches then we should rejoice in his grace, yet not try to use it to justify continuing with those things that go against his revealed Word. After all, God spoke to a guy called Balaam through a donkey, but does that mean we should start bringing asses to our gatherings in the hope of increasing the instances of prophecy?[114] A flippant example, perhaps, but it makes the point. Think of it like this: if the Lord in His grace and mercy blesses un-biblical practices and churches, then how much more will He bless biblical ones?

Objection Two: But the Holy Spirit leads believers to do these practices and to form together into these types of churches!

If we even but for one moment buy into the idea that the Holy Spirit would ever lead believers in any way contrary to the Bible then we need to be honest and realize that we then have no legitimate objective test for anything. The simple fact of the matter is that the New Testament actually warns more against the dangers of wrong teaching and practice, and of believers falling into deception, than it does against any one other single thing:

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.[115]

It’s of the utmost importance that we are clear about this. If the Holy Spirit ever leads against scripture, then how could anything ever be fully ascertained as being either of the Lord or of a deceiving spirit? If, as mentioned in the above verses, someone forbids marriage, then on what basis do we say that they are wrong? Only on the basis of the clearly revealed written Word of God! So when they then say that the Holy Spirit led them to that conclusion – and that they are, therefore, right and that others should agree with them or be considered to be going against the Lord – then we can safely, on the authority of the Word of God, graciously tell them that they are in error. So too with anything that anyone teaches or practices.

Once the notion of the Spirit leading contrary to scripture takes root then all you have is your own subjective assessment as to what the Spirit is saying to you – and that is precisely how deception gets a hold in the first place. How then, if you say that the Holy Spirit can lead against scripture, could the demonic deception we have just seen the New Testament so strongly warn us against ever be revealed as being such? Further, you could have nothing to say to, for instance, a believer living in sin outside of marriage who claims that the Lord has told them it is alright for them in that particular instance. The answer to such a situation is, of course, that the Lord has not said it is alright, no matter how convinced the person might be that he has. In such an instance deception has clearly occurred, and we know this because of what we read about sexual morality in the written Word of God. It is no different concerning scripture’s teaching in regards to non-moral teachings and practices. But if you believe the Spirit leads against scripture in regards to at least one area of the Christian life – that is, church life – then how can you be sure he won’t do likewise, for some people at certain times, in regards to other areas of the Christian life, such as personal morality? The position is basically a nonsensical one.

For too long we have operated a policy of being free to pick and choose amongst the scriptures, embracing what we are happy with whilst virtually summarily rejecting what doesn’t suit us. In so doing we are actually judging the Word of God rather than allowing it to sit in judgment on us. We have, in fact, become our own final authority - the precise thing Jesus so roundly condemned Israel for. These are, I grant you, tough matters; but it all greatly needs to be pointed out. We can go against the Word of God if we like – whether in regards to church practice or anything else – but when we do so let’s not fall into the trap of becoming hypocritical and trying to rationalize it as being us faithfully following the Lord’s leading and guidance.

I ask then: Did God inspire these un-biblical traditions? Certainly not! They go against His written Word.

Objection Three: You can make the Bible say what you like!

Well, if that's the case then perhaps we ought to just ceremoniously throw our Bibles away right here and now. It would, after all, mean they are entirely useless. Consider though: is the Lord so muddled, so confused; is he so inept that, when it comes to the literary genre, he is unable to provide us with a book which actually makes important matters and issues clear? It is, of course, the case that portions of the Bible can be twisted out of context and made to say all sorts of ridiculous things; but that is an entirely different matter. Neither would I say that there aren’t things in scripture which are difficult to grasp and hard to understand. (Hands up any who feel they have the predestination/free-will issue sorted out to their complete satisfaction.) But when it comes to issues of church life and practice, then we have seen that even ‘establishment’ scholars confirm and agree with everything I am describing as to what the New Testament churches were like whilst the teaching and practices implemented by the Apostles held sway. As we have seen, the only point of disagreement between them and me is whether or not churches ought to have just carried on doing things the same way. What the scholars do not affirm, but which I most strongly do, is simply that the way things were in the beginning should never have been changed. I just cannot accept the virtually unchallenged premise that the Early Church Fathers were being led by the Holy Spirit in that regard. These issues simply cannot be explained away on the basis of it being the twisting of scripture or an unbalanced or suspect exegetical approach. Top-ranking Biblical scholarship is in full agreement concerning it all.

Objection Four: We must renew the churches from the inside and remain in them and be the influence for change.

This is usually just a cover for maintaining the status quo and leading a quiet life. As a serious position it is also logically impossible. You could influence a Methodist church to, for example, embrace the power and gifts of the Spirit, and you could further do so from the inside as a doctrinaire Methodist: but influencing churches to become biblical in their practice simply cannot be done. Think about it. In order for an Anglican church, a Baptist church, a Presbyterian church, a Pentecostal church - or whatever others you care to name - to become aligned with the teachings and practices in the New Testament, they would have to actually renounce and replace everything that makes them the churches they are. Remember, in the New Testament churches there was no hierarchical, professional, permanent leadership that came in from the outside, no church buildings in which to meet and no services to be conducted. Without such practices nearly all existing churches would simply cease to be as it is those unbiblical practices which actually make them what they are as churches. Whether regarding an Anglican or Pentecostal church, once you have got rid of the leader and the leadership system and denominational structure they represented, and when the building is gone too because it’s not needed any more because everyone is gathering as numerically small churches in each others homes, then what of the original church is left? Answer! Nothing! The simple truth is that, when it comes to embracing biblical church life, one must, by definition, come out of the unbiblical church system in order to do so.

All these arguments and objections are usually just dust clouds kicked up by people once they begin to realize that they don’t actually have any biblical grounding at all for their way of going about church life. I say again, as believers we should live in accordance with what the Bible teaches and not with false tradition – whatever the spiritual pedigree of its exponents. We refuse fellowship with no-one because of these things, neither do we in any way question the discipleship or sincerity of those who embrace the unbiblical church life we are challenging. But we must nevertheless get this right for ourselves, and be ready to make the issues known to others as the Lord gives us opportunity.

Objection Five: Going on about all this just upsets people. You're just causing trouble and being divisive and unloving!

This last objection is greatly disturbing and symptomatic of the very thing I have written this book in order to reveal and expose. Once it is considered wrong for Christians to test and challenge things by the yardstick of the Word of God, and to weigh and measure things against the plumb-line of the inspired and infallible scriptures, then we have succumbed to the appalling belief that the final authority in our lives ought to be the opinions, teachings and traditions of mere men and women rather than the Bible. Indeed, rather than the Lord himself. That is the very thing Jesus, in no uncertain terms, labeled as being hypocrisy. Sin is, in essence, disobedience to God by not keeping his Word. However, current Christian understanding seems to indicate that, in regards to certain things, the essence of sin is rather to question or challenge the evangelical-charismatic-ecumenical Christian status quo and establishment, whether it be biblical or not! Cast your mind back to something we read in an earlier chapter from the Mishna:

It is more punishable to act against the words of the Scribes than those of the scriptures .[116]

Give more heed to the words of the Rabbis than to the words of the Law.[117]

I will end this chapter a couple of quotes from the Mishna of current Christian thought:

It is more punishable to act against the words of the Christian status quo and establishment than it is the words of the Scriptures.

Give more heed to the Christian leaders of the day than to the Word of God.

Ouch! That hurts, doesn’t it? But only because it is so completely and unarguably the case!

Chapter Nine

The Conclusion

So there you have it: nineteen hundred years of unbiblical church life and practice. In affirming our belief in, and gratitude for, what the Lord did through the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin, we are acknowledging that for over a millennium the so-called Christian Church lost the very gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus alone. If, therefore, the most fundamental and foundational tenet of what scripture teaches about the Christian life could have come to be virtually unknown and unacknowledged by church-going folk, it should come as no great surprise that the somewhat more secondary, though still rather important, matter of what the New Testament teaches about church life and practice has also been missed.

Before us now is nothing less than the task of completing the Reformation. The Baptists recovered believer’s baptism, which the Reformers had largely missed; and Pentecostalism recovered the baptism and gifts of the Holy Spirit, which both the Reformers and the Baptists had left out of the equation. However, the other thing the Reformers missed, as did also the Baptists and the Pentecostals, along with just about everyone else, was the New Testament’s teaching concerning the nature of what churches are and how they should function. The Reformers merely took the ecclesiological framework of traditional Catholicism and instituted their own Protestant version of it, and those who have followed on from them, though retrieving biblical truth concerning various other important things, have just continued the status quo in that regard.

At least part of the definition of prophetic proclamation is to indicate what the Lord is doing at any particular point in history. Over the last few hundred years he has been restoring to his people what was lost through the false teachings of the Early Church Fathers – and, it would appear, in the reverse order to how it was lost in the first place. Firstly, the Fathers forfeited biblical church life. As a direct result the gifts of the Holy Spirit became less and less common until they vanished almost completely. Finally, the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, gave way to the heresy of salvation by religious works, and the blasphemous deception of what eventually became the full-blown Catholic Church.

We have already acknowledged what the Lord did through the period of time known as the Reformation: the reclamation of the true and genuine Christian faith! Then the Baptists saw the light concerning believers’ baptism. Next, Pentecostalism rediscovered the baptism, power and supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. What, then, is the last piece of this divine jigsaw puzzle? What is the final piece in the Lord’s design for restoring to his people the totality and experience of the truth, so comprehensively lost for centuries? It is church life and practice: the one major aspect of Christian experience that is still based on the legacy of the Early Church Fathers as opposed to the teaching of Scripture!

I make no claim to being a prophet, or on having a monopoly on what the Lord is saying. Three and a half decades of following Jesus has shown me that I have been more often wrong than right and I have resultantly learned to be circumspect. However, in spite of being so prone to deception and error, I can nevertheless say – with the same confidence as the God-given knowledge inside me that he is both my Lord and my Savior – that Jesus is saying something to his people which he wants us to hear. He is imploring that we give back to him something which we treat as if ours, but which is forever his; and his alone! He is, quite simply, and quite unmistakably, saying to His people everywhere throughout the world, “Give Me back My church!”

Five little words, yet one of the most important things we could possibly imagine! In the same way that the Lord of glory reached down a few hundred years ago to some unregenerate Catholic monks and priests and revealed to them by His Spirit through scripture that salvation was by faith in Jesus - by grace alone - and not through the so-called ‘Church’; as surely as the God of the universe touched some saints at the turn of last century and baptized them with the Holy Spirit, and poured on them such things as gifts of prophecy and speaking in tongues; so, in the last few years, he has been giving some of his people a revelation of his will and design, as revealed in scripture, for church life and practice.

The Early Church Fathers, quite unwittingly, bit by bit, and over a period of time, lost virtually everything the Lord had entrusted to them. Today, however, we are being given the prophetic opportunity of getting it back. As for me and my house, I want to live according to what I read in scripture – no more and no less. I need to know that I am in conformity to his revealed Word, for only then can I know that I am in conformity to him. Only then, and this is what matters to me more than anything else, can I know that I am safe from doing my will, and free to be doing his.

“Give Me back My church!” It is my heartfelt prayer that those who read this book go back to the New Testament and read it again both prayerfully and carefully. Should the reader then concur that what I have written is indeed in conformity to it then my further prayer is that, whatever it may cost them - and if the author’s experience is anything to go by then it may well cost them a great deal - they obediently act on it in simple faith and trust that he who inspired that same Holy Word will show them how to live wholly according to it. The more years that go by the more clearly I understand that there are, ultimately, only two ways of doing things: Jesus’, or someone else’s.

“Give Me back My church!” That is what our Lord and Master is saying to us, his people. I put it to you that he, more than anyone, deserves – and has unbelievably earned – our unreserved, joyful and willing obedience.

PART TWO: BIBLICAL CHURCH

Chapter 10

An Irreducible Minimum

Having established the origin and nature of the false traditions which have been the basis for church life for nearly the entire Christian era, we are now in a position to move on to the much more positive task of concentrating in much greater detail on what a biblical church actually ought to be like. So, having seen what we shouldn’t be like, what, then, are the traditions that we ought to adhere to as churches, and how does it all work out in practice? An illustration will prove helpful at this point.

Airplane antics…and stop calling me Shirley!

When you spend a lot of time flying you get a bit picky about what sort of aircraft you are willing to board. I personally look for four things. Firstly, I want to see some wings; and on each side of the plane too! Secondly, I check to see that there is a cockpit with, as a bare minimum, a pilot and navigator. It is doubtless technologically feasible to just dispense with actual manpower altogether, and to just point the plane in the right direction for take-off having provided it with just enough fuel so that it runs out and begins its descent at an appropriate distance before landing at its destination. However, I remain insistent that this not be the case with any plane I am on.

Further, because I am such a picky flyer, I want to see a fuselage with seats in it with at least one which has been reserved for me. I am told it is somewhat chilly at thirty-seven thousand feet above the Atlantic Ocean, to say nothing of the resultant difficulty involved in breathing. It is my very great desire to be seated in the plane as opposed to desperately holding on to it whilst strapped to a wing. And last, but by no means least, I look for engines attached to the plane. My reasoning here is, of course, that I don't want to just sit in the aircraft looking out of the window at the runway until everyone gets bored, disembarks and goes home. With the amount of money the airlines stiff you for a ticket I, for one, want to actually get where I've paid to go.

And I think of these things as being the bare minimum requirements for an aircraft. Or, to put it another way, it is the irreducible minimum for an airplane in which I would fly. And in exactly the same way there is a similar irreducible minimum for a church in order for it to be able to justly call itself biblical and, as with my airplane analogy, it also comprises of four things.

However, before we go any further I need to clarify exactly what I mean by this. By speaking of an irreducible minimum for a biblical church, I am dealing purely with the subject of structural organization, format and set up. I am referring to church practice, to how a church operates and functions; how to ‘do’ church, if you will. I am not, therefore, referring to whether or not a church is a genuine and true church in the first place. The distinction being drawn in this book is not between true and false churches, but rather between biblical and unbiblical ones as pertaining to church practice! So please do not think that I am, in any way, saying that what I would call unbiblical churches are not real churches. Any group of genuine believers gathering together in order to corporately follow the Lord is indeed a real church. What we are dealing with here is purely the issue regarding what constitutes a biblically based church when it comes to function and practice.

Think of it as being like, for instance, the well-known five so-called points of Calvinism. They don’t, and aren’t meant to, define who is and who isn't a Christian, but rather merely describe a particular understanding of the nature and ‘mechanics’, so to speak, of salvation. Those who would call themselves Calvinists are not thereby implying that they don't believe that those who do not subscribe to their five points are not Christians, they are simply laying out a specific understanding of the elective aspect of salvation which they understand to best fit with scripture. Likewise, I am not in any way saying that churches which don't subscribe to my ‘irreducible minimum’ are not actual churches; but merely that, based on my own understanding of scripture, the practices they embrace and implement are not in line with the teaching of the New Testament. So with that said, what are these four points? We have, of course, already alluded to them in earlier chapters, but now we are going to look at them in much more detail.

The Four Points

1.          New Testament churches were governed through the consensual involvement of all those who comprised them. Leadership at the local level was by men who had been recognised and raised up for such leadership from within the church they were to lead. These leaders, referred to variously in scripture as elders, shepherds/pastors and overseers/bishops, were not considered to be executive or hierarchical. That is, they were not seen as being in authority 'over' the church, but simply part of the consensual process along with non-elders.

2.          New Testament churches universally met in the homes of those who constituted them, thus keeping the numerical size of each church small. It is a simple fact that every time the New Testament locates a particular and specific church it is always in someone's house. This meeting in homes perfectly complements both the nature of a church (see later) and the format of the gatherings they would have. This format constitutes points three and four.

3.          When New Testament churches met on the first day of the week they did two things. Like two sides of the same coin, both parts of the gathering were integral to the whole and utterly consistent with the nature of what was happening. Firstly, they would have a time of corporate worship where the format was that all were free to participate as the Holy Spirit led. No one person convened the gathering from the front. Indeed, in a house, with everyone present sitting in a circle around the perimeter looking at each other, there is no front to lead from. Prayer, sung worship, the gifts of the Spirit, testimony and teachings would subsequently emerge from all gathered.

4.          Secondly, the heart of their gathering was the Lord's Supper observed as an actual meal which all present shared and ate together.[118] This was the main meal of the day, and the loaf and cup were partaken of in that context.

This, in a nutshell, is what churches were universally like whilst the teaching of the Apostles held sway, and before the Early Church Fathers implemented their various changes. It is a matter of simple biblical and historical fact upon which, as we have already seen, Bible scholars are entirely agreed.

A Question of Design - Church is Family!

In returning to our airplane analogy we can now understand the main point that needs to be grasped. And it is simply that form follows function! By which I mean that the design of a thing corresponds directly to its function. Airplanes are designed the way they are precisely because of their function: flying large numbers of people long distances as fast as possible. But if someone were to start messing with that design – removing wings and engines and the like – then it would no longer be able to function in accordance with what it is. An airplane trying to fly across the Atlantic without wings may, arguably, still be an airplane, but it will nevertheless end up functioning much more like a submarine - and I, for one, wouldn’t like to be one of the passengers when it does. So too with being a church! We must therefore look at what a church actually is and then see how its design affects its ability to so be.

There are, of course, numerous ways in which to describe what a church is.[119] But by way of actual definition the universal Church of Jesus Christ is, quite literally, the world-wide family of God; which makes each individual and particular church a little, local, extended family of God’s people. This is entirely consistent with the teaching of scripture that God is our Father and that we, as believers, are his children. Further, believers are referred to as brothers and sisters, and the New Testament states that when we believe on Jesus we are actually born again into that family. This is, of course, something with which no Bible-believing Christian would have the slightest problem. The question we need to ask, though, is this: what is the relationship between this truth and the design of church life as seen in the New Testament?

The answer is glaringly obvious. All we have to do is to think of a gathering of a literal nuclear family with dad, mum, children and grandchildren, uncles, aunts and cousins all getting together. There would be much sharing and mutual encouragement. All would want to participate in the proceedings, have their say and give their report on what has happened to them since they last were together. Fun and laughter would be the order of the day, along with genuine concern for any needs that might become apparent. The very heart of the proceedings would be the time around the dining table, eating and drinking together, in loving oneness and mutual fellowship. All this would normatively happen in the home of one of the family members. And of course what I want to immediately draw the reader’s attention to is that not only is this an accurate description of a get-together of a nuclear, biological family, it is an equally accurate description of the gathering of a church as depicted in the pages of the New Testament.

We are seeing that form follows function, and that it is the design of a thing that enables its purpose and function. What is a church? An extended family of God’s people! So on the same principle we would expect to see precisely what scripture reveals: a format facilitating all taking part, and with eating and drinking together being at the very heart and centre of the proceedings. Imagine with me a family gathering where mum, dad and the grandchildren get together in a local public building. There is a short time for general chit-chat as people arrive, but then the proceedings quickly get underway with all taking their places in lines of chairs which allow you to see only the back of the neck of the person sitting in front of you, and whoever is going to be leading the proceedings from the front. Someone, presumably dad or grandad, then gets up and leads a time of community singing. At some point a soliloquy is delivered giving some useful hints for surviving the week to come. With proceedings at an end hasty goodbyes are duly said, unless of course this is a more liberal family gathering in which case a quick cup of coffee is shared together. Eventually hunger drives everyone back to their respective homes for some welcome food.

Tongue in cheek though the above description may be, it is nevertheless an accurate picture of the difference between biblical and unbiblical church life. In fact, any biological family behaving thus might easily be described as being somewhat dysfunctional. It is, after all, not what normal families do when they get together; yet church life is virtually universally based along such lines. Would I therefore suggest that it is not genuine church life? No, of course not! No more than I would suggest that such a family gathering as described above is not a genuine family gathering. But I would be so bold as to say that it is certainly dysfunctional church life.

This is where we can really begin to appreciate that these things are not just theoretical issues which are of no practical importance. The design of a thing determines what it can and can’t do, and churches which function contrary to the teaching of scripture can therefore never be what they are intended to be. Churches were designed to be loving extended families comprised of individual nuclear and biological families, as well as single people, where all are properly cared for as a result of the small numbers and sheer intimacy of the set up, and where all function and grow because all are being used by the Lord in ministering to the others. After all, an airplane with a missing wing, or one which has one of its engines pointing in the wrong direction, is hardly a matter of purely theoretical interest. It is an issue at the very heart of what an airplane is and what it does.

And so it is with church life. Unbiblical churches, albeit totally unwittingly, are preventing much of what the Lord does want, whilst propagating and doing a great deal which he most certainly does not. As we proceed to look in detail at each of these points - my ‘irreducible minimum for a biblical church’, as I like to call it - we will precisely see both how adherence to the biblical design actively enables what the Lord wants to accomplish in us as churches, and how non-adherence almost entirely short-circuits it.

Chapter 11

Biblical Church Leadership

Once we understand what churches in the New Testament were actually like, it becomes obvious that the type of leadership structures common in most existing unbiblical churches are simply inappropriate and irrelevant. The apostles taught that churches should be numerically small and meet in homes; and of course this renders any leadership and governmental system based on numerically large churches completely redundant. Again, we observe that form follows function, and that the necessary logistics for governing a large number of people are entirely different from those chosen by Jesus for individual churches which are meant to be numerically small. Some form of 'chain of command' is, of course, fairly essential for the governance of a sizable body of people but, when it comes to biblical churches an entirely different approach is seen in the pages of the New Testament. This is what we now turn our attention to.

Church Government

We have already seen that in the New Testament churches local leadership simply took the form of men who were referred to variously as elders/presbyters, pastors/shepherds and bishop/overseers - these being synonymous terms for the same people. They were recognized from within the church they were to lead, and therefore by the people they would be leading. Indeed, when apostolic teams such as that of Paul the Apostle planted new churches, it was the eventual emergence of elders from within those churches that they were most looking for. It freed them up from having to continue to lead in that situation, thus enabling them to move on and repeat the process somewhere else.[120] But what we need to understand is how this 'eldership' relates to church government. Or, to put it another way, on what basis is decision-making carried out in a biblical church? As we read through the New Testament a rather striking picture emerges concerning this:

In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, ‘Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus – he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.’ ...So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, ‘Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.’ Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.[121]

Consensus is the Key

The point before us now is not so much what the decisions we are going to be looking at were actually about but rather how the Apostles and other leaders thought, what their outlook concerning decision-making actually was as they took the lead in the making of those decisions. And what is absolutely clear in the above passage is that Peter’s instinct was to involve all present in the decision, and to look for the Lord to guide through a general consensus. The key words are ‘they proposed’, ‘they prayed’ and ‘Lord, show us’. And who are the ‘they’ and the ‘us’? The hundred and twenty in the upper room! Did Peter just issue an authoritative mandate? No! He sought the Lord’s guidance through the consensus of all the believers there with him. A couple of chapters later we read:

In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, ‘It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.’ This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.[122]

This is the first emergence of what the vast majority of commentators take to be deacons; but again, we are here interested in the mechanics of the decision-making process itself and not particularly what the decision was actually about. And we again see leadership taking the lead over a problem and presenting a way forward. Yet rather than doing so with some kind of executive authority, and then just expecting everyone to go along with it and submit to it, the proposal, for that was all it was, was only adopted because there was consensus among the whole gathered body of believers. Then, even more amazingly, the actual choice of who these seven men should be was left entirely to the gathered body of believers, the Apostles not even taking part in that aspect of the proceedings. Once chosen by the non-leaders - that is, the whole gathered group of believers - the Apostles then laid hands on those who had been so chosen and commissioned them. This, as clearly as anywhere in the New Testament, highlights the massive difference between how the early church operated in regard to church government, and how unbiblical churches have gone about it since the time of the Early Church Fathers. If executive hierarchical power has any privilege at all then it is precisely the practice of appointing those to whom it gives specific duties and responsibilities. Hierarchical authority, by definition, appoints its own underlings. Here, however, we precisely see that it was the non-leaders who did the choosing and appointing, the leaders having merely proposed the solution which was consensually adopted. There is more though:

Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.’ This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they travelled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.’

The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: ‘Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.’

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up: ‘Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.’

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul – men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.[123]

This, like the previous passage, concerns the coming together of a multiplicity of individual churches in Jerusalem to deal with an issue that concerned them all. However, this time it is to establish a point of doctrine and practice; but the methodology remains exactly the same as before. The leaders took the lead and convened the necessary gathering. Obviously, with large numbers involved, and with such a meaty subject to deal with, not everyone could have an individual say or the whole thing would taken longer than would have been practically possible. So the Apostles and elders, as the leaders present, carried out the debate, outlining the pros and cons of each side of the issue - but with the 'whole assembly' present and listening in. Eventually James sums up the whole thing as he sees it and, apparently, wins the day, for we read,

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter...[124]

This is incredible. Who made the decision? Was it the Apostles? No! Was it the elders? Again, no! Was it James? No way! Was it the Apostles and elders and James together, then? Absolutely not! Rather it was the Apostles and elders and James with the whole church! With an important issue of both doctrine and practice to be discussed and decided upon, the leaders got everyone in the affected churches together and then acted according to the consensus that emerged having been reached by all and not just the leaders. What a contrast this is to clergy-led doctrinal convocations behind closed doors at denominational headquarters: or even just an individual Minister of an individual church unilaterally deciding how things ought to be! How different this is from the mentality of so many church leaders who lead on the basis that they have the monopoly on guidance for the corporate body of Christ; and who seem to think that, as leaders, they just obviously know best. We are here seeing, again and again, just how far from the example of the New Testament our church practises actually are. However, the most blatant example of this in regards to church government is seen concerning the issue of church discipline.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that the most serious thing that could happen in any church is the expulsion of those in unrepentant sin. If ever decisions of importance need to be made by churches, then this has got to be the ultimate example. Yet who, we need to ask, is supposed to decide if someone ought to be put out of the church? Our knee-jerk reaction would, of course, be, “Well, the Minister, obviously!” but as I am going to clearly demonstrate, nothing could be further from the truth.[125] Jesus said:

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.[126]

The end point of any biblically based procedure leading to excommunication is a corporate decision of the gathered church. Not the elders, not some itinerant Ephesians chapter four-type ministry, but the gathered church. Consensus! Consensus! Consensus! That is what we are seeing from scripture again and again and again. Collective and consensual decision-making! Indeed, the very word divinely chosen in the New Testament for ‘church’, ekklesia, was used of the decision-making body of the Greek city-state. Though literally meaning ‘a called out people’, the ekklesia, in the world of Jesus' day, was a gathering together of people for the specific purpose of decision-making. There are other Greek words that would have sufficed for a coming together of believers if the only push behind the concept being conveyed was the idea of the actual gathering itself. However, Jesus chose a very specific word, ekklesia, which directly implies a process of corporate decision-making, the very thing we are seeing at the heart of both New Testament church life and New Testament church government.

We can see this even more clearly in Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church. They actually had someone amongst them whom they should have long since expelled, and it is informative in the extreme to see how Paul deals with them and addresses them concerning the situation:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast – as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people – not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked man from among you.’[127]

We might wonder if he later goes on to explain that this is all for the elders to take care of. But then we would be disappointed. In fact, elders aren't even mentioned in the entire letter and the responsibility for everything Paul writes them, including the responsibility of excommunication, is put squarely at the feet of the gathered church. So who is to expel the immoral brother, then: The elders? No! Paul? No! Some other leader who could come in from the outside? No! The answer is clear. The gathered church! It is to be a collective and consensual decision taken, implemented and enforced by all. Paul simply writes, “When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan...” Who is the 'you' who is to hand the man over to Satan? It is the gathered church of which the culprit is a part. It is those who, by definition, are best placed to know the facts concerning the situation.

Elders, not rulers!

We therefore see that church government in Scripture is collective and consensual. Far from having one man (or even a group of men) controlling executively from the top, churches in New Testament times, as taught by the Apostles of Jesus, looked for the Lord's guidance, leading and wisdom to be manifest through the whole gathered body of believers who constituted each church. Moreover, we see a clear pattern and principle that this consensual methodology is carried over to multiple-church decision-making as well. Decisions were taken on the basis of the consensus of all those whom the decision affected, or related to, whether limited to one particular church or a multiplicity of churches. Biblical church leadership is, therefore, by definition, non-executive and non-hierarchical. Local elders, being simply the older and spiritually more mature brothers (as opposed to being those wielding executive authority over the church) are, of course, part of that decision-making process, but they are not the process itself. They most certainly, when necessary, take the lead in facilitating the making of whatever decisions lie before an assembly and, by virtue of their recognition as such, can, should the church agree, break any deadlock when consensus isn't reached. However, any idea that elders are in charge, or hold a position of executive authority over the church, is alien to the pages of scripture. In this regard Donald Guthrie observes:

The churches were living organisms rather than organizations… When decisions were made, they were made by the whole company of believers, not simply the officials.[128]

We remind ourselves of an earlier quote from John Drane where he precisely contrasts the method of church government both before and after the Early Church Fathers:

Instead of the community of the Spirit it had originally been, the Church came to be seen as a vast organization. Instead of relying on the Spirit’s direct guidance it was controlled by a hierarchy of ordained men…[129]

If reliance on the Spirit’s direct guidance was replaced by the control of a hierarchical church leadership, then what was it that was actually being replaced, and which was, up to that point, understood as being the guidance of the Spirit? Answer: consensual decision-making before the Lord. We would do well at this point to seriously attend to the words of the Master Himself concerning church leadership:

Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’[130]

Here, once and for all, Jesus makes it clear that, when it comes to ministry – and that includes church leadership – there is no question of leaders having executive or positional authority. In other areas of life hierarchy is, as clearly revealed in scripture, both right and proper, but not here. In societies at large the Lord has put governments in authority over the people, and scripture commands us to submit to that authority. Likewise, in family life, the husband is the head of his wife who, in turn, should submit to him; and together, as husband and wife, they exercise authority over their children, who are also in turn commanded in scripture to obey their parents. In other areas of life there are indeed God-ordained hierarchical structures: but not in a biblically based church! Two reasons need to be highlighted here by way of explanation for this.

The Body and the Head

Firstly, there is no hierarchy in a biblical church because one already exists: Jesus – and everyone else! We have seen that the church is, quite literally, the Lord's family; but the New Testament makes clear that it is also his body on the earth. And he, and no one else, is therefore the head of that body. What got left out of the equation once the Early Church Fathers came on the scene is that not only is Jesus the Head of the Church Universal – by which I mean the sum total of all believers throughout time – he also wants to function as the Head of each individual body (church) as well. Jesus is both the Head of the Church Universal and of each individual and particular church. Therefore, the presence of hierarchical leadership decapitates the Divine Head, so to speak, and replaces it with a different one - be it an individual or a team of men. So when a biblical church gathers it does so in accordance with the structure and format revealed in the New Testament precisely so that it can move, as a gathered body, according to the direct leading of the Lord as its Head. No 'middle men' of executive leadership are thereby required. In fact, not only is such not needed, it is a massive hindrance and completely short circuits the very thing the Lord is wanting; that is, to move upon, and amongst, his gathered people through the agency and presence of the Holy Spirit.

An Absurd Anomaly

However, once properly understood there is another factor which makes the notion of leaders having executive authority over the church not only undesirable and a hindrance, but positively absurd. As already noted, God-ordained hierarchies are already in place as relating to various aspects of life, and these should neither be ignored nor gone against. We must therefore consider a particular and specific God-ordained hierarchy which is at the heart of following the Lord, and which is just about the most important single aspect of discipleship: family life!

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church – for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery – but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honour your father and mother’ – which is the first commandment with a promise – ‘that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.’

Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.[131]

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.[132]

The language here in the Greek, both regarding the submission of a wife to her husband and the obedience of children to their parents, is precisely that of executive authority and senior rank. In God's eyes husbands, wives and children are, of course, all fully equal before him. But when it comes to day to day function then the husband outranks both his wife and children, as indeed his wife, together with him, outranks their children. Now here is the problem: If a church exercises executive church leadership - by which I mean the idea that non-leaders in a church ought to submit to the leadership in that church - a most ridiculous, to say nothing of extremely damaging, scenario emerges. If a leader is in authority over the church he is part of, then he is, by simple definition, in authority over everyone in that church. So where does this leave wives and children? To whom do they submit? Do they submit to husbands and parents, or to church leaders?

Let’s envisage that a leader tells those in the church he leads that they ought to embark on a certain course of action – for example, raising a collection for a particular need – and he makes it plain that he expects all to thus direct their giving the following week. Let us now ask what happens should a wife think it is a wonderful idea, whilst her husband disapproves and says not to do it. And of course the issue is not who is right or wrong – the leader or the husband - but rather who should submit to whom. The church in question believes in hierarchical church government, and a decision has been made by the leader to which people are therefore expected to submit; but to whom does the wife submit if her husband says ‘No’ to the leader's instructions? The teaching of that church is that those in it ought to submit to their leaders,[133] whilst the teaching of scripture is that wives ought to submit to their husbands. So whichever way you look at the situation, we are presented with a nonsensical and absurd impasse. To whom does the wife in question submit: her church leader or her husband? Likewise, picture now that the children want to give some of their money to where the leader has said, but their parents say ‘No’. Then again, who are the children to obey? Do they obey the Minister of their church, or their parents? And of course if our answer, as I think it probably will be in most instances, is that they ought to obey their parents, then we are, in fact, acknowledging that the notion of church leaders having executive authority over people in their church is actually nonsensical.[134]

There can, of course, be no question of existing family hierarchical structure being overridden by church leadership. Indeed, given that a church is simply an extended family of already existing individual families (and single people too, of course) the idea of church government by executive leadership authority becomes just plain daft. Remember, in the New Testament we see numerically small churches as opposed to numerically large ones, and this completely lends itself to the idea of church government and decision-making by consensus rather than there being any need whatsoever, as is the case with numerically larger bodies of people in unbiblical churches, for a leadership elite with executive powers and positional authority.

Token Leadership!!!???

We must, however, finish this chapter with a necessary qualification. Although we are maintaining that permanent, local church leadership – eldership, as scripture terms it – does not carry executive positional authority, we are not saying that it is therefore merely a token affair. The main default of biblical leadership, in contrast with that which is seen in unbiblical churches, is that of invisibility as opposed to any kind of high profile, and visitors to such a church would have no way of knowing who were and were not elders. Remember, there are no church ‘services’ to for anyone to ‘lead’, and all present are participating as the Spirit leads them. Neither, therefore, is there a ‘front’ for anyone to be 'up’ at, because people are just sitting around in a circle in someone's sitting room. Further, any elders present would just think of themselves in terms of being one of the brothers – or one of the lads, as we say in England, and would not for one moment think of themselves as being a leadership level somehow apart from others in the church. However, this is not to say that an elder would not function should any such need arise; and as publicly as necessary too.

The fact that church government is consensual does not in the least mean that elders do not know when to be more definite than usual about something, or would not give a strong lead any time they thought it necessary. Further, in such circumstances they would expect the church to give very serious consideration indeed to what they were saying. As already noted, there may be times when there is no consensus over an issue that just cannot be shelved and, in such cases, if the eldership has a clear idea of the necessary way forward, then the church is strongly advised to go with that. Elders are also the guardians of the church, and have a serious duty of protecting it from attack from both outside and within. When writing to Titus about the duties of elders Paul says, “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”[135] Interestingly, the Greek word in that verse specifically means ‘to refute in such a way as to put the person to shame’.

It is therefore not the case that the biblically based church leadership I am here describing is either token, toothless, or merely some kind of rubber stamp. Although elders have no executive positional authority, they have nevertheless still been recognized by their church as having been fitted by God for the task, and that because of their exemplary Christian life. They have been recognised precisely after years of having proved themselves, by personal example, to those they will lead; and that gives them something which is, arguably, even more powerful than executive authority, and that is moral authority. It is the moral authority of being able to freely carry people along with them precisely because of the trust engendered between all concerned over many years.

I am, however, well aware that my readers still have unanswered questions concerning all this due to various Bible verses spinning around in their heads which are to do with ‘submitting to leaders’, and leaders being ‘over you in the Lord’ and all that sort of stuff. It is to those very verses we now turn in the next chapter.

Chapter 12

To Submit or Not to Submit

There is a fascinating exercise you can do with the New Testament which ascertains once and for all whether or not Christians back then were as leader-obsessed and oriented as we have become since the Early Church Fathers did their ecclesiastical thing. The New Testament letters contain pretty much everything a church needs to know due to them having been written to churches which had (usually) been brought into being by the writer himself, so if the practice of the early church tallied with the standard practice of churches today, then we would expect to find these letters not only being written to the leader of each church, but simply brimming over with emphasis on every aspect of the importance of, and need for, leadership.[136] There would be constant reminders of the importance of believers following and obeying their leaders, and serious warnings concerning the grave dangers of not so doing. What we actually see, though, is somewhat different.

If you start reading the New Testament at Paul's letter to the Romans you will proceed through it and out the other side, go all the way through 1 and 2 Corinthians, then into Galatians and Ephesians, without so much as a single word being either written to, or concerning, churches leaders. They aren't even mentioned. In fact, you would have to get as far as Paul’s letter to the Philippians before you would even discover that there was any such thing as elders in the New Testament churches; and even then, all you will find is a quick greeting to both them and the deacons, with nothing further said either to them or about them. They are simply not referred to again anywhere in the rest of that letter. And neither are they in the letter that follows, the one written to the Colossians. It is only when we get to Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians that we have any significant mention of church leaders; and even then, all is not what it seems:

Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other.[137]

The phrase we need to really come to grips with here is the assertion that leaders are, “...over you in the Lord”. That sounds pretty much like hierarchy, doesn't it? It really does seem to indicate an executive position of church leaders over the people in the church. At the very least it suggests that leaders are in authority over non-leaders – the very thing I have said was not the case in the New Testament churches. This is where we need to do some homework concerning the original language the New Testament was written in.

It's All Greek To Me

I am going to demonstrate that the passages used to justify the notion of executive church leadership are actually inaccurate translations. Scripture is infallible as originally given, but bad translation can nevertheless drastically alter what a passage says. In the above verses the Greek word translated 'over you' is proistemi, and in his seminal Greek Dictionary, W.E.Vine defines this as meaning, “‘to stand before’, hence to lead, to attend to (indicating care and diligence).” [138]

It should therefore be immediately clear to the reader that proistemi is not, therefore, a hierarchical word in itself at all. In fact, it is elsewhere translated in the New Testament as ‘devote’.[139] Indeed, no less a scholar than F.F.Bruce has suggested that when this word occurs the best translation would be, “...who care for you in the Lord.” It is further interesting to note that some of the newer Bible translations have gone down that precise route. This, to say the least, puts rather a very different complexion on it. Further, proistemi is also to be found in Romans 12 v 8, “...if it is leadership let him govern diligently...” where, strangely, it is translated as both ‘leadership’ and ‘govern’[140]; and in 1 Timothy 5 v 17, “The elders who direct the affairs of the church are worthy of double honor.” where it is translated as ‘direct the affairs’. These verses, if the actual meaning of proistemi is clearly brought out, would read, “…if it is caring, then let him care diligently…” and, “The elders who care for the church are worthy of double honor.” And my goodness, what a difference that simple correction makes! Far from depicting executive church leadership, proistemi rather describes its pastoral function.

The Hebrews 13 Verses

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith... 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... Greet all your leaders and all God’s people.[141]

The first Greek word we want to look at here is hegeomai, and the New International Version does well by simply translating it, in both verses 7 and 24, as ‘leaders.’ However, an error we need to combat here comes from the fact that the King James Version, quite unhelpfully translates it in both instances as ‘they that have the rule over you’, which is something else entirely. One (the New International Version) simply translates the word for what it means; that is, a leader, whilst the other (The King James Version) goes way beyond the meaning of the Greek word and, as we just saw that the NIV does with proistemi, imbues it with a meaning not actually inherent in the word itself – that is, the idea of a leadership which is intrinsically hierarchical by its very nature. And as we have seen with the incorrect translating of proistemi, it just isn’t what hegeomai actually means. Hegeomai simply means a leader, whether a hierarchical one, such as a Provincial Governor in the Roman Empire, or merely someone who leads in the sense of being a guide on a guided tour. Interestingly, the AV actually brings this out in its footnotes on Hebrews 13 and suggests the alternative translation of ‘guide’. And of course the point is simply this: you may well visit London and join a guided tour, and therefore follow the guide around who is leading it, but you have hardly thereby come under their authority or anything like that. You are simply following them out of an acknowledgement that they, and not you, know the best way to go in that instance. So it is with elders in the local church. They are guides. They are worth following because they have been places spiritually which you have not yet, but which you would like to; and you follow them out of that recognition. However, you are free to leave the tour at any point, as also you might decide to skip various bits of it that you don’t really want to pursue.

Elsewhere in the New Testament hegeomai is variously translated ‘regard’, ‘esteem’, ‘to reckon’ and ‘to count (on)’: and in Luke 22 v 26 it is used in the precise context of Jesus teaching the Apostles that church leadership no more entails having hierarchical authority than does being a child or a servant. As with proistemi, this is a far cry from any notion that it means that leaders ‘rule over’ the church.

What About 'Obey' Then?

Having defined the word in the letter to the Hebrews for ‘leader’, we now have to confront the fact that it does indeed go on to say – and twice, in fact - that we must ‘obey’ them. What on earth are we to do with this? Again, the answer is that we are dealing with bad translation. The Greek of the New Testament had a specific word meaning to obey a higher authority: hupakaou. It is used, for instance, both in regards to children obeying their parents and slaves obeying their masters, and precisely means to obey someone because they are in authority over you. However, hupakaou nowhere appears in these verses in Hebrews 13, and it is immediately clear that we are again dealing with the issue of bad translation. The word which is translated twice here as ‘obey’ is peitho, and it might help if we see some other verses in the New Testament in which it appears:

But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas...[142]

In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ” In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.[143]

I wrote as I did so that when I came I should not be distressed by those who ought to make me rejoice. I had confidence in all of you, that you would all share my joy.[144]

Believe it or not, in the first passage peitho is translated ‘persuaded’, in the second it is translated ‘trusts’ and in the third it is translated ‘confidence’. So why on earth does it get translated as ‘obey’ in Hebrews 13 when such a translation is just not what it actually means? And of course the answer is simply that Bible translators are no more infallible than anyone else and have the same tendency as the rest of us to read into a text something that is consistent with our own assumptions, but which is nevertheless not what the text actually says. In other words, translators sometimes translate according to their own doctrinal positions and prejudices, rather than just translating what the Greek or Hebrew actually says, in precisely the same way that the rest of us do whilst just reading our Bibles.

The simple fact of the matter is that peitho primarily means ‘to persuade.’ Further, it is linked to another Greek word, pisteuo, which means ‘to trust’ or ‘to have faith in’. In his Greek Dictionary Vine defines this word as meaning, “To persuade, to win over to, to listen to, to obey. The obedience suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion.”[145] In fact, the King James Version translates this word as ‘persuade’ twenty-two times, as ‘trust’ eight times, ‘have confidence’ six times, ‘believe’ three times and ‘be confident’ twice. So, for the seven times it is translated ‘obey’, I strongly urge caution. In Hebrews 13 peitho conveys the idea of an obedient response to leadership not ‘because you have to’ – because the leader is in charge and you are merely an underling – but rather because you have been won over by what has been suggested and have decided for yourself that it is the wisest course of action. The difference is as wide as the world.

...And ‘Submit’?

Bad translation is not, however, the case when it comes to ‘submit’ in Hebrews 13 v 17. Here the Greek word is hupeiko, and it does indeed mean to submit. However, it does not mean to submit to hierarchical authority such as wives to husbands or subjects to the governing authorities of their nation. That is an entirely different Greek word utilized by the New Testament writers. Hupeiko rather means to submit, or yield, to greater strength, and is used of combatants. It is the word used in Greek of submitting, or surrendering, to a superior invading army, or of a submission in a wrestling match. Strength, and not authority, is what is in view.[146] It is used concerning whether or not you can prevail, or will have to eventually simply give in and submit.

When we look at the Hebrews passage again in the light of all this then we can see precisely what the writer is intending to convey. He is saying, in effect, “Look guys, have a thought for your leaders. You recognised them because of their lives and because they have proved themselves to you as both friends and personal examples, so just go a bit easy on them. Be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt about things and to be persuaded by them, and don't keep coming out fighting against them all the time. Just tread a bit carefully regarding them. Their job is hard enough as it is.”

So I think we can safely conclude that biblical church leadership is indeed non-hierarchical. Elders are simply mature brothers[147] in the Lord who have been recognized and raised up from within the church they are part of. It is advisory and not executive, functional as opposed to positional, and empowered by the moral authority of a proven mature Christian life which leads by example rather than dictate. Their modus operandi is very much ‘back-seat’ as opposed to ‘up-front’; and biblical eldership always leads from within and amongst as opposed to separate from and on high. I remind the reader of something I said earlier: one of the most serious errors of unbiblical church leadership is that it is apart from the church rather than being a part of the church. Further, the default mode of biblical church leadership is invisibility as opposed to being high profile, and true elders only put their eldership hats on, so to speak, when actually necessary. First and foremost they are simply brothers in the church like anybody else. Biblical eldership is, in point of fact, actually the complete opposite of the type of leadership which has prevailed virtually monolithically in Christian churches ever since the appearance of the Early Church Fathers so long ago.

Ordination...???

There is more ground we need to cover here in regards to leadership though. After all, what of the verses in the Bible about elders being ‘appointed’ by the Apostles? Or, even worse, ‘ordained’ by them? Once again, it's a question of doing our Greek. There are two verses in the New Testament that speak of such appointing and, just to confuse the issue even more, each translate completely different Greek words:

They preached the good news in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.[148]

This first instance, found in Acts, has Paul and Barnabas returning to churches which they had previously helped to start in order to strengthen and encourage them. We have already seen that the Apostles would bring churches into being with the idea of seeing them recognize their own indigenous elders as soon as possible. This would enable them to follow the Lord and grow in him together corporately without further need of constant apostolic presence or, once the Apostles had moved on, an undue amount of support from them later on. And it is nothing short of disastrous that the translators of the King James Version translated the relevant Greek word here as ‘ordained’. The problem is that it is a word just loaded with priestly preconceptions and hierarchical ecclesiastical overtones, all of which are entirely absent in the Greek and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what Luke actually wrote. The only thing we can perhaps say in defense of the translators is that they would have been in an awful lot of trouble with the King of England had any of their translational efforts done anything other than fully uphold and strengthen Anglican dogma, tradition and protocol. However, it nevertheless makes for extremely bad Bible translation, and at some rather key points too.

Modern translations fare somewhat better here and at least go for ‘appointed’. Yet even this needs qualification in the light of the fact that, with the completely unscriptural idea of ‘ordination’ being so widely adhered to, and the concept being so entrenched in the corporate Christian psyche, even the idea of ‘appointing’ carries in our minds a certain amount of ecclesiastical and clerical-type baggage that is, as we are seeing with all these translational problems, completely absent from the biblical text. However, this is going to just utterly amaze you, because the Greek word translated here as ‘appointed’ is cheirotoneo, and it literally means ‘to stretch out the hand’. It should therefore come as no surprise whatsoever to realize that it was the Greek word used of voting in the Athenian legislative assembly, and quite naturally ties in with what has already been said concerning the fact that the chosen New Testament word for church is ekklesia, which specifically refers to a gathering of people for the express purpose of decision-making. According to Vine cheirotoneo is used in this passage, “…of the appointment of elders by apostolic missionaries in the various churches they had revisited…by the recognition of those who had been manifesting themselves as gifted of God to discharge the function of elders.”[149]

What we have here is simply the Apostles joining in with the process whereby all concerned – that is, the Apostles and the individual churches they are visiting – recognize those whom God had raised up as the elders, put forward by those who constitute the church about to do the recognizing. It is the exact same process as seen earlier in Acts 6 whereby the church at large chose the seven deacons with the Apostles then laying hands on them, except that, in this instance, the Apostles were actually part of the recognition What is most definitely not happening here, though, is any idea of big leaders from some denominational headquarters deciding who will be declared qualified to be leaders of churches under its domain. Paul and Barnabas are not here visiting a theological seminary populated by ministerial candidates for church leadership - indeed, no such thing can be found in the pages of the New Testament. No! They are simply spending time with local churches which are recognizing as elders local men who are already part of them.

We now turn to the second passage that deals with this, Paul's letter to his friend and co-worker, Titus:

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.[150]

Here, rather than returning to a church when it was ready to recognise elders, Paul has left Titus in Crete until that time came. The Greek word for ‘appointed’ this time is kathestemi, and comes from two Greek words: kata, meaning ‘down’, or ‘over against’, and histemi, from the verb ‘to cause to stand’, or ‘to set’. In the context of this particular verse it simply means ‘to appoint someone to a task’, and is indeed also used elsewhere in the New Testament of appointments to positions of authority, such as political rulers. However, the important thing to grasp here, as was the case with hegeomai, is that the word does not in or of itself in any way imply that the position being appointed to is, necessarily, or by definition, one of executive authority; but merely that an appointment of some kind is being made. It could be properly used of a Chief Executive Officer appointing someone to the Board, and therefore to a position of authority in the firm, or equally to a mum and dad appointing their five year old daughter to be in charge of the sandwiches on a family picnic. The former would be an appointment to authority, whilst the latter would most certainly not. A five year old girl, even though having been put in charge of the sandwiches, has hardly become the head of that family. Significantly, though, this same word is used in a passage we have already looked at: the appointment of the seven deacons in Acts 6 where we read, “Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them...”[151]

This tells us two important things. Firstly, the seven were not being appointed as elders, but as deacons; as ‘servers at table’. So even if one did want to argue that eldership is appointed to executive authority, the word is here used simply of the appointment of deacons to a single responsibility; that is, the distribution of funds to the appropriate widows. What we have here is kathestemi being translated, “…turn this responsibility over to them…”, and that is quite separate from any idea of the appointment of elders to a position of authority over believers in a church. So we see clearly that kathestemi does not inherently refer to authority, but merely to the process whereby someone has a duty, whether it carries executive authority or not, assigned to them. Secondly, although it might appear at first that Titus alone is to make the decision and not the gathered church, we know from this episode with the deacons that even though the Apostles did the actual appointing; that is, the actual handing over of responsibility, it was nevertheless the gathered assembly who collectively chose those who were to perform the task at hand. It is no different here with Titus and the Cretan churches. It is not that he alone decided who the leaders were going to be, but rather that he simply took his part, when the time came, in the collective decision of the gathered church as to precisely who the Lord was raising up from among the people to be their eldership. He would indeed then have doubtless prayed and laid hands on them in order to ratify such appointments before the Lord, and to seek his blessing for them in their appointed task, but he was certainly not the only person involved in deciding who those men were to be. It is not an appointing to a position of authority, but merely to a functional task. Another New Testament passage where kathestemi is similarly used readily demonstrates this:

When the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, they went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up. The brothers immediately sent Paul to the coast, but Silas and Timothy stayed at Berea. The men who accompanied Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible.[152]

Here kathestemi simply refers to the fact that some men had been designated the task of accompanying Paul on the next stage of his journey. It in no way implies that they thereby had some kind of authority over him, but merely that they were the ones to whom the task had fallen. Further, in his second letter Peter writes, “For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective…”[153] where kathestemi is translated ‘will keep you’. And in Paul’s letter to the Romans we read, “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”,[154] where it is twice rendered ‘were made’ and then ‘be made.’ So it is clear that any idea that this Greek word means to be appointed to a task which is, by definition, one of authority, is completely false. It can mean that, but when it does that fact can only be established from other factors. When used in such a way as we see in Paul’s letter to Titus, the fact of the matter is that kathestemi simply means ‘to appoint to a task or function’, whether that task or function involves the holding of a position of authority or not. Vine is again informative:

Not a formal ecclesiastical ordination is in view, but the appointment, for the recognition of the churches, of those who had already been raised up and qualified by the Holy Spirit, and had given evidence of this in their life and service.[155]

We return to William MacDonald’s earlier contribution:

Elders in the New Testament sense are mature Christian men of sterling character who provide spiritual leadership in a local assembly…..The Greek word episkopos, translated ‘bishop,’ ‘overseer’ or ‘guardian,’ is also used in reference to elders, describing their function as undershepherds of God’s flock. The names ‘elders’ and ‘bishops’ are generally understood to refer to the same persons…

...In modern usage, ‘bishop’ has come to mean a prelate who supervises a diocese or a group of churches in a district. But the word never means this in the NT. The scriptural pattern is to have several bishops in one church rather than one bishop over several churches. Nor should an elder be confused with the modern pastor, who is primarily responsible for preaching, teaching and administering the sacraments in a local church. It is generally acknowledged that there was no such person in the early church…

The primitive assemblies were composed of saints, bishops, and deacons (Phil. 1:1) – that is all. The clerical system did not arise until the second century…... It is clear that in the early church, elders were appointed by the apostles and their representatives (Acts 14:23; Tit:1:5). This does not mean, however, that the apostles and their delegates had the power to make a man an elder. In order to become a bishop, there must be both divine enablement and human willingness. Only the Holy Spirit can make a man a bishop or guardian (Acts 20:28)…

…It is not a question of our electing them but of recognizing those whom God has raised up for this work.[156]

We are now in a position to translate these two ‘appointing’ verses a bit more accurately:

They preached the good news in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said. Paul and Barnabas raised their hands to elders in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and turn this responsibility over to elders in every town, as I directed you.

I think the reader will agree that, as with the other verses we have seen in this chapter, the technically correct translations totally change the meaning and import of what we read in the passages concerned.

A Couple of Difficult Verses

However, notwithstanding what has already been covered, there are still two verses which we need to give some attention to as they also appear, at least on the surface, to go somewhat against what we are observing. Remember, my contention is that biblical church leadership is non-executive, and that church government is on the basis of consensus decision-making, of a collective approach to discerning, under scripture, the mind of the Lord. We have seen that the only verse which mentions a blanket submission to local church leadership does not in any way refer to hierarchical authority, and that the Greek word representing submission to such nowhere appears in it. However, we now turn to two passages which precisely do use that Greek word, and the word in question is hupotasso. It is made up of two other Greek words: hupo, meaning ‘under’, and tasso, meaning ‘to arrange’, and it basically means to submit to a greater authority, being also a military term denoting ‘to rank under’. It is used in the New Testament in relation to the submission of, for instance, wives to husbands, and citizens to their government. It is clearly a hierarchical term. Our first example is:

You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. I urge you, brothers, to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it. I was glad when Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus arrived, because they have supplied what was lacking from you. For they refreshed my spirit and yours also. Such men deserve recognition.[157]

Although in these verses the word ‘submit’ is indeed hupotasso, Paul is nevertheless referring to an entire household who should be so submitted to, and not church elders per se. Not only that, he applies it to any such households along with anyone joining in with, and labouring at, what he refers to as ‘the work.’ Therefore, whatever the intent of this passage, it can hardly be used as an argument for hierarchical eldership. It is rather outlining an underlying attitude of respect that should be held for the people that Paul refers to: that whenever saints, and especially whole families, are engaged in the Lord's work, then other saints not so engaged ought to look on with respect and do whatever they can to help. Whatever the precise meaning though, when put up against everything else we have seen from scripture concerning this, it is hardly an edifice on which to build an argument for hierarchical executive church leadership.

The second verse we must consider here is:

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers – not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”[158]

Of course, the precise bit we are interested in is, “Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older.”[159] And it could simply be, as the translators themselves seem to suggest, that the submission here is merely from younger to older men in general. However, this does seem to me to be unlikely given that the previous verses, and therefore the general context, specifically concerns church elders. But what we need to note here is that although this is indeed the hupotasso-type submission, and to elders as well, it is only the young men who are so commanded. So should one be looking for a verse that teaches a carte blanche hierarchical submission by all in the church to eldership, then this is most certainly not it. (Indeed, no such verse is to be found anywhere in the New Testament.) Peter is here covering a base somewhat similar, I think, to the one covered by the writer to the Hebrews. The author can speak from long experience that no one can be a duly recognised elder in a biblical church for too long before discovering that, very often, if someone has a complaint, or maybe even a little rebellion going on in their lives, they are quite likely to end up taking it out on the elders. As a very dear friend of mine, now with the Lord, observed, you can't bash God so you bash the elders instead. And of course, the very worst culprits at this are invariably the young, and therefore somewhat arrogant, men. They are the ones who are most likely to ‘come out fighting’, and who might go about challenging this, that and the other all the time. And I think that what Peter is doing here is precisely reminding them of one of the attributes they need to cultivate, and perhaps more than most other attributes too - and that is a good old bit of humility. Nothing is more helpful in such regard than for them to consider older men, and especially elders, their superiors. This and nothing more, is what this verse is saying.

So, there you have it! The first part of my irreducible minimum for a biblical church: locally grown, male, plural, non-hierarchical elders. Brothers who understand, and who live out in their lives, that church leadership is purely functional and not positional. That it is advisory and not executive; back seat as opposed to ‘up front’, and as invisible as possible as opposed to being high profile. In other words, men who are truly the servants of God’s people as opposed to being their executive officers and lords! What a truly wonderful difference that is!

A Warning

We end this chapter on a somewhat sobering and serious note:

From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. When they arrived, he said to them: “You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace.

Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”[160]

We have here possibly one of the gravest warnings to believers in the whole of the New Testament, and it is a prophecy that something was going to go very, very wrong concerning church leadership. Paul says, “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.”[161] A two-tiered demonic attack is here outlined.

Firstly, savage wolves were going to infiltrate the church from the outside. This would have included false teachers such as the Gnostics, Jewish legalists, and various other groups who wanted a piece of the action. They were usually not even believers, and were the people Paul elsewhere referred to when he said that even Satan can appear as an ‘angel of light’.[162] What we are interested in here though is the second thing Paul mentions to the Ephesian elders: that even from amongst their own number men would arise who would distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

Please be sure that you really do get hold of what Paul is saying here. A leadership was going to arise in the Christian church which would cause people to follow them rather than the Lord: leaders who were going to cause God’s people to become their disciples rather than the Lord's disciples. In other words, men who were going to cause people to think that they had to be under the authority of church leadership in order to properly follow the Lord, rather than simply being under the direct authority of the Lord Jesus himself through obedience to scripture.

Maybe, just maybe, what we have here is a warning prophecy that was actually fulfilled by the erroneous and un-biblical teachings of the Early Church Fathers concerning the authority of church leaders over the people in their churches. Think back to what we saw from their writings: that the Bishop was supreme, and that the only way to submit to God was by submitting to him, and that the only way a church would be recognized was if it was indeed surrendered to such ecclesiastical authority.

For nearly the entire Christian era church leadership has been based on teachings and practises which not only go directly against the New Testament, but which were actually prophesied about and blatantly warned against by the Paul the Apostle when he addressed the Ephesian elders. As we have already established, if you mess around with this aspect of the design, then it is virtually inevitable that every false teaching and practise imaginable will eventually be taught by leaders who wield such great authority. Emerging error is then embraced passively by the now enslaved people of God, who have been rendered gullible enough to just unquestioningly accept what is happening rather than testing things by the authority they actually ought to be submitting to: that is, the written Word of God!

Chapter 13

Meeting in Homes

Location, location, location

When we turn to the New Testament in order to establish where churches met we discover that, whenever a particular and specific church is located it is, without fail, in someone’s home. The smallest unit of church – that is, the church one can actually be week by week a part of – is the church that meets in someone’s home. Church does, of course, exist in other forms, rather like the ever-enlarging circular ripples that spread out in a pond from where a stone has been thrown in. We therefore see in scripture the Church of Jesus Christ throughout time (or the Church Universal as theologians like to term it) and the church throughout space – that is, all believers alive on the earth at any one time (often referred to by the experts as the Church Militant). But of course church in this sense never actually meets, or at least not until the Lord returns and we all join in with the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.[163] However, when we enquire what church is as it relates to individual believers being part if it at the local level, then we have to think in terms of the smallest functioning unit; that is, individual and particular churches. As just noted, whenever we see such in the New Testament they are always, without exception, located as meeting in someone’s home:

Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them. Greet also the church that meets at their house.[164]

The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.[165]

Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.[166]

To Philemon our dear friend and fellow-worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow-soldier and to the church that meets in your home.[167]

This is not to say, however, that believers never gathered together in larger numbers. We see, for example, that in the very earliest years in Jerusalem they would gather in the temple courts. However, this was not the Lord’s Day gathering of individual churches but was rather for inter-church activities such as prayer, teaching and evangelism.[168] Likewise, we see that individual churches would come together en masse when there were issues to be sorted out which affected them, such as the emerging need for deacons, and the problems arising from the spread of false doctrine and practice.[169] But when individual churches met for their weekly gathering on the Lord’s Day, it is simply a fact that they universally met in each others’ homes. Incredible though it may seem, for longer than the United States of America has been a nation the early churches met in the homes of the believers who comprised them and nowhere else.

Neither is it the case, as commonly stated, that this gathering in homes was merely because of persecution. For the most part, persecution against the early church was sporadic and localized, and Christians had the same freedom to build and utilize religious buildings as anyone else. Indeed, they stood out like sore thumbs in this regard, and were actually unique by being the only known religious group in the ancient world who precisely did not centre their worship round purpose-built edifices. Further, some people ironically thought them to be atheists for the simple reason that, given they had no buildings in which their ‘god’ dwelt, they were assumed to not actually believe in one.

Not Just an Option

When it comes to where churches met it is quite obvious that meeting in houses was the expressly passed on practice and design. Far from being some limited, temporary measure that was to be overcome once circumstances allowed, meeting in homes was fundamental to the New Testament believers understanding of what a church actually was, and of how church life was to be enacted. It meant that each church was precisely intended to be numerically small rather than large and, given that the format of their gatherings was that all present were free to take part, and that they would also eat a meal together, small numbers were essential.

When we remind ourselves what a church actually is – a little extended family of God’s people – the notion that it was to be home-based positively shouts to us from the pages of the New Testament affirming that it could not possibly be any other way. Think about it! Where do families live? In their homes! Where do family ‘get-togethers’ happen? In the home! Around what does family life centre? The home! The home is where families live and where family life takes place. Meeting in homes was, totally and perfectly logically, the prescribed way for churches in the New Testament. It is simply, and quite incontrovertibly, what Jesus passed on universally to all believers through his Apostles, and therefore subsequently through the pages of scripture too.

The Hospitality Angle

One of the commands in scripture which is often overlooked is the vitally important need for Christians to be hospitable and to have their homes open for others to frequent:

Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with God’s people who are in need. Practise hospitality.[170]

Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.[171]

Again, this makes perfect sense. If the idea of fellowship is, amongst other things, to sanctify us together so that through significant ongoing relationships with each other we can be growing in the Lord, and therefore growing into his holiness, then only in our home environment can we be truly known. Unbiblical church life; that is, revolving around public buildings, disadvantages Christians in this regard in two ways.

Firstly, the presence of large numbers in a church makes it extremely difficult to have the kind of deep fellowship the Lord intends for us. It is simply the case that whereas one can have a lot of acquaintances one can only have a few friends, and significant relationships, by definition, can only occur in a group that is few in number. Or, to put it another way, being ‘lost in a crowd’ is the opposite of what scripture intends for us in church life. Secondly, the mere fact of churches meeting in public buildings further scuppers what significant attempts people do make at deep and genuine fellowship. You just can’t get to know properly or deeply those whom you only see occasionally and on neutral territory. Only when our homes are opened to each other does the fellowship that scripture intends for us truly begin to happen. More and more churches are coming to realise this and consequently there is the increasing appearance of what many refer to as ‘cell church’; that is, the practise of having en masse church in the religious building on Sundays, but with people being broken down into smaller groups meeting midweek in people’s homes. Whilst being a step in the right direction, it is, nevertheless, a bridge which only goes part way across the chasm it is trying to span. Why not rather just return wholesale to what we see in the New Testament and cut out the large numbers, buildings and leadership hierarchies completely? Why not, dare we ask, just get back to the teaching of scripture, and to that alone?

The Leadership Angle

Returning to the subject of leadership, there is something else regarding meeting in people’s homes which is of great importance. The biblical qualifications for elders[172] are very little to do with things like college education and seminary degrees, but absolutely everything to do with character, personal life and godliness.[173] We read:

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable…[174]

An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless – not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable…[175]

When it comes to the qualifications for an elder as outlined by scripture, it is obvious that the only way anyone in a church could know if a particular brother was thus qualified would be if they had known him really well for a long time. And the point about elders being hospitable – that is, being especially faithful in opening their homes to others – is that, firstly, it is an example to everyone in the church who should be increasingly doing the same. But, secondly, it shows us that the reason believers in a church do know a potential elder so well is precisely because they have seen, and known, so much of him in the context of his family life and his home environment. How else, after all, could one possibly know the state of a man’s marriage and family life? We all know how possible it is to turn up once or twice a week to a religious building and attend a ‘service’ along with a large number of other people and appear both godly and spiritually together, irrespective of whether we are or not. In such a setting no one really knows anyone else properly anyway. Those whom we only see in such a setting are, regardless of what we might like to think, comparative strangers to us.

Of course that also applies to the leadership, regardless of which particular brand is adhered to. No matter what you might like to think to the contrary, the odds are that you probably don’t know your church’s leader(s) very well at all. You see their public presentation and persona, and that is all. You may well see in your leader the appearance of, for instance, a good marriage and a good family life: and indeed, such may be the reality; but you simply cannot know for sure one way or the other. You simply do not spend enough time with them in their home, or know them well enough, to have any real idea of what their personal life and walk with the Lord is actually like. It really is as stark as that.

The Biblical Experience

Such is not the case, however, in biblical churches. Believers who gather together as an extended family of the Lord – in the way the Bible teaches – have, by and large, a very different experience. Everything, and I do mean everything, is then based purely on personal relationships, and therefore on personal knowledge of one another. Indeed, church gatherings are in the very homes of those who are part of the church and, therefore, in the same homes in which so much time is spent together during the week in addition to the actual Lord’s Day gathering. It is family, family, family! It is significant time together; an extended family of individual families plus, of course, those who are single. It is based on deep ongoing relationships between all involved over an extended period of time.

And the key to this, the single most indispensable aspect of divine design for church and fellowship life, is the simple practice of numerically small churches meeting in homes. That, and nothing else, is what we see in the pages of the New Testament. We can mess around with that design if we want to – indeed, we have been so doing for nearly two millennia – but if we do then we end up with something that, whilst still being ‘church’ in so far as it is groups of believers seeking to follow the Lord together, is nevertheless far short of the scriptural reality of what the Lord originally intended for His people.

There’s No Place Like Home!

Another reason why the New Testament churches were based in peoples’ homes was simply because they didn’t need anywhere else. This also releases the kind of money for the Lord’s work that one could otherwise only dream about. Imagine a situation where Christians never had to put money into maintaining a religious building, or paying the salaries of unbiblical church leadership positions. The simple fact of the matter is that biblical churches don’t need money and, therefore, don’t need to have collections to raise cash for their own benefit. They have no infra-structure to pay for and maintain, and neither do they need to pay anyone. Staggeringly, nowhere in the entire New Testament is there even the slightest notion of churches employing people. Every penny of giving by individuals within biblical churches goes to people, be it the poor, or bona fide full-time ministries.[176] The efficiency of this is mind-boggling and, although a handful of biblical churches could never be expected to accomplish as much as the equivalent number of unbiblical churches with their much larger congregations, in a situation where there are large numbers of biblical churches, then when it comes to what can then be accomplished through the release of money for God’s work they will be able to out-give unbiblical churches hands down.

What an incredible story is unfolding here before us and what an amazing and unnerving history is coming to light. From Spirit-led, extended family life in each others’ homes, to religious institutionalisation in large religious buildings centred around un-biblically structured ‘services’ led by anti-biblical religious hierarchies. Thus, frighteningly, can be described the journey of the Christian Church down through the centuries. The challenge we face is simply this: will we be courageous enough to both face and embrace, and to implement without compromise, how things were as revealed by Jesus to the Apostles and recorded for us in the pages of God’s Holy Word? Or will we just put our heads in the sand and take the easy way out? There is, of course, a great deal more involved in biblical church life than just meeting in homes, and we will move on to other aspects of the design in the next chapter; but it is, nevertheless, a vitally important and irreplaceable part of the package. When it comes to church life there is, quite simply, no place like home.

Chapter 14

Open Gatherings

We are in the process of establishing a fourfold irreducible minimum for a biblical church. The reader must remember, however, that we are not here drawing a contrast between true and false churches, but merely between the biblical and the unbiblical. Where believers come together to form a grouping through which they seek to follow the Lord as a corporate entity, then there you have a church. The issue before us here, though, is whether or not the Bible lays down definite and mandatory ways of doing this. And we are seeing that it most certainly does. We are also seeing that not only do the vast majority of churches fail to practice what the pages of scripture reveal they should, they actually do the opposite.

The Reason for the Design

We now turn to the subject of open church gatherings, and we will look at this from an angle which holds true for every aspect of church life; that is, ‘the reason for the design.’ And what I mean by this is the reasons why church life has been designed by the Lord to be the way scripture reveals. As we are seeing, the way in which church life is depicted in the New Testament – the design which was universally implemented by the Apostles – is not arbitrary, accidental or incidental. I earlier showed how my ‘irreducible minimum’ could be compared to the design of an aeroplane and how, should the design be messed around with, it is no longer any use for accomplishing the purpose for which it was designed. And part of the design of church life, along with the function of biblical church leadership, is to enable those who are in a church to increasingly function according to their calling and spiritual gifts, and to discover more and more the way in which the Lord wants to use them, whether within the context of church life or outside in the world of day-to-day life.

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.[177]

Here Paul says that both church life and leadership are there in order to, amongst other things, prepare God’s people – please note, not just leaders – for works of service, thereby bringing them to maturity in the Lord. And a really good way for a church to fail to do this is, for instance, to operate a system in which the leader does just about everything, with everyone else remaining merely passive onlookers. I am, of course, referring to the unbiblical practice of having ‘church services.’

We have already seen, however, that the New Testament knows nothing of ‘church services’ and that a first century believer would not have even known what one was. The idea of a large number of believers coming together in a public building for a ‘service’ led from the front by a professional leader would have been utterly alien to the early church. Rather, when a first century believer ‘went to church’ it was to someone’s house and, at least partly, for a time of sharing and worship in which all present were free to participate as the Spirit inspired them, as described in an earlier chapter in relation to Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. No one led from the front; indeed, precisely because they gathered in each others’ homes, sitting in a circle in one of the rooms and therefore able to see each other face to face, there was not even a ‘front’ to lead from.

Active or Passive?

The simple truth is that in the New Testament, and therefore in a biblical church, we actually find the exact opposite of a church ‘service’. Rather than a ‘led from the front’ format where the design, by definition, breeds passivity and hence spiritual atrophy, we see a format positively brimming over with opportunities and challenges for all present to actively participate. Wholesome activity, with its subsequent growth into spiritual maturity, is the watchword here, in contrast to the sterile and repressive inaction of the spiritually stultifying passivity of religious ‘services’ as practiced in unbiblical churches. When all are free to take part and therefore embrace the challenge of being duty bound to be reaching out to the Lord for whatever he wants them to bring to the gathering, then no longer is it a question of just coming along and asking, “How can I be blessed and what can I get out of it?” That is spiritual selfishness from which the only outcome can be ongoing spiritual immaturity. In a biblical church the question is rather, “What can I bring today? How can I give and be a blessing to others?” It is the complete opposite! It is the way of growth, of spiritual maturation, and of believers moving ever toward the full stature of the Lord.

Another aspect of the Christian life whereby this design is of such immense importance is one to which we have already referred, God’s order for family and the different gender roles which he has apportioned to men and women. Nowhere do we see deception and false teaching flourishing amongst God’s people more than with the current and continued rise of female leadership in churches, and the subsequent abdication of headship responsibility by spiritually weak Christian men. The whole of scripture portrays how the Lord has designed men to be the loving self-sacrificing leaders of their families, with women being their fully equal, but submissive, partnering helpers and support.[178] What kind of church experience, therefore, best helps a man, as the spiritual leader of his family (or prepares young single men for their future role when they are married) to grow into and fulfil their role? Is it taking his family to a gathering where he sits passively with his wife in a pew while his church leader just tells him what he ought to believe, without any opportunity to question or challenge what has been said? Or is it attending, week by week, year in year out, a gathering where others look to him, simply because he is a man, to both teach the church, and share, and give of his relationship with the Lord to the others present? The answer is self-evident and can hardly be gainsaid!

What best causes a man to get into scripture for himself and - whilst obviously drawing on the work, expertise and teaching of those called of the Lord to such ministries - enables him to settle scriptural issues in his own mind and then teach both his own family and others in the church? Is it the system of passively listening to preaching during ‘services’, or a system that is interactive and participatory, looking to all (and not just the ‘experts’) to open the scriptures for mutual edification? Again, the answer is so self-evident there is nothing further to be said.

What of children and younger people, then? What is spiritually best for them? Is it being taken to an unbiblical church and an unbiblical religious ‘service’ where they see dad (who is supposed to be their spiritual leader) and mum sitting passively, doing nothing except singing at the permitted times, and then being removed and handed over to the care of others, whether in a crèche, Sunday school or, even worse, youth church, whilst their parents are preached to in their absence? Or is it to be in a gathering where they are present the whole time, able to see and hear dad and mum (and especially dad) praying and sharing their hearts with those present? Indeed, a gathering where they can, in particular, see dad teaching from the scripture – though only for a few minutes in order that others can do the same – and knowing that they can join in too, and that what they have to share will be considered equally important and received as from the Lord.

And so we could go on! In every possible way the design for church life as revealed in the New Testament, and especially in what we are seeing here about open interactive and participatory gatherings, causes growth to occur; whereas in unbiblical churches the opposite is generally true. This is not, of course, to say that no growth occurs in believers in unbiblical churches, any more than it is to say that there are no believers who don’t grow in biblical ones. It is, however, to make the quite irrefutable point that, in an unbiblical church you would have to work quite hard in order to grow spiritually, whereas in a biblical one the effort would have to be put in not to. Paul writes:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.[179]

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.[180]

For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.[181]

When such is the format of the Lord’s Day gathering of a church, and if accompanied by a vibrant ongoing spiritual corporate life together outside of the Sundays, spiritual growth will indeed be normative.

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.[182]

Back to the Experts

Let’s just remind ourselves what the experts say about this. Remember, none of this is merely my own personal interpretation of the New Testament. It is what the experts are universally agreed on as being the simple facts of the matter.

Dr John Drane:

In the earliest days...their worship was spontaneous. This seems to have been regarded as the ideal, for when Paul describes how a church meeting should proceed he depicts a Spirit-led participation by many, if not all...There was the fact that anyone had the freedom to participate in such worship. In the ideal situation, when everyone was inspired by the Holy Spirit, this was the perfect expression of Christian freedom. [183]

Dr Henry R.Sefton:

Worship in the house-church had been of an intimate kind in which all present had taken an active part...(this) changed from being ‘a corporate action of the whole church’ into ‘a service said by the clergy to which the laity listened.’ [184]

A.M.Renwick:

The very essence of church organisation and Christian life and worship...was simplicity...Their worship was free and spontaneous under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and had not yet become inflexible through the use of manuals of devotion.[185] (That is, liturgy and being led from the front.)

As I have repeatedly emphasized, this is not merely my own opinion or personal interpretation. It is what the experts agree the Bible undeniably says. When it comes to what we see in the New Testament concerning these things, it is simply a fact that there is complete harmony of opinion amongst those whose area of expertise it is. Remember, the controversy is not about what the New Testament church was like, but purely over the question as to whether we ought to conform to the New Testament or the Early Church Fathers. I remain amazed that, once they are actually aware of the issues, any believer should even have to think twice about it. Listen to the Word of God:

All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.[186]

As long as those words are in the text of the New Testament then it should be completely redundant, to say nothing of actually impertinent, to even raise the question as to whether or not we go with the Bible in regards to something, whatever it might be, or with someone or something else. Can it even be argued to be within the bounds of reason that believers conform to such extra-biblical teachings and practices as we are challenging which go so blatantly against the Word of God? I have to say that I rather think not!

Chapter 15

The Lord’s Supper

Food for Thought

Fundamental to the whole of human life is the act of eating. Our bodies have been specifically designed by God so that the consumption of food and drink is the primary way by which we refuel and keep up our strength. Without food and drink we would soon die. Yet more than being solely a biological phenomenon and necessity, the Lord has also designed it so that eating is also at the very heart of human social intercourse and interaction, and nowhere is this seen more profoundly than in family life. Indeed, it could be said, and without much fear of contradiction either, that meal-times constitute one of the primary corporate ‘adhesives’ by which family life holds together. The dining room, perhaps more than anywhere else, is where the loving togetherness which defines the corporate family life of parents and children is experienced, acted out and reinforced. When it comes to the fundamentals of human relationships, few things can compete with the simple experience of sharing a meal together.

Moreover, even the most cursory reading of the Gospels reveals just how much of Jesus’ time was spent eating with people. Indeed, much of his teaching and ministry revolved around this, and a very large number of his most important interactions with others precisely occurred in the setting of the meal table. This should, of course, come as no surprise to those who have read and understood the Old Testament, and who have seen for themselves how God deliberately centred such a great part of his peoples’ lives on feasts and festivals. In the Promised Land Israel was either recovering and trying to lose weight from the last Feast or getting ready to prepare food for the next. And at the very heart of all this was, of course, the Passover, a meal specifically eaten in the context of the Jewish extended family and in the family home. Being, as it is, the Christian Church’s equivalent of the Jewish Passover, the Lord’s Supper therefore carries on in the exact same Divine tradition and is therefore clearly shown in the New Testament to precisely be a meal eaten together by the extended family of God in each others’ homes.

A Family Meal

We have seen again and again that when it comes to understanding what a church actually is, then ‘extended family’ best, and most accurately, describes it. God is, after all, our Father. Believers are, quite literally, brothers and sisters in the Lord. The very definition of a Christian is someone who has been ‘born again’ into the family of God. And what have we just noted as being at the heart of family life? Eating and drinking together! Sitting at table as a family and sharing food, drink and fellowship! So when it comes to the Lord’s Supper – the Lord’s Table, love feast, breaking bread, whichever synonymous biblical term you prefer – the surprise, far from being the discovery that it is a full meal, would precisely be if it were not. Again, what was the Passover? A full meal! What, therefore, would we expect the Last Supper to be? A full meal as well! Further, what form – as if the question even needed to be asked – will the future Marriage Supper of the Lamb take? You are absolutely right: a full meal too! How odd then, how completely bizarre it would therefore be should we discover in the pages of the New Testament that the Lord’s Supper for the gathering of a church on the Lord’s Day was not a full meal but, in complete contrast, merely a ritual with bread and wine. Scripture, however, reveals no such thing.

In the New Testament we see believers coming together in their churches, on the first day of the week, precisely in order to centre their fellowship together on a communal meal to which all present brought food to share. [187] [188] We see individual Christian families doing on the Lord’s Day with other families (and single people, of course) what they do the rest of the week on their own; that is, sharing a meal together as the extended family of God! What we do Monday through Saturday as nuclear biological families we also do on Sundays as a church with others in the Lord’s family: that is, fellowship together in the Lord over food and drink! There is absolutely no getting away from the simple fact that, if we go by what we see in scripture – and in scripture alone – it always comes back to the same thing; a church is simply an extended family of God’s people. Every aspect of the design and structure for church life and practice, as revealed in the pages of the New Testament, is to therefore help and enable us to behave and function as such. Whilst the teaching and practices of Jesus and the Apostles held sway, the Lord’s Day gathering of a church surrounded eating and drinking together. Variously referred to in the New Testament as the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Table, the Lord’s Cup, the breaking of bread and, finally, the love-feast, this fellowship meal – perhaps more than any other aspect of their lives together – defined what individual believers were in their oneness with each other in the context of corporate church life.

Looking Backwards and Forwards: and then some!

As the New Testament church’s equivalent to Israel’s Passover, the Lord’s Supper shares both its forward and backward looking aspects. Passover always looked back in time to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, itself a picture of salvation.[189] God’s people were trapped in Egypt (the world), controlled by their task-masters (sin) and governed without mercy by Pharaoh (the Devil). If the Jewish Passover represented physical deliverance from a physical plight, then the Lord’s Supper represents the reality of which the former was merely a shadow – deliverance and rescue from the world, the flesh and the devil. As God’s people, as believers in Jesus, we are delivered from sin along with its eternal consequences, and have become his children as opposed to still being the children of the devil.[190]

Yet Passover not only looked back, it also looked forward. Initially, this was to Israel having a homeland of their own in Canaan; the Promised Land. Once there, however, a change took place and Passover came to mean something rather different: in fact, the coming of their promised Messiah. However, there is another time aspect we need to be aware of here in that Passover also related to the present moment; that is, to the situation in which it was actually being eaten. It defined those eating it as being a literal, extended family – by which I mean fathers, mothers, children, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts and uncles etc – within the specific context of being an extended nuclear family within the larger nation of God’s people, the nation of Israel! If eating the Passover caused each person present to look both backwards and forwards in time, it also caused them to look outwards to those present, thus highlighting the relationships there represented in the present moment. Or to put it another way, there was an existential element which related not to the past or future, but to the here-and-now. This fits perfectly with the broad sweep of the salvation which the Lord has secured for us.

Salvation – Past, Present and Future

Human beings exist in a universe that is not only physical in three dimensions, but which exists as passing through a fourth: and that dimension is time – past, present and future! Salvation, therefore, has a past, present and future aspect. Past salvation – or justification as scripture refers to it – deals with the simple fact that, having believed in Jesus, a Christian has been delivered from the penalty of sin. Never will they be thrown into the Lake of Fire. They will be with the Lord for eternity. And it is past salvation because it has already been secured by Jesus’ death as a past event, and because a believer has, by definition, already believed in Him. (Should someone not have already believed in Jesus then they are not, by definition, a believer at all!)

Present salvation – or sanctification as God’s Word refers to it – is deliverance not from the penalty of sin, but rather from its power. This, rather than being through Jesus’ death, as is justification, is through his resurrection. It is because he rose again from the dead and is alive, and therefore alive in his people. He thereby grants us the power for the ongoing process of sin being actually overcome in our lives through the agency of the actual presence of his life in us. It is a moment-by-moment process, and therefore the existential aspect of salvation.

Past salvation, or justification, is often termed as being righteousness imputed, which simply means that it has been paid into the ‘account’ of our standing before an almighty and holy God. However, present salvation, or sanctification, is righteousness actually imparted. It is his righteousness shared with us in order that we can experience it in our daily lives. And of course, future salvation – referred to in scripture as glorification – is that aspect whereby we are one day going to be delivered not just from the penalty of sin in our lives (which has already occurred for the believer), nor from the power of sin in our lives (which is occurring in the existential moment-by-moment of the here and now), but from its very presence. However, that will not be either through Jesus’ death or his resurrection, but rather through his future return, this being the point in time when the saints are eventually given glorified bodies. At that point we will know not just the Lord’s righteousness imputed to us, or even his righteousness imparted to us, we will then know - oh happy day – his very own righteousness actually perfected in us. What a wondrous, wondrous thing that is going to be! One day we will be just like the Lord of Glory!

Amazingly, when properly understood, the Lord’s Supper actually causes us to consider and reflect on all of this each time we eat it. Sharing the meal together as a church has the effect of turning our minds to look back to Jesus’ death on the Cross as being the very means by which we are present at a church gathering, and by which we are eating and drinking it in the first place. Had it not been for his great love for us – a love which took him to death even whilst we cared nothing about him – we would not even be saved. We would not even be part of his family, the church, at all. However, this meal has us look forward to his future coming as well; to that time when not only will he return, but when, as promised, he will actually literally eat and drink with us.[191] A time, in fact, when there will be a love-feast such as the world has never seen; when the Lord of Glory eats and drinks with the whole Church, and when every believer throughout time – past, present and future – will be present. It will be the ultimate love-feast which the weekly Lord’s Supper in each individual and specific church throughout church history both anticipates and looks forward to. These two aspects, the past and future, are perfectly encapsulated by Paul’s words that eating the Lord’s Supper causes us to, “…proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes”.[192]

The present aspect of this, however, the existential part, is that we not only look back to him in his death, nor just forward to him in his coming, but also outward to him in each other in the present moment: to his actual presence in each brother and sister gathered as the particular and specific church you are part of. And there we examine our relationships. There we measure our discipleship to him by the only accurate ruler we have – by checking the condition and state of our relationships with others! By this, and by this alone, can we establish just how well we are doing in our growth in the Lord, and how our sanctification is actually progressing.

When it comes to deliverance from the penalty of sin then for the believer this is already done. When it comes to deliverance from the very presence of sin, then that is something for which we wait until the Lord returns. However, when it comes to our sanctification, to that aspect of our salvation whereby the process of progressive deliverance from the power of sin in our lives is ongoing, there is a very great deal that we are meant to be actively doing, and it is our relationships with other people that are often the means by which by Jesus brings about our much needed death to self, precisely so that he can live in and through us in our place. Nowhere is our sin more revealed, and therefore potentially dealt with, than in the context of relationships; and especially our relationships with those in the particular church in which the Lord has placed us.

Scripture makes it very clear that I can only consider myself to be right in my ongoing relationship with him to the same extent that I am right in my ongoing relationships with others. The simple fact of the matter is that at any one moment we only love him to the same extent that we love our brother. Therefore, at the very heart of this whole present-tense aspect of our salvation is precisely the act of eating the Lord’s Supper each Lord’s Day with our brothers and sisters. It is there that we examine and judge ourselves to see if our relationships are in good order, thereby ensuring that we are not eating and drinking in an unworthy manner.[193] In the church of which I am a part we think of it like this: you can only ever be out of fellowship with someone for six days – maximum! Then comes the love-feast, and you dare not eat that with things not put right.[194]

The Loaf and the Cup

As we look back during the love-feast to Jesus’ death, and outward to each other, and forward to his eventual return, the loaf and cup, taken as part of the meal, therefore stand in lieu of his physical presence amongst us. When a church gathers he is, quite literally, present; but only by his Spirit! For his actual physical presence amongst us, that wondrous time when he will eat and drink with us quite literally, we must await the Marriage Supper of the Lamb at his future coming. However, in the meantime we continue, week by week, to share the loaf and cup together which speak thus of him to us, and of all he has done for us. Remember, it is not only his death to which we look back in this meal, neither his return to which we look forward, but also to his presence, his very life, in each other in the here and now. This is precisely where we must ensure that we are constantly checking and examining ourselves as to whether or not our relationships are as they should be, and that no sin against another is left un-dealt with and without apology. We must forever keep in mind that the Bible teaches, and more clearly than we often want to acknowledge, that our relationship with the Lord is only ever as good as our relationships with others. If, therefore, we are not right in our relationships with our brothers and sisters, or even with unbelievers – however unwelcome such a realization might be to us - then neither are we right in our relationship with the Lord.

So what, then, when it comes to the design and structure of church life, could be more accommodating in this regard than precisely centering it around eating and drinking, week by week and face to face, with those very brothers and sisters? By stark contrast, however, in unbiblical church services, where the Lord’s Supper is conducted as being merely a ritual with bread and wine, a believer can just hide away and be safely anonymous. In such a circumstance you can have sin in your heart towards virtually everyone present yet not be under any discernible, practical or tangible pressure whatsoever to be honest about it and put things right. But when we are with our brothers and sisters in the same living room, sharing the same food and drink, and having personal and meaningful fellowship with them, and being face to face with them and looking them in the eye, then our relationships in the church of which the Lord has made us a part become our absolute and inescapable priority. Then there is nowhere to hide. Then it is much harder to conceal sin against others that needs to be repented of and put right. All is revealed. All is out in the light with little room for darkness and for hidden, and therefore un-dealt with, relational sin.

Thus we now come to now consider the actual loaf and cup, and to understand the way in which, as the food and drink we all share in common at the meal, they actively characterize and symbolize these past, present and future aspects of our salvation. Picture with me, therefore, how the loaf being broken and the wine being poured out so perfectly speaks to us of our past salvation; how they picture the destroyed body and spilt blood of Jesus in his death, securing salvation for us so that we could be forgiven, set free and rescued from eternal judgement. Understand with me how, in eating that bread and drinking that wine, we are confronted with, reminded of and forced to reflect upon that terrible death, yet not in a funereal way, as if the Lord’s Supper is a wake for the dead, but rather with praise, thankfulness and rejoicing in knowing that he is the God-Man who rose again from the dead and who is ever with us. Then look out to your brothers and sisters present at this special weekly meal and realize how your sanctification, your growth in the Lord, depends in such large part, though not exclusively, on your ongoing relationships with them. Reflect on how a loaf of bread only comes into being when lots of individual grains of wheat are processed together in order to become one loaf. The many become one! Further, how is a bottle of wine that can then be poured into a glass actually produced? By processing individual grapes together in such a way that they become one body of liquid? Again, the many become one. It is exactly the same idea.

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.[195]

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it”[196]

…So in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.[197]

Can you see how wonderful this is? Though individual disciples of the Lord we can nevertheless, as the many, become one! It is a quite beautiful thing, and represented in utter perfection by the sharing together of a loaf and cup, each of which have already undergone the precise same process.

Lastly, when it comes to our future salvation, we recognise that whereas the loaf and cup stand in lieu of the Lord’s physical presence, the day is coming when we shall all – by which I mean the whole Christian Church throughout time – eat and drink with him, both literally and physically.

The loaf and cup represent our unity and oneness in another way too, for although the Lord’s Supper is a full meal comprised of different dishes and drink, the loaf and cup represent the food and drink that all present share in common. One person may have the roast beef whilst someone else tucks into the chicken curry. One person drinks the coffee whilst yet another prefers a nice cup of tea. However, when it comes to eating from the loaf and drinking from the cup, then all present – irrespective of the differences in what is otherwise consumed – are as one in sharing the same food and drink. The many become one! That is our oneness in the Lord, and the symbolism is as perfect as it gets. Sunday by Sunday, believers in the New Testament gathered as their respective churches in order to, amongst other things, eat a meal together. That meal, acting as a teaching aid par excellence, caused those present to centre their attention on the Lord together and to appreciate, yet again, the all-encompassing expansiveness of the great and wonderful salvation which he had won for them on the Cross.[198]

Getting together to hang out and catch up with each other, to encourage one another and to share food and drink. It perfectly describes a family get-together. It also perfectly describes a church gathering. But no wonder, for they are essentially the same thing. It’s family, family, family! Sharing together, encouraging one another, eating and drinking together! This is what following the Lord together as a church is all about.

Feast or Funeral?

At the Last Supper Jesus told the disciples to keep the Passover, but in the New Covenant manner. So, whereas the Christian Church doesn’t – and shouldn’t – observe the actual yearly Jewish Passover, individual churches should, nevertheless, observe its weekly New Testament counterpart: the Lord’s Supper. Whether we compare the Passover with the Lord’s Supper, or the Marriage Supper of the Lamb with the Last Supper, they all have one overwhelming thing in common: they were full meals, replete with both food and drink. Food and drink were being consumed by God’s people in celebration both of him, and what he had done for them. And we have already noted in regards to various other things that when you mess around with what Scripture teaches about church practice then what you end up with is not just something different, but the opposite. In the New Testament the Lord’s Supper – or love feast, or breaking bread, call it what you will – was a church meal, eaten by believers with glad hearts in celebration, praise and worship of the presence of the Lord amongst them. What, though, thanks to the Early Church Fathers, have most churches ended up with instead? What do most believers experience in this regard in contrast to what scripture shows was the experience of the early church? A ritual performed in isolationist solemnity with closed eyes which, for the duration, cuts you off from relating to those around you; the atmosphere of which, in complete contrast to celebrating the Lord’s death and looking expectantly forward to his return, is actually more like attending his funeral. Not only does it miss the point entirely, it misses it by an extremely large margin.

Once More -The Experts

Precisely because I really don’t want the reader to think that this is all merely my own personal opinion, I will end this chapter by letting the experts have the last word.

Canon Leon Morris, Principal of Ridley College, Melbourne:

This verse (1 Corinthians 11 v 21) reveals that at Corinth the Holy Communion was not simply a token meal as with us, but an actual meal. Moreover it seems clear that it was a meal to which each of the participants brought food.[199]

Donald Guthrie, former Vice-Principal of the London Bible College:

In the early days the Lord’s Supper took place in the course of a communal meal. All brought what food they could and it was shared together.[200]

I.Howard Marshall, formerly Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Aberdeen:

[The Lord’s Supper]...was observed by His disciples, at first as part of a communal meal, Sunday by Sunday.[201]

Dr John Drane, lecturer in practical theology at Aberdeen University, adjunct Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, California, and visiting Professor at Morling College, Sydney.:

Jesus instituted this common meal at Passover time, at the last supper shared with His disciples before His death...the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death of Jesus, and it looks forward to the time when He will come back again. Throughout the New Testament period the Lord’s Supper was an actual meal shared in the homes of Christians. It was only much later that the Lord’s Supper was moved to a special building and Christian prayers and praises that had developed from the synagogue services and other sources were added to create a grand ceremony.[202]

Chapter 16

The Heart of the Matter

A Perfect Church?

It should be abundantly clear by now that this book is not about having a ‘perfect’ church. I am fully aware that, firstly, there are not, and never have been, any churches which are perfect; and secondly, should there be any, then my becoming part of it would render it perfect no more. No! This is not about ‘perfect’ churches. It is rather about something as attainable as any other aspect of obedience to scripture, and that is bringing biblical churches into being.

Problems, Problems, Problems!

But neither is it about advocating churches without problems. That would be as ridiculous as any notion of having ‘perfect’ ones. In a sinful world, and given that churches both exist in that world and are precisely comprised of redeemed sinners, problems are actually one of the things you can positively count on. So no, it’s not about being problem-free either! In fact, as someone who has practised church life as advocated in this book for three decades, the author can testify with some conviction that, as part of such a church, you will very possibly have more problems than you would in an unbiblical one. Yet what you can be assured of is that you will at least then be experiencing the problems you are meant to have, and which result from being true to scripture, rather than, as with unbiblical churches, having to give such considerable time and effort to dealing with problems and difficulties that arise precisely because of not being biblical; problems and difficulties which are, therefore, actually entirely unnecessary and completely avoidable. Just imagine never again having to give the slightest thought, or money, to buildings and infra-structure. Consider never having to give time or effort to the process of choosing your next Minister or Pastor, or giving thought to how much the church is going to have to pay him. Revel with me in the sheer delight and freedom of not having to bother with keeping up with what the ‘big cheeses’ higher up the church hierarchy are getting up to, or what they are expecting of you. Savour too the joy of being able to put family life first, and of being part of a church setup which positively encourages and enables the families in it to do just that.

The problems which do emerge though, and emerge they will, are those of significant ongoing relationships. How we love and serve one another, and how we grow in the Lord together! But of course those are the precisely the problems we are meant to have. They are the ones which sanctify us, which bring us into that ‘death to self’ we so desperately need to experience. They bring us to our knees, and therefore more and more in line with the teaching of scripture, and the knowledge and experience of Jesus living his life in and through us. It is hard; yes! And sometimes it is harder than you think you are able to bear; but it is life! It is real life and it is real discipleship! Through it we are able to share the sufferings of Jesus, become like him in His death and resurrection and, as a result, grow in grace, love and truth.[203]

The Not Very Nice Biblical Churches

There is another misapprehension that needs to be addressed here, and it is any idea that I am contending that if only we get church structure right, if only we set up churches which function and operate according to the blueprint found in the New Testament, then all will be well. However, not only am I not contending that, I do not in any way believe it to be the case. It is perfectly possible for a group of believers to get together and form a church which observes the structure this book outlines down to the smallest detail. They could meet in absolute accordance with the format I am arguing for and they could go through the checklist and tick each box in my ‘irreducible minimum’ chapter, and then some. Yet they could nevertheless be cold, unloving, and virtually without anything of the grace and power of the Lord amongst them. Indeed, they could constitute quite the most unpleasant church on the face of the earth.

The issue, ultimately, is not that of just getting structure and format right at all. It is much deeper and far more profound than that. It is understanding that the structure and format is only as it is in scripture in order to enable and encourage something else entirely; the sharing of the life of Jesus together. Although the Lord used the picture in a slightly different context, we are nevertheless talking about the difference between wine and wineskins.[204] It is not the wineskin which ultimately matters, but the wine which it contains. Yet if the wineskin is not the right sort, then as Jesus taught, the wine will escape and you are left with nothing but an empty wineskin. And whereas it is certainly the case that you could have a wineskin of the right shape and size, but with little or no actual wine in it, representing a spiritually dead and, therefore, useless and unpleasant biblical church; nevertheless, having an unbiblical church which is alive in the Lord – though obviously much better than having a dead biblical one – is still an ultimate compromise because it can just never fully experience what the Lord wants for it; or rather, for those individual believers who together comprise it. Precisely because it is an ultimately passive experience for the vast majority of believers in it, an unbiblical church can never fully hold the wine of the life of Jesus in the way an alive, biblical one can. The wine is what really matters and not the wineskin. Absolutely! Yet if the wineskin is wrong, then our experience of the wine will always be severely compromised and limited.

Hand in Glove

Think of it like hands and gloves. If we liken a church to a glove, then Jesus is the hand that goes inside it. Without the hand inside it is, of course, a dead thing; but when the hand is in it there is both life and movement. The glove then truly becomes that which the hand lives and moves through. The issue then arises concerning the design of the glove. What, exactly, should it look like? What shape should it be? And of course the answer is that it should be the appropriate and correct shape for a hand to fit into it. The more correct and appropriate the shape of the glove, the more freedom of movement afforded to the hand inside the glove.

Unbiblical churches, because they are not based on the design and blueprint found in the New Testament, are like a glove that has, for example, two fingers and one thumb. Or maybe eight fingers and three thumbs. Whereas the hand can get in the glove, nevertheless, because the glove is the wrong shape for the hand to fit into properly, the movement of the hand inside the glove is compromised in varying and major ways. The life coming from the hand is truly there, but heavily restricted in what it can do.

So what about biblical churches in this regard then? Well, what we can say with absolute certainly is that they are, at the very least, the right ‘shape’. They are the perfect design for the life that wants to fit inside them. Remaining with our picture we can say that they do indeed have the requisite four fingers and one thumb, and the hand can therefore fit inside with very little problem. However, even this is not sufficient on its own, and the reason I am making clear that you can have a spiritually lifeless and completely unappealing biblical church. Vital though it is to have the correct structure and format of church life, it is not of itself anything like enough. A glove, whilst being completely the correct shape, could nevertheless still be made of silk, or cast iron. It could be correct in ‘shape’ – that is, in structure and format – yet hard, unyielding and immoveable. You could quite easily have a group of believers who gather together on the basis of a mutual and completely correct understanding of what the Bible teaches about church structure and format, but who are, both as individuals and as a corporate church, nevertheless still completely missing the point: and that is the life, power and presence of Jesus lived out amongst them. If we were to take a certain amount of liberty with the well known saying, ‘an iron fist in a velvet glove’ then we might say that such a church, though fully biblical in its structure and format, would nevertheless be the equivalent of the velvet touch of the hand of the life of Jesus being pretty much completely constricted inside a hard, harsh and unyielding glove made of iron.

So let it be properly understood just what is, and is not, being said in this regard. If someone asked me what is best, a loving and spiritually alive unbiblical church, or a harsh, unloving, legalistically driven biblical one, I would unhesitatingly reply that it is the former.[205] Yet that thinking is, ultimately, a false dichotomy. Why be limited to merely choosing between two such things when we can simply look to the Lord to enable us to form into loving, spiritually alive biblical churches? You might as well ask me whether I think you would do best to marry an unbeliever who is brilliant with children, or a believer who is not and who can’t stand them. My reply would be simple: Why not just trust the Lord and go all out for a spouse who loves the Lord and children too?

Chapter 17

What the Experts Say

However gung-ho and excited I am about the prospect of seeing more and more biblical churches come into being, the very last thing I would actually want is for anyone to read this book and end up doing something just because I said so. Equally, neither do I want people to read this book and then reject what it says just because I haven’t done a particularly good job at saying it. I must therefore, yet again, emphasize just how important it is for the reader to realize that these things, as radical and controversial as they are, are not merely my own personal opinion, or the result of my own particular, or peculiar, interpretation of the Bible. What my ‘irreducible minimum for a biblical church’ basically does is merely to describe what the churches we see in the New Testament were actually like, and then contend that churches today should be just the same. And that description, far from constituting my own particular brand of understanding, is what the scholars, the real Bible experts, are virtually unanimous about. I am therefore handing this entire chapter over to their scholarly good graces, biblical knowledge and exegetical and hermeneutical wisdom.

Non-Hierarchical Indigenous Eldership

A.M.Renwick:

When we come to consider the permanent officers of the Church we find that in the days of the Apostles elders and deacons were appointed and their duties defined. The office of elder is variously described in the New Testament as bishop, pastor, teacher, preacher, minister and steward. The various terms mentioned referred to the same officer, but each presented a different aspect of their work. Thus ‘pastor’ indicated their duty to ‘shepherd the flock’ of Christ. Bishop, a word used to translate the Greek ‘episkopos’, indicated that as ‘overseers’ they had to ‘feed the Church of God’ (Acts 20) That the ‘presbuteros’ and ‘episkopos’(elder and bishop) were the same is shown by many facts...Furthermore, the qualifications for bishop and elder were the same. Scarcely any scholar today would dispute the words of the late Dr J. B. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, and an undoubted authority: ‘It is a fact now generally recognised by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same Officer in the Church is called indifferently bishop, and elder or presbyter.’[206]

Donald Guthrie:

The churches were living organisms rather than organizations…When decisions were made, they were made by the whole company of believers, not simple the officials.[207]

He continues:

It was Paul’s practice to appoint several elders (the same thing as bishops) to take charge of each church.[208]

W.E.Vine, under the heading for Bishop in his dictionary, informs us:

Lit: an overseer. Note: Presbuteros, an elder, is another term for the same person as bishop or overseer.[209]

Later, under the heading for Pastor, he writes:

...this was the service committed to elders (overseers or bishops).[210]

He continues:

The New Testament knows nothing of a sacerdotal (priestly) class in contrast to the laity.[211]

Dr John Drane:

It is important to realise that the movement towards a more authoritarian church hierarchy originated in the fight against unacceptable beliefs. At a time when Gnostics were claiming a special authority because of their alleged endowment with the Spirit, it was important for the mainstream church to have its own clear source of power. It was of little practical use for the church's leaders to claim – even if it may have been true – that they, rather than their opponents were truly inspired by the Spirit. They needed something more than that, and they found it in the apostles. In the earliest period supreme authority had rested with them. So, they reasoned, anyone with recognised authority in the church must be succeeding to the position held by the apostles. They were the Apostles’ successors, and could trace their office back in a clear line of descent from the very earliest times. They stood in an apostolic succession.[212]

He elsewhere observes:

Instead of the community of the Spirit that it had originally been, the Church came to be seen as a vast organisation. Instead of relying on the Spirit's direct guidance it was controlled by an hierarchy of ordained men, following strict rules and regulations which covered every conceivable aspect of belief and behaviour (cf. the Oral Law) and when the Spirit featured in this scheme it was taken for granted that what the leaders decided was what the Spirit was saying. By the middle of the 2nd Century the change was complete. At the beginning the only qualification for membership of the Church had been a life changed by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, at the start there had been no concept of church ‘membership’ at all...But by the end of the 1st Century things were rather different. Now the key to membership of the Church was not found in inspiration by the Spirit, but in acceptance of ecclesiastical dogma and discipline. And to make sure that all new members had a good grasp of what that meant, baptism itself was no longer the spontaneous expression of faith in Jesus as it had originally been. Now it was the culmination of a more or less extended period of formal instruction and teaching about the Christian faith. And in all this we can see how the life of the Spirit was gradually squeezed out of the Body of Christ, to be replaced as the church's driving force by the more predictable if less exciting movement of organised ecclesiastical machinery.[213]

William MacDonald:

Elders in the New Testament sense are mature Christian men of sterling character who provide spiritual leadership in a local assembly…..The Greek word episkopos, translated ‘bishop,’ ‘overseer’ or ‘guardian,’ is also used in reference to elders, describing their function as undershepherds of God’s flock. The names ‘elders’ and ‘bishops’ are generally understood to refer to the same persons…

...In modern usage, ‘bishop’ has come to mean a prelate who supervises a diocese or a group of churches in a district. But the word never means this in the NT. The scriptural pattern is to have several bishops in one church rather than one bishop over several churches. Nor should an elder be confused with the modern pastor, who is primarily responsible for preaching, teaching and administering the sacraments in a local church. It is generally acknowledged that there was no such person in the early church…

The primitive assemblies were composed of saints, bishops, and deacons (Phil. 1:1) – that is all. The clerical system did not arise until the second century…... It is clear that in the early church, elders were appointed by the apostles and their representatives (Acts 14:23; Tit:1:5). This does not mean, however, that the apostles and their delegates had the power to make a man an elder. In order to become a bishop, there must be both divine enablement and human willingness. Only the Holy Spirit can make a man a bishop or guardian (Acts 20:28)…

…It is not a question of our electing them but of recognizing those whom God has raised up for this work.[214]

Meeting in Homes

Dr Colin J.Hemer:

The earliest Christians had no special buildings, but met in private houses, as mentioned in several places in the New Testament.[215]

Dr Henry R.Sefton:

Worship in the house-church had been of an intimate kind in which all present had taken an active part...(this) changed from being ‘a corporate action of the whole church’ into ‘a service said by the clergy to which the laity listened.’[216]

Open Participatory Gatherings

Dr John Drane:

In the earliest days...their worship was spontaneous. This seems to have been regarded as the ideal, for when Paul describes how a church meeting should proceed he depicts a Spirit-led participation by many, if not all...There was the fact that anyone had the freedom to participate in such worship. In the ideal situation, when everyone was inspired by the Holy Spirit, this was the perfect expression of Christian freedom.[217]

A.M.Renwick:

The very essence of church organisation and Christian life and worship...was simplicity...Their worship was free and spontaneous under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and had not yet become inflexible through the use of manuals of devotion.[218] (That is, liturgy and being led from the front.)

Dr Henry R.Sefton:

Worship in the house-church had been of an intimate kind in which all present had taken an active part...(this) changed from being ‘a corporate action of the whole church’ into ‘a service said by the clergy to which the laity listened.’ [219]

The Lord’s Supper as a Full Meal

Canon Leon Morris:

This verse (1 Corinthians 11 v 21) reveals that at Corinth the Holy Communion was not simply a token meal as with us, but an actual meal. Moreover it seems clear that it was a meal to which each of the participants brought food.[220]

Donald Guthrie:

In the early days the Lord’s Supper took place in the course of a communal meal. All brought what food they could and it was shared together.[221]

I.Howard Marshall:

(The Lord’s Supper)...was observed by His disciples, at first as part of a communal meal, Sunday by Sunday.[222]

Dr John Drane:

Jesus instituted this common meal at Passover time, at the last supper shared with His disciples before His death...the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death of Jesus, and it looks forward to the time when He will come back again. Throughout the New Testament period the Lord’s Supper was an actual meal shared in the homes of Christians. It was only much later that the Lord’s Supper was moved to a special building and Christian prayers and praises that had developed from the synagogue services and other sources were added to create a grand ceremony.[223]

PART THREE: GETTING STARTED

Chapter 18

Where Do You Go From Here?

It would not be particularly helpful if this book just left all this at the merely theoretical. If anyone is persuaded about what I am advocating, they will need at least a bit of pointing in the right direction regarding actually starting a biblical church. There is obviously scope for another entire book here, but my aim is to keep things as brief as possible and just throw out some pointers rather than to provide an exhaustive treatment. So, if you are convinced of the need to be part of a biblical church, then what do you do next?

The Correct Way to Leave an Existing Church

For any readers who are already part of an existing church – though an increasing number of believers nowadays are not – an important factor is to transition away on the very best terms possible. Starting a new church is not intended to cause either division or the breaking of fellowship with others. Virtually all believers accept the valid presence of other churches besides their own, and all we are ultimately proposing is the starting of new ones, albeit of a different kind. Leaving an existing church in order to start a biblical one should be no different to the situation whereby someone transfers from, for instance, the local Baptist church to the local Methodist church. There is no need for controversy or unpleasantness on anyone’s part, and especially yours. You should make it clear that you still consider yourself to be in fellowship with those you are leaving behind, and that you intend to maintain friendships and to visit and see them from time to time. Do everything in your power to ensure that everyone is absolutely clear in their mind that you are not in any way suggesting – or even vaguely implying - that they are less spiritual than you, or that they love the Lord any less just because they retain a different understanding of church life to the one you now have.

Further, starting biblical churches should never just be out of a negative reaction to other churches that already exist, but should rather be a purely positive decision to simply embrace something in scripture of which one had been previously unaware. Be extremely careful, therefore, that you don’t behave in any way such as could cause any reasonable person to conclude that you are merely some rebellious malcontent acting out of a negative attitude towards the last church you attended. Rather, be someone who is genuinely excited about being part of something more in keeping with their new found understanding of a particular aspect of scripture, but who is showing great willingness to do all that they can in order to maintain fellowship and good relationships with those in the church they are leaving.

So with that said, perhaps it would be useful if I began by describing how the church which my family and I are part of started. I am not, of course, thereby implying that all churches should start in the same way, but it occurs to me that it might be helpful to the reader and maybe at least provide some sort of starting point.

Genesis of a Biblical Church

At the time of writing the church we are part of is just over twenty years old. A good friend of mine had been hosting weekly Bible study and worship gatherings in his home on Tuesday evenings for some years, and those who attended – numbering between thirty and fifty – were either not part of a church, or in churches which were not meeting their spiritual needs or helping them to grow in the Lord. Although living a good distance away I nevertheless taught there regularly over a number of years and had covered, amongst various other biblical topics, what the New Testament teaches about church life, Belinda and I being already part of such a church where we lived in another part of the country. However, events transpired whereby the Lord eventually moved us into the same area as this midweek fellowship, so after a few more months of teaching and prayer, this midweek fellowship started to meet on Sundays and together we all became a church. Although a fairly large number of the regulars at the original midweek fellowship did make it their church, others who believed it was right for them to do so, and with the blessing of all concerned, remained in the churches they were already attending. Then other believers were drawn in from different places along with various unbelievers whom the Lord brought to us and who subsequently came to know him. And so the Chigwell Christian Fellowship got well and truly underway, meeting as a church on Sundays in the same house in which the midweek fellowship it was born out of had been hosted in. [224] The rest, as they say, is history.

Other Ways to Begin

Another possible genesis of a biblical church is simply when two or three families, convicted by what scripture teaches, start meeting together as a church and then just get on with it. Remember, there is nothing ‘official’ about this, something which is not true of unbiblical churches which are, virtually by definition, institutional in both nature and setup. By way of contrast biblical churches are simply little extended families of believers meeting together in order to follow the Lord as a corporate unit. The key here is simply being assured that you are absolutely free in the Lord to actually become a church. The sheer simplicity of God’s blueprint in scripture makes it perfectly viable for those who would never, in a million years, think of themselves as being ‘church planters’ in the usual sense, to be able to start a church. If you can invite people to your home for prayer, worship and sharing together, and organize a meal into the bargain, then you can start a church. I am not thereby trying to imply this is all there is to it – that would be somewhat naive and simplistic – but neither is it rocket science. It is therefore not limited to ‘special’ believers with ‘special ministries.’ A church is simply an extended family of God’s people, and when we remember that then much of the ‘mystique’ just melts away.

For most, the initial hurdle will be whether or not there is anybody else they know who wants to be part of a biblical church. If there are others then the answer is to just launch out together and trust the Lord; but if there are not, then the only option is prayer that the Lord will bring others who are likeminded across your path, and sustain you until he does. In such circumstances it is, of course, best to remain part of an existing church until that time comes. And whereas it is obviously better to be part of a biblical church than an unbiblical one, it is nevertheless still the case that is it better to be part of an unbiblical church than no church at all.[225]

Even if you are on your own and desiring to start a church, and this would apply whether you have family or not, there are certain things you can at least try; assuming that you feel led to do so. The most important ingredient is, of course, prayer. The Lord does things when his people pray that he doesn’t do if they don’t, and even if you do end up with a biblical church, if it isn’t born out of prayer and complete dependence on the Lord, then it will have such a shaky start that it may well not last long. But if you have a deep-down conviction and knowledge that the Lord will do something in his own good time, and that you have only to keep praying and wait, then that is absolutely wonderful. However, you may equally find that, coming out of your praying, is a desire and burden from the Lord to do something further and to actually be positively proactive. If that is the case then there are certain avenues worth exploring.

If, for instance, you are connected to the internet, it is well worth doing some surfing. If you type in ‘house church’ on whatever search engines you know of then you may well be surprised how many results come up. By narrowing it down to your particular country and area you may even find something near you. Alternatively, there are now a number of web-forums and discussion groups specifically dedicated to this subject, and by getting involved in some of them you might find others in your area who are thinking in the same way. You could also consider putting a notice up in a local Christian bookshop, or even the local supermarket, asking for any likeminded believers to get in touch with you. These are obviously merely suggestions pointing at possible places to start, and it is tremendously important to realize that anything you do attempt should come out of time spent seeking the Lord for guidance and wisdom concerning it.

All That Glitters…

We must, however, digress at this point in order to remind ourselves of something we noted earlier. Whereas a biblical church will, by definition, be a house church, the converse is far from being the case. It is a sad fact that there is a great deal of ‘house church’ material on the Christian scene which, far from being a return to the teaching of scripture, is merely a sideways step into house-based versions of just about every false teaching and practice you can imagine. You will therefore have to be extremely cautious in your searching, and test everything both diligently and carefully by scripture in order to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Increasing numbers of believers today are doing a ‘house-based thing’ out of a purely pragmatic mindset, and no more base what they do on scripture than did the churches which they have left. For example, many so-called house churches are just networks of evangelistic cell groups tied to a particular church planter, or organization, where the focus is purely on evangelism and the planting out of ever more such house-based groups. And of course whereas evangelism is an entirely proper and vital pursuit, mistaking it for church life is nevertheless an extremely unhelpful and counter-productive thing to do. House-based churches which fall into this category are rather like families where the parents are so obsessed with having more children that every other aspect of family life gets subjugated to that one desire and ends up being almost completely neglected. Parents who neglect the children they already have, because they are obsessively focused on having even more, are far from being good parents. So with church life, be it house churches or otherwise. In such evangelism-obsessed circumstances people do indeed become Christians, which is wonderful, then get trained up as evangelists, which is super, and then get neglected in virtually every other way and never actually grow in the Lord. And that is downright tragic!

Other house churches are soaked in feminism and therefore part of the tragic downgrading of God’s order for family life so prevalent today even amongst believers. Pandering to the spirit of the age and succumbing to modern notions of political correctness, they destroy the very foundations on which they should be based and on which they should be building. After all, what point is there in seeking to rediscover the extended family aspect of church life whilst at the same time embracing women leadership, hence actively undermining each individual family represented? How perverse to seek a rediscovery of the headship of Jesus over each individual and particular church whilst actively undermining and rejecting the headship of the men in such churches over their wives and children – the very human representation of that divine headship.

Beware too those house churches merely built around would-be leaders who want to be big fish in small ponds. And be especially cautious of house churches which network around specific leaders who claim that they alone are planting the genuine article, and who want to lock you up to themselves to the detriment of fellowship with believers outside of their influence and particular set-up. Such is forever the mark of dangerous and demonic sectarianism and should, if you want to avoid serious problems in your life, be avoided at all costs. Anything that discourages wide fellowship with other believers, irrespective of differences in church allegiance or general doctrinal understandings, is to be considered as suspect. You have been duly warned! Indeed, it is a minefield out there, and in any search for existing biblical churches you need to be wary as to how you proceed.

Another type of house-based church which is increasingly entering the mix now is what I have come to refer to as ‘church without definition’; meaning that, and sometimes quite literally too, almost anything goes. Such churches have virtually no structure at all, and nothing very definite is either believed or practiced in any recognizable form. It’s a sort of undefined, free-wheeling, casual, ‘as the Lord leads’ type of approach in which nothing is either based on, or tested by, scripture, because the only seeming reason for anything happening at all is a subjective notion that the Holy Spirit has led those present to do it. Churches like this are often intensely ‘touchy-feely’, with focus on peoples’ emotions or subjective psychological state often being mistaken for the moving of the Holy Spirit. They are intensely subjective and insular, more like mutual therapy groups, in fact, and have little to do with the teaching of the Bible. And of course there are numerous other types of unbiblical house churches with agendas too numerous to list.

All that glitters is not gold, and all that is house church is not necessarily biblical church. If you are on your own and without the prospect of others joining you, and believe it to be the Lord’s will that you go looking, then do at least bear these warnings in mind. Don’t be so fearful or wary that you end up not daring to do anything at all - that would be ridiculous - but do at least proceed with caution and ensure that you carefully test everything you come across according to scripture. And should you find something you think is hopeful, then don’t be afraid to ask all the questions you want to of those concerned in order to ensure that there isn’t any ‘small print’ which is not obvious from the outset. People who have nothing to hide have no objection to being quizzed about every aspect of what they are about; and you would be wise to be very much on your guard should you ever sense that you are coming up against evasiveness of any kind.

In the next chapter we will look at the way forward for those who do have others with whom to start meeting as a church.

Chapter 19

Starting a Church

Assuming you do have others with whom to meet, then what do you do next? It may be a case of there being more than one family coming together, or a family plus one or more single people, or even just two or three single people and no families at all. Regardless of the mix, though, how does the rubber actually hit the road and how do you actually get started? My answer is as unhesitating as it is simple: just get together on the next available Sunday in one of your homes, worship the Lord together and build each another up in him through mutual sharing, teaching and exhorting - and eat the Lord’s Supper together. Then, having done it one Sunday, purpose to do the same every Sunday from then on. As surely as any other church that has ever existed has been a church, then so will you then be as well. Because of two incredible things it really is that simple! Firstly, the Lord Jesus is in your midst authorizing you to be a church; and secondly, you can know such to be the case precisely because it is what His Word, the Bible, teaches.

Prayer Comes First

Spend time together in prayer asking the Lord to cause you all to grow in him, both as individuals and together as a church. Get into scripture and read about what the New Testament churches were like and then purpose to become more and more like them, and therefore as the Lord wants. Read 1 Corinthians 10 - 14 and both understand and put into practice what it teaches about everyone sharing something in order to build everyone else up. Make it as easy as you can for the quieter ones to feel at ease about taking part, and help the noisy ones not to take over by doing all the talking and praying. Ensure too that, when it comes to gender differences between the men and women, nothing is done that would undermine God’s order for family, or which put the men in the back seat and the women at the steering wheel. The Lord will, of course, speak through the sisters present, and the author is constrained by scripture that it is far from being the case that the men-folk have a monopoly on that aspect of things. However, be diligent to take whatever pains necessary to ensure that this never causes the dreadful imbalance, all too common in churches today, of dominant women and spiritually passive backseat-type men.

Take It Slowly

Over a period of time, and do make it a fairly long one, earn your right to speak into each others’ lives. Don’t presume too quickly to start correcting one another – though in due time that will enter into the scheme of things – but demonstrate your love for one another by showing a willingness to learn from others and to serve them in whatever way you can. Share with each other the different understandings you have of varying aspects of God’s Word; but instead of just trying to persuade each other as to who is ultimately right or wrong, rather benefit from the process of learning to see what the bigger biblical picture is by considering other viewpoints, until changes start to occur in your own understanding. In time you will look back not only on things which you still conclude you were correct about, but also on things where you now realize your understanding was incomplete, and precisely because it lacked the perspective that someone else has now given you. In such a scenario then, had you had started out just wanting to show others where you thought they were wrong, you would never have seen in the Bible what you see now. It is, ultimately, a question of attitude. In order to truly grow in the Lord we must embrace and practice both humility, and an ever-increasing willingness to listen to and learn from what others in the church – meaning everyone – are saying and sharing.

Bear in mind as well that there are many Bible teaching resources you can draw upon, the author’s included, and that it really doesn’t matter that you (probably) do not have an anointed Bible teacher in your midst. You can still all teach one another, and the men-folk can take it in turn to prepare Bible studies to lead when you meet for such purpose other than on a Sunday. The beauty is that you will all learn more of scripture in the course of your personal reading and seeking for things to share with the church, than you would ever have learned by just passively listening to preachers. In fact, you will grow precisely because you are now giving to others with your ongoing contributions, thereby edifying them, whether by sharing a teaching from scripture, bringing public prayer, or singing spiritual songs. In whatever way the Lord uses you personally, you will discover that it is indeed better to give than to receive. Indeed, the only way to truly grow spiritually is to precisely forget about yourself, and what you think you need from others, and to occupy yourself with how to be a blessing, in whatever way, to them.

In For the Long Haul

When you start to hit what seem to be insurmountable problems as a church, and you most certainly will, be sure to remember that it is such that the Lord uses to cause us to grow spiritually in ways we wouldn’t otherwise. We have already noted that biblical church life doesn’t mean fewer problems, but will most probably mean more. However, the point is that you now have the problems you are meant to be having as a church; the problems of deep, personal and abiding relationships with others in the same little extended family of God. This is what sanctifies us and what leads to understandings such as the realization that the real problem is not, for example, that other people are irritating, but rather that I am too irritable. It is the realization that the problem is not just other people’s sin, but primarily my own!

When the honeymoon is over and the novelty of being a biblical church together starts to wear off – and believe me, it will – then the real work of the Holy Spirit in us begins. But what a joy to know that, no matter how hard it gets at times, it’s what the Lord is using to have his way in our lives and to cause us to be the people he wants us to be. When, for instance, the gatherings seem dry and woody, or when relationship problems rear their heads, then bear in mind that such difficulties are the Lord’s hammer and chisel designed to shape us according to how he wants us to be. So whatever you do, keep going and don’t quit. That is what matters more than anything else; commitment and sticking at it. You don’t walk out on your husband, or wife, and children just because family life gets tough - and it’s no different with the extended family of the church of which you are a part.

So, I really do encourage you to step out and just trust the Lord by actually doing what scripture teaches concerning church life. There are, of course, no ultimate guarantees that if you do start up together as a church you will definitely stay the course and thrive. Things can, and do, go wrong, and if such situations are not handled correctly then explosions occur such as can actually put paid to a church’s life. However, it is not inevitable that such should be the case, and the more determined all involved are to stay the course, and to be faithful to the Lord and his Word, the more likely you are to come through and be strengthened together because of what you have been through. Twenty plus years down the road with the church I am a part of I can honestly say that we have been through some pretty bleak and difficult times. We have lost people, and sometimes in the most unbelievably sad and heartbreaking of circumstances too, yet have then seen others come in to replace them. Even those of us who have virtually been around since the beginning have had our moments as well, and some of us have butted heads together quite severely at times. But we have pulled through precisely because we have stuck at it through the years, and have apologized to each other when it’s been needful for us to be thus willing to humble ourselves. It hasn’t been easy. Oh no, it has most certainly not been easy; but it’s been worth it because it has led us to a greater maturity together in the Lord.

Don’t Try to Run Before You Walk

Remember too that there are things which don’t much matter in the early days but which you will grow into as a church in years to come. Don’t, for instance, get concerned about the issue of elders. It may be a long time before you are at the point where they become necessary; and especially if numbers are small and you are just two or three families. However, when you find yourselves getting larger, with maybe twenty adults or more, then it would be wise to start seeking the Lord about it. But the important thing is to understand that, as a family, a biblical church will grow and develop over the years and therefore not be the same at its beginning as it eventually becomes. So don’t run ahead of yourselves and try to be all at once what you will only properly become much later on. And if you ever do come across the teaching that a church is only valid if it has elders, then just relax and put the notion to one side, and take time to remind yourselves that no rose ever had reason to regret that it was once a bud.

Likewise, it may take a good while before the sharing and worship aspect of your church gathering really takes shape. If you have mostly quiet and hesitant people then you probably won’t initially be overwhelmed by an overdose of contributions. There might be one person – in which case do ensure it is one of the brothers – who is more able to vocalize and share than the others, in which case let him not be too fearful, in the early days at least, of doing what might seem later on to be somewhat too much for one person. As long as he is using his leadership ability to prepare the rest to eventually come out of their shells, then all will still be well. It is only when you have someone who doesn’t want to let others function that warning bells should start to sound. Let such a one feel free, for instance, to actually ask during the gathering if anyone has something they might like to share, or if they have a prayer request others can join in with. Again, ensure it is a brother who does this, but where necessary and useful it is absolutely fine for someone to thus act as a catalyst in order to help others step forward and learn how to let the Lord move through them as well.

Start with the small steps, whatever they might best be for your particular situation, and be happy to just shuffle along in the Lord. Running at speed, so to speak, can come later on when muscles are better trained and the ‘body’ is more mature. As long as any brother who is thus acting as a facilitator and catalyst for others doesn’t turn into “The Minister”, or the church ‘big cheese’, then there is nothing to be overly concerned about. When mistakes are made, and they most certainly will be, just cover them over with love and remind each other that making mistakes is actually one of the very best ways to learn things. In other words, create an atmosphere of loving acceptance that will make your gatherings feel like the safest place on earth - even for the most fearful person around!

More than anything else though, just trust the Lord! He is with you when you so gather and the Holy Spirit will lead you even when you are hardly even aware of his presence. Pray together, sing praise to the Lord, encourage one another and build each other up in your most holy faith. Even when the worship and sharing time has not been a great success, the love feast hardly ever fails. It blesses the Lord every time because we are eating and drinking as unto him and reminding him that one day he is going to come back for us and establish his kingdom on earth. The jollity, mutual fellowship and camaraderie that so naturally accompany a meal shared together by friends – the extended church family, in fact – enrich our time together and build us up, even if nothing else of that particular gathering has. You will likely go home feeling blessed in the Lord just because you were there, and that is wonderful. Chalk up yet another successful and blessed church gathering!

Just Do It

Remember, church is hanging out with other ‘family’ who are following Jesus as best they can just like you are. It is talking, laughing, praying, singing, eating and drinking together, and knowing that Jesus is there being blessed by us. Forget church services; put institutional ways of doing things and ‘formal’ approaches out of your mind. This is biblical church we are talking about! It is life! It is life together in the power and presence of Jesus in our midst through his Holy Spirit.

If, for the time being, you have no one else to join with, then you must go to prayer in order to establish your next step, even if that next step turns out to be just continuing to wait upon the Lord regarding it. However, if you do have others who are so minded, and who are willing to step out in faith, then you may indeed, though very prayerfully, form together and start a biblical church. You already have everything you need in order to do so: the Lord Himself, and the scriptures to guide you concerning everything he desires for you. So meet next Sunday, trust the Lord - and just do it! Precisely because I have done it myself I can assure you that such a prospect is extremely exciting and an immense blessing!

Chapter 20

Making Church Gatherings Work

Burning Rubber

As with the last chapter the next couple of ones will continue to produce the screeching of car tires and the smell of the burning black stuff as we ensure that the rubber really does keep hitting the road. We are dealing with the practicalities of making the Lord’s Day gatherings proceed as they should, and it might be useful if at this point I describe the average Sunday meeting of the church that my family and I are part of. I do not thereby mean to imply that the way we do things should be just slavishly copied, but it might at least be helpful.

It’s Church Jim, but not as we know it!

When our church first started the general consensus was to meet on Sunday afternoons and have the Lord’s Supper as our evening meal. We could, of course, equally have chosen to meet in the morning and had the Lord’s Supper as lunch; and of course there is complete freedom as to whether a church has the Lord’s Supper before or after the worship and sharing time. However, the luxury of unhurried Sunday mornings won out for us and so we decided to meet at 3pm and to therefore have our worship and sharing time – the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ part of the gathering, as some like to call it – first. We therefore do encourage punctuality in order to ensure that people aren’t arriving after proceedings have commenced, thereby causing a distraction.

We are blessed to have various people who play the guitar and so we don’t have to sing unaccompanied by musical instruments. The musicians do not, however, lead our sung worship, as would a worship group in an unbiblical church, but merely accompany what is transpiring. Sometimes someone will just strike out with a song to the Lord with the musicians doing their best to join in, whilst at other times a song will be requested in which case the musicians will start it off. And of course any of the musicians are free to start a song up as well.

This is what we think of as being the main backdrop to our ‘1 Corinthians 14’ time; sung worship to the Lord. Not that singing is all we do though, but throughout the hour or so (sometimes longer) of our corporate worship and sharing together as a church, our default mode is nevertheless that of quiet and prayerful worship before the Lord. Therefore, whenever there is silence, the mode we are in as individuals is simply that of quietly waiting on the Lord.

As already described, no one leads from the front. We are in the home of whichever family is hosting that particular week, and there is precisely no front to lead from. We all sit around the sides of the room - some on chairs and others on the floor depending upon available space - and everyone can clearly see everyone else’s face. All are free to interject into the silence, whether with sung praise and worship, a prayer, a tongue, an interpretation, a prophecy, a testimony, a request for prayer, a word of encouragement, a word of instruction from the scriptures, or a reading from them: anything, in fact, which would have the effect of encouraging and building up in the Lord those present. This is the foundational underlying principle and rule laid down in scripture for the 1 Corinthians 14 time; “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.”[226] There are times too when, quite naturally, general discussion occurs concerning something that has been contributed, but once there is an obvious and natural end to a contribution and any ensuing discussion, then we revert back to the default dynamic of individual and corporate silent, prayerful and worshipful waiting on the Lord.

After our corporate worship and sharing time has ended the dynamic of the gathering changes. Instead of the backdrop being that of worship, and with only one person contributing at a time with the rest of us listening quietly, the gathering now gives way to the hubbub of multiple conversations and activities as people fellowship together on an individual, as opposed to corporate, basis. This is ‘hang-out’ time – fellowship and social interaction. The highlight of the gathering – eating the Lord’s Supper together – is yet to come, and the atmosphere is that of casual and informal social camaraderie. Theological discussion sometimes occurs among small groups, and may even, though this is much more rare, end up involving everyone, but the default now is that of fellowship together on a much more personal basis than is the corporate worship and sharing time. Anything from fun and games in the garden to individuals vanishing off to pray together about something is the order of the day.

By the time an hour or so has passed the ladies have prepared the food and the meal is ready.[227] The loaf and cup (we use separate small cups but filled from the one bottle) are readied and we join together again as a corporate body in order to focus on what the meal is all about. Usually the husband of the host family leads us in this, and whether simply through prayer, or with the addition of a short teaching as well, he calls to mind what the loaf and cup stand for by way of what the Lord Jesus has done, is doing, and will do for us. When that has been done we sing a worship song together, after which we proceed to eat our church family meal – indeed, the Lord’s Meal[228] – together.

The food is usually served ‘buffet style’ in the kitchen, and so an orderly queue soon forms. Parents get their children’s meals first, and then everyone else is free to dive in. The (broken) bread and grape juice (sometimes wine) are laid out with the rest of the food, and each of us takes a handful from the loaf, along with a cup of the drink, which we then consume with the rest of the meal. More recently some of the men-folk, when it is the turn of their family to host the gathering, have begun every now and then to break the bread and pass it round, with the cup, before we actually eat, as part of the process of us giving thanks and focusing on what they represent. This has been truly excellent, and a variety of different approaches helps to keep our reminders and understanding of the Lord’s Supper new and fresh.

After the meal is finished we consider the gathering to be generally over, but that is not to say that everyone leaves. Those with young children usually leave early evening, but others stay for as long as the host family is happy to have them – sometimes until late into the evening. It’s a good day, and we all certainly know that we’ve been to church. And we are all the more blessed too in knowing that we have precisely gone about it just as the Lord has directed us through his Word.

We need to deal with practical issues a bit more here and so turn to some of the questions people have raised with me over the years which seem to arise whenever believers form into churches such as we are here describing. So let’s start with some ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’.

The Dos…

Do decide in advance what time you are going to meet each week, what order of events you are going to observe, and then stick to it. This will help everyone involved to really be clear about the structure of the gathering and to be in the right state of mind (whether waiting on the Lord or social fellowship with others) at the right time.

Do have a definite starting time for the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ worship and sharing part of your time together. Make sure everyone is aware that it is about to start so that they can ensure they are in an attitude of quiet worship before the Lord.

Do realize that the backdrop to this part of the gathering is worship and waiting on the Lord.

Do be brave enough to get things going and to start it off (with a song, prayer etc) if there is merely an awkward silence. Conversely, be brave enough as well to bring the proceedings to a definite close at the appropriate time so that people know they can now move into a social fellowship dynamic.

Do prepare contributions in advance. The biblical format of all present being free to contribute one at a time is, of course, absolutely perfect for spontaneous contributions as directly inspired by the Spirit on the spur of the moment. However, there is absolutely nothing unspiritual about preparing something in advance, whether it be a short teaching, a testimony of something the Lord has done for you or shown you during the previous week, or even just determining in advance to pray a particular prayer or to read a particular Bible passage. Indeed, all experience shows that the more faithful we are in preparing something in advance, the more likely we are to then be open to being led by the Spirit in more immediate and spontaneous ways.

…and the Don’ts!

Don’t let the 1 Corinthians 14 time become too discussion-oriented. Whereas it is absolutely valid for general discussion to arise from something that is shared, it is nevertheless important to keep such discussion brief and to the immediate point. This is where understanding that the backdrop to that particular part of the gathering is that of worship and waiting on the Lord is so important. Otherwise you will end up drifting off all over the place and lose the immediate focus before you. It is all too easy to start discussing something and then go off at tangents until all you have done is talk together to the exclusion of prayer, worship, Bible reading, and whatever else could have usefully transpired. Remember, the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ time is worship to the Lord, and for the purpose of edifying each other. It should not turn into a general discussion group. I repeat, every now and then a discussion may indeed emerge that is at the Lord’s leading and which is legitimate for that occasion, but if it happens too much then the all important focus on him will fade.

Don’t let your Sundays become the arena for too much doctrinal debate. And, as already stated, definitely not during the worship and sharing time! The rule laid down in the New Testament is strictly that everything should be for the spiritual edification of all present, and there are many believers for whom listening to yet another debate about Calvin’s fifth point, or going over the finer details of the order of events leading up to the Second Coming yet again is far from helpful. Indeed, I have been in biblical churches where it has been like sitting in a lecture hall in a Theological Seminary listening to conversations filled with concepts and terminology I couldn’t even spell, let alone understand. Whatever is shared in the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ time must be at a level whereby all present, including older children (not infants or toddlers though, obviously), can comprehend and therefore be blessed and built up. The notion shared by some believers that being meaningful and significant equates to being intellectually and theologically high-brow is way off the mark. I read once of a well-known theologian who was asked in an interview what the most profound theological and philosophical truth he had ever come across was. His answer rings in my heart to this day and is one of the best examples of the sort of things we need to be sharing together in a biblical church gathering that I have ever come across. He simply answered, “Jesus loves me! This I know for the Bible tells me so!” If that isn’t deep enough for you then it’s more likely that you need to be part of an ivory tower-type debating society somewhere and not a church at all. I am not saying that there is no room at all for such debates to occur from time to time during the social part of the proceedings, but they should certainly not happen during the worship and sharing time. They are just too rarefied, and they have the effect of disenfranchising people from what is going on rather than building them up in the Lord. As we have said elsewhere, a church should have midweek Bible Study, and such debate can find an occasional place there. Further, for those in a church who do like to get into complicated doctrinal debate, there is nothing to prevent them getting together and doing so on their own anytime they choose.

Don’t let the gathering turn into a therapy session for people with the kind of problems that never seem to go away. I don’t by this mean that there is never a time to ‘mourn with those who mourn.’[229] Indeed, in the very context of the Lord’s Day gathering of a church Paul also wrote, “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it.”[230] No, I am not talking about the legitimate gathering around someone in the church who is in great sadness or experiencing severe difficulties and testing. I am rather talking about those believers whose problem is that they are completely obsessed with themselves, and whose apparent hobby is talking about their perceived problems as if they alone have them. If individual counsel is needed then so be it, but whatever you do, don’t end up with your gatherings being dominated, week after week, by the one or two weaker brothers or sisters who focus on themselves the whole time. It is not edifying for all present, and neither is it helpful to those who end up thus being the centre of attention all the time. Such goes completely against the blueprint for a Sunday church gathering that we have seen in the New Testament and is to be avoided at all costs. Indeed, in the church of which I am a part we have had occasion, though thankfully not too often, to actually inform certain individuals that we would no longer enter into any discussion with them about anything that pertained to themselves and their personal problems. It sounds harsh, I know, but one needs to understand that such people are actually addicted to talking about themselves, and it gets to the point where we need to realize that by letting them hold our attention the whole time, we are doing the equivalent of filling a heroin addicts’ syringe. We are then aiding them in their problem rather than actively helping them to overcome it in the Lord.

You are, of course, going to have to make some allowances for these ‘difficult’ brothers and sisters, and indulge them somewhat more than you would others, but it must not be at the expense of rendering the Lord’s Day gathering something other than it should be. Most people like this are not in any way consciously trying to dominate the proceedings, but if the effect is that they do end up dominating then you must ensure that it doesn’t continue. Extra care and attention can, after all, be provided for them by individuals in the church outside of the Sundays when it isn’t at everyone else’s expense; but even then it is much better to just integrate them into day to day life when you are with them than to be constantly talking and praying with them about their problems. Remember, their main problem is precisely one of self-obsession, and it is much more helpful to just have them join in with whatever you are doing rather than to allow everything to revolve around them and their perceived needs. If love doesn’t know when to thus be tough in order to really help someone, then it’s not actually the love described for us in God’s Word at all.

Don’t let anyone use the open format of the worship and sharing time to just push their pet doctrines and burdens onto everyone else. Some believers will, if not prevented, abuse the freedom that biblical church life gives to everyone to take part, and instead turn it into their own personal freedom at the cost of everyone else’s. They will use the liberty they perceive they now have in order to precisely deny other people theirs. Be as tough as is necessary with such people and realize that such abuse of the freedom scripture gives will eventually destroy any church that doesn’t deal directly and definitely with it. Such people need to be taught to approach church life asking how they can best serve, bless and learn from others, and not to just expect others to be merely an audience whom they can teach out of the abundance of what they perceive to be their biblical wisdom and knowledge. We have at times, as a church, had to put our foot down about this as well, and people have indeed been corrected along such lines. Be aware too that there are yet others who have a hammer in each hand and to whom everything looks like a nail. This type of person may well share things which are valid in themselves, but they do so in such a manner that it would appear from the sheer intensity with which they do it that the very future of God’s plan depends on everyone present seeing everything just the way they do. Whether it be a doctrinal issue, such as someone who is, for instance, a rabid Calvinist or an obsessed Arminian; or one of practice, such as someone who just cannot bring themselves to accept that anyone could still watch Star Trek on television and still love and serve the Lord,[231] such people need to be shown that they are accountable to the Lord for their own lives and should not seek to hold others to account regarding their consciences.

Don’t feel you must keep people in the church at all costs. Scripture warns against believers who are divisive and contentious, and they will destroy a church if not properly dealt with.[232] I don’t mean by this that you should get heavy with everyone who gets a bit argumentative every now and then, but who then put things right and try to change. But you must nevertheless be aware that there are believers around who have non-negotiable agendas with which they will keep dominating the proceedings if they can, and if such a one ends up in your church and behaves in this way then you need to realize that the time has come for the church to collectively say to that person that they either put a stop to their wrong behavior or leave. This would obviously be the case with anyone who was, for example, in unrepentant sexual immorality, or who was thieving or living in drunkenness,[233] but the New Testament is equally clear on the need to also refuse fellowship to believers who are overly contentious and self-opinionated, and who demand that others conform to them, and who refuse to be quiet about their obsessive issues until others come to agreement with them. I know from long and hard personal experience that such isn’t easy, but you have to be brave or you simply won’t have a chance. Satan will try and destroy what you are doing by way of being a biblical church with every weapon at his disposal, and one of the most effective tools he has is simply using Christians with sin in their lives which they aren’t willing to acknowledge and repent of. Include here also anyone using the freedom given to them in the church to teach anything that would come under the category of serious false teaching. Paul wrote to Timothy, “…command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer…”[234] Anything that calls into question things like the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Jesus, salvation by faith alone through the grace of God, the future bodily return of Jesus, or the clear moral commandments of scripture, is to be silenced. Such things are not to be taught or even mentioned in the context of church life, and any with such seriously aberrant views must be willing to agree to never voice them. And if they refuse to be silent, then the church should collectively refuse fellowship with them until such time as they do. When such people turn up, and they most certainly eventually will, you must be ready and able to deal with them.

Don’t let doctrinal disagreements become the main focus of attention, or to become the cause of people falling out with each other. There are various differing understandings that can result from the honest study of scripture which are entirely secondary and non-fundamental issues, and which are not, in any way at all, like the issues mentioned in the above paragraph, and therefore the stuff of heresy. I have already mentioned the Calvinist/Arminian issue, and can report that in the church of which I am a part, there are those of us on both sides of that divide who get on just fine. We talk about it now and then, but are careful to neither let it have too high a profile or to be the cause of friction between us. Other issues in this category would be things such as the order of events leading up to and surrounding the return of Jesus, whether Israel has a future or has been rejected entirely, whether or not the gifts of the Spirit are still available or have been completely revoked, whether there is a receiving of the Holy Spirit subsequent to being born again. And so I could go on. Such things should never constitute a reason for people to refuse fellowship with each other, and it is perfectly possible for believers with wide-ranging differing doctrinal understandings to be part of a church together with no great problem. Indeed, we have been in precisely that position as a church for over twenty years and have proved what should be biblically self-evidently true; that believers should be able to ‘agree to differ’ and to be held together in love in the Lord because of the sheer weight of what we do agree on. And if people do appear to be falling out with each other here and there concerning such things, then others need to intervene and bring them to the point of realizing that they need to put things right with each other and to realize again that the basis of their oneness together is the Lord himself and not secondary doctrinal understandings. Unity in the Spirit is of much more importance than whatever issue believers are in the process of falling out over.

Don’t have protracted Bible studies on the Sundays. Remember, during the worship and sharing time the format is that lots of people do a little, and if you therefore have someone doing a half hour Bible study then it effectively just pushes everyone else out and therefore goes directly against Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. It is, of course, important that teachings are given, but they must, by definition, be short rather than long. You ideally want two or three or four people doing short little teachings as opposed to one person doing a long one. One suggestion is for different people to have teachings prepared in advance which, if given all at once, would be one long Bible Study, but which can be given in smaller snippets week by week. This is extremely valuable in that it introduces ongoing variety and gets people into a wider panorama of what the Bible teaches. We have also always met midweek as a church for Bible study and prayer in order to ensure that we are experiencing an ongoing understanding of the whole counsel of God as a fundamental part of our lives together. This is not, of course, in order to replace personal Bible study, but rather to encourage and augment it; and because it is separate from the Lord’s Day gathering the dynamic is completely different and facilitates an hour or more of someone teaching lecture style. This is not to say that more discussion-oriented and interactive formats are not also utilized, because they are, but merely that we are then free to really get into scripture in whatever varying ways are at our disposal. For those churches which don’t have anyone who can teach in such a way, or who have people who can only do so in a very limited way, then there are available teaching ministries that can be drawn upon. Indeed, over the years our own church has recorded an extremely comprehensive teaching library precisely for the purpose of making comprehensive systematic Bible teaching available to those who do not have access to a teacher for themselves, and these studies are available in cassette tape, audio CD or mps formats.[235]

Summary: the Ground Rules for the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ Time

- Everything must be done for the purpose of building up (edifying) all present in the Lord.[236] It is not an arena for personal doctrinal agendas, rarefied theological debate of the egghead variety, taking the limelight for the purpose of talking about oneself, or for anyone to launch their supposed ‘ministry.’

- Only one person should be speaking, or praying, at a time, with everyone else paying attention.[237] This is fundamental and what Paul means by his rule that, “…everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.”[238] There should be nothing of chaos or disorder so that that everyone is able to understand everything that occurs, and thus to be blessed and edified by it.

- The idea is that a lot of people contribute a little as opposed to one or two people contributing a lot.[239]

- If the gifts of the Spirit are in prevalence then there should be a maximum of three instances of public tongues without interpretation, and then interpretation should be given. If no interpretation happens then there should be no more public use of tongues during that gathering.[240] However, if interpretations are given then more tongues can follow. The point is that un-interpreted tongues are meaningless to the hearers and therefore don’t edify anyone except the speaker. However, when a tongue is interpreted then all present can enter into whatever prayer, or verbal praise and worship, has just been inspired by the Holy Spirit through the tongues speaker, and can therefore say the ‘Amen’ and be built up in the Lord. Further, if prophecies are given then there must be a maximum of three, at which time what has been said must be tested and evaluated.[241] Once that has been done then more can be given. Again, if too many prophecies occur without there being the time for everyone present to really test and take in what has been said by the Lord, then the resultant instruction and encouragement isn’t going to be as effective because some of the content of what has been said will get lost and forgotten.[242]

- Because the dynamic of the worship and sharing part of the gathering is that only one person speaks at a time - the exception being sung worship which is, obviously, a corporate action - there does need to be a definite start and finish time regarding such so that people know that the gathering has now defaulted to the totally different dynamic of general social intercourse, as epitomized in the Lord’s Supper and the rest of the gathering.

- We have already seen in an earlier chapter that, in 1 Corinthians 12, Paul uses the picture of a church gathering being like a body with each person present being an individual part of it. We saw too that he addressed two different types of person. Firstly, he castigates those who think they are an irrelevant part of the body and who therefore feel they have no role to play or contribution to make,[243] and then turns his correctional attention to those who, by way of total contrast, think that they are the only part of the body actually necessary.[244] His emphasis is on the side of ensuring that the quieter and shyer people come forward, and that the noisier and more confident ones keep sufficiently in the background so as not to further discourage the shyer ones. It is therefore absolutely vital that the atmosphere of the 1 Corinthians 14 time is that of relaxed informality, though none the less reverent and worshipful for being so, in order to ensure that it is as easy as possible for the quieter people to speak up or pray out loud. There must be no sense of reproach if someone messes up in any way, or gets lost or confused in what they are sharing. The mere fact they have stepped out in order to bless others is itself a great blessing. It would go against everything Paul teaches of the Lord’s Day gathering if anyone were to then spoil it by being negative about a brave and noble attempt by a fearful and hesitant brother or sister to be a blessing to the gathered church. It is therefore of the greatest importance that we understand that in thus sharing together we are expecting and looking for neither theological profundity nor ground breaking doctrinal clarification. We are rather simply looking to remind each other of just how much the Lord loves us, and how very wonderful he is. Remember the theologian I mentioned earlier: “Jesus loves me. This I know, for the Bible tells me so.” Actually, that is real profundity, and clarification of the ultimate kind. Indeed, it is precisely the sort of thing we need to be sharing with each other and reminding each other of in our gatherings. Then we will build each other up and grow in him more and more. And although we will be dealing with the subject of children in the church in the next chapter, I will nevertheless say at this point that a child can share things like that just as well as an adult, and in so doing can actually be a greater blessing to the church than all the adults present put together.

To sum up! If you just treat the whole proceedings like a family gathering - which is, biblically speaking, what it is anyway - then you need not go far wrong. To take the above suggestions on board will help you maintain the balance between, on the one hand, the necessary casual informality and, on the other, the need for a corporate discipline and dynamic whereby there is a definite shared understanding that there are both acceptable and non-acceptable modes of behavior. In such an atmosphere, just as with a biological nuclear family, there is a safe and loving environment, yet one which incorporates a definite mutual policing and accountability of corporate behavior. Being neither oppressive or authoritarian, nor so loose and casual that anarchy prevails and anything goes, biblical church life is that wonderful balance of freedom and responsibility where love is the very atmosphere in which everything holds together. As we have seen again and again, church life is just family life writ large.

Chapter 21

Frequently Asked Questions

What About the Children?

During New Testament times, when a church got hold of a new part of the scripture, be it a gospel or one of the circulating letters, it would be read out when everyone was gathered on the Lord’s Day. There was no printing or photocopying, and neither were a great many people literate. Hence the public reading of scripture was a salient feature of the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ worship and sharing time. Paul, as with all the New Testament writers, was perfectly aware of this and precisely wrote his letters with such a state of affairs specifically in mind. It is therefore of some importance to note that, when addressing differing people within the churches in which his letters were being read out, he writes directly to the children in them. For instance, when giving instructions on day to day life he writes directly to husbands precisely because he knows they are present and that they will therefore hear his words being read out. Likewise, he addresses wives knowing they too are present. However, when addressing the Lord’s command concerning children he precisely does not write, “Parents, make sure your children are obedient.” No, he addresses the children directly. Why? Because he assumes that they will be present in the gathering like everyone else. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”[245] “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.”[246]

The Fragmentation of Family Life

We are seeing that church is family, and it is therefore of more importance than can possibly be adequately emphasized to understand that everything that goes on as part of biblical church life is therefore specifically designed to under-gird and support nuclear family life. Indeed, one of my major concerns about unbiblical churches has always precisely been the way in which they, though admittedly inadvertently, do the exact opposite and rather fragment and weaken it. The whole process of ‘going to church’, if you actually think about it, is underscored by family members being split off from one another. There are crèches for the very young children, Sunday Schools for the older children and even separate activities for teenage children, whilst mum and dad remain alone in the main auditorium to listen to the preaching. This has two disastrous effects. Firstly, parents and children are fragmented away from each other and the family unit is, as a result, thereby de-emphasized; and secondly, spiritual growth through church life for the children is associated with them being away from their parents, thus playing down the biblically all important role of the father as the spiritual leader over his family. The responsibilities of parents, and especially the responsibilities of fathers as the heads of their households, are handed over to others, be they Church Ministers, Sunday-School teachers, Youth Pastors or whatever. None of this, however, as we are seeing over and over again, is found anywhere in pages of the New Testament, and goes directly against the design for church life as laid out in scripture.

Honey, I’ve Churched the Kids

In the New Testament, and therefore in a biblical church, the children are seen to be as much a part of the proceedings as everyone else, and that includes the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ worship and sharing time as well. Or to put it another way, the children are, quite simply, as much a part of the church as everyone else, and not in a million years are they supposed to just be ‘got out of the way.’[247] And neither should they ever be viewed as anyone’s responsibility, spiritual or otherwise, except their parents. Indeed, it should be the utter delight of parents to have their children with them as much as is humanly possible, and the idea of having them away from you much of the time is as strange an idea as any the author has come across. I have always considered the viewpoint that ‘children should be seen but not heard’ to be a somewhat unpleasant one, yet today we seem to be going one step further. Now, it would appear, we don’t want to see them either, and in this regard modern western civilization has thrown up a rather strange anomaly. People, including, it would seem, Christians, get married, have children, and then spend the rest of their children’s childhoods handing them over to the care and responsibility of other people. First they get packed off to toddlers group, then playgroup, playschool, pre-school and then, finally, school. Further, an army of babysitters are hired precisely so that mum and dad can go out and get away from them even when they are at home and not at one of the aforementioned activities. But then, even on the occasions when mum, dad and the children are at home at the same time, we ensure that their bedrooms are equipped with televisions, computers - and heaven knows what else - precisely so that they can just get on and amuse themselves upstairs and still not spend time with mum and dad, thus sharing life together as an actual family.

I thought this state of affairs utterly bizarre even before I did have the joy of becoming a father[248] and, as a Bible believing Christian, remain absolutely appalled by it. That Christian families are so conditioned by this awful, and totally worldly, way of thinking just breaks my heart. Western society today models a state of affairs whereby children, from the earliest age, spend most of their time with virtually anyone and everyone except their parents, and the sad truth is that unbiblical church life not only fails to challenge such a tragic state of affairs, it actually encourages it. We can hand our children over to babysitters and playgroup leaders, to toddler group assistants and teachers at school; and then, just so as not to break the pattern of behavior, and in order to keep them out of our hair even more, we can go to church knowing that, with all the provisions on offer, we won’t even have to spend time with them there either.

In complete contrast to the above, though, we see how every aspect of the design of church life in the New Testament both under-girds and strengthens what really matters: and family life is right at the top of the list! What could be more wonderful than our children being right there with us worshipping the Lord together and building each other up in him? What better way for them to learn how to pray, worship and share from their hearts and the Word of God than by seeing mum and dad so doing?

Parenting Accountability

There is, of course, another aspect to this that needs to be touched on. Under-girding and strengthening, as it does, the things in life that matter, the design for biblical church life also causes us to be accountable to one another as to whether or not we are actually growing in obedience to scripture, and thereby living as we should. As we have already seen, in the kind of church life we see in the New Testament we are truly known by our brothers and sisters and it is thus much harder to hide away in unaccountability than in the impersonal crowds and institutionalism of unbiblical churches. If dad and mum, and particularly dad, are falling down in the task of bringing their children up properly, then believe me, it is going to show. It is, of course, perfectly possible to raise and train children to be obedient and respectful, as well as perfectly able to be quietly attentive when the need arises. During the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ time, where the rule is that everything should be done decently and in order and without distraction, the presence of even young children should not be a problem. Where children are unruly, though, then the parents in question can see it as an opportunity to rise to the challenge before them, while others in the church can provide any help, encouragement and support which they need. And of course given that there is no Sunday-School to scoot them into, and no crèche in which they can be handed over into to another’s care, the sheer embarrassment of the way one’s children behave may well be the incentive the parents in question need to start working at getting family life as it should be. The point is that biblical family life is encouraged whilst the ‘escape route’ of just bundling the kids off out of sight somewhere else is removed. After all, if we are not conformed to scripture in our role as parents, and if family life is not becoming increasingly as it should be, then what validity can any claim to be seriously following the Lord actually have?

Not Even a Whisper Then???

This is not to say, however, that Sundays mean that the children are going to spend the whole time sitting silently in a chair tucked away in the corner somewhere. Far from it! Even during the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ time younger children can have books which they can quietly look at, or sit on the floor and play with toys, coloring pencils and paper and have great fun. Just provided that they are reasonably quiet and that there is no major distraction. It is nothing short of amazing what even the really young children pick up from what is shared whilst just getting on with whatever activity they are doing. You may think they are lost in their book or their drawing, but what is being shared is seeping into them and it’s wonderful to see. You will be surprised at times at the kinds of questions they later ask you about what went on at church today.

It is certainly good to keep children with parents during this part of the gathering, so that even if they are on the floor it is nevertheless at their parents’ feet. This way should any incidents arise, whether crying babies or actual misbehavior from older children, one of the parents (and no, it doesn’t have to always be mum) can quickly remove the child and tend to it in whatever way is needed. Then once the situation is under control and the child calmed, they can slip back in as if nothing had happened. Also, should anyone in your church be good at doing so, then at some appropriate point they could share a little something particularly with the children in mind. Anything, in fact, that keeps the children realizing that they are as much a part of the extended family of the church as the adults and older teens.

It should be realized, though, that if families with untrained and unruly children come into the church, and it is absolutely vital that you are welcoming to such, it is hardly a situation which those parents (or possibly lone parent) can just rectify overnight. It may take weeks, or in some cases, even months for them to train that child how to behave, and of course what is then needed from everyone else is a relaxed and understanding attitude. Otherwise such families will just feel condemned and hopeless and be driven away before they even have the chance to come to grips with what they need to be doing in order to get family life as it should be. The very last thing you need is an atmosphere of disparaging disapproval every time a child plays up. Child training is, of course, needed, and Satan can disrupt church gatherings through untrained children just as he can through misbehaving adults, but it does take time. In such circumstances great patience and understanding needs to be shown as well as the necessary advice and counsel being given.

Fun Time

Outside of the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ time things can, however, get decidedly noisier. (And that’s just me, never mind the children!) I don’t thereby mean it’s all right to have a riotous free-for-all or anything like that, but it should nevertheless be a fun time. Weather permitting you can get outside and play with the kids, but when that isn’t possible – and we live in England so it often isn’t, even in the summer - you can still play with them indoors. We make sure we have toys and games (card games and the like) on hand and the children (and we currently have quite a few of them, from newborns upwards) really do enjoy themselves. In fact, our daughter Bethany tells Belinda and me that it’s just about the best day of the week as far as she’s concerned, and that she has a great time there.[249]

Food Time

I don’t know if you’ve ever particularly noticed but, generally speaking, kids love food. So when it comes to the Lord’s Supper they are completely in their element. We leave it up to individual families to decide whether or not their children have the loaf and cup with the rest of the food, but most, Bethany included, do. Remember, this is not a ritual with bread and wine. That came from the Early Church Fathers, not the New Testament. Recall also that the Lord’s Supper is the New Testament counterpart of the Passover Meal in the Old Testament. And what was the Passover Meal? It was a family meal eaten in the family home with the whole extended family, children included. So food time is fun time as well, and nowhere is the family atmosphere of biblical church life experienced together more than eating the Lord’s Supper.

A Fatal Flaw

It must be clearly understood that those wishing to be a biblical church together could fall completely, and fatally, at this hurdle of their children. I have spent time with groups of believers who were convinced of what the Bible teaches about church life, and who approached me precisely because they wanted to start up accordingly, but who sadly got nowhere not because their families were messed up, but because they were unwilling to do anything about it or to even consider that they could train their children to behave during their gatherings. In such situations, instead of experiencing New Testament church life, the adults have ended up just hanging out together on Sundays and fellowship together whilst their unattended kids run riot around them. They could have been a church. They could have found the answer to their family lives being in such a mess and become as they should be, but they went by the standards of the world and not scripture, and so were defeated from the outset.

Including the Kids…

It is important as well to make sure that the children, and especially the older ones, realize that they are included in the ‘each one has’ of Paul’s directions for the worship and sharing time. This is especially true of teenage boys who must all the time have it in view that they are one day, in all likelihood, going to get married and therefore be the heads of their own families for which they will be spiritually responsible as the leaders. The earlier age-wise that our children are able to participate in church life and, of course, praying and sharing together in family prayer time at home, the easier they will find it when they are older. Again, the responsibility lies here with parents, and in particular fathers.

…and Entertaining the Teens

It is important to have fellowship together other than just on the Sundays (or the midweek Bible Study), so get together in smaller groups during the week. Get people round for dinner, or go and visit them. It is good too for older teenagers in the church to spend time with other families, and maybe you could get them round every now and then to watch a good film, or listen to some music, or have a games evening or just hang out together. This will help to ensure that they don’t ever feel outside of the loop socially, and will help alleviate any need they may feel to want to hang around with those who are a bad influence just because they want some company outside of their immediate biological family. Parents obviously need to prevent their children, of whatever age, from coming under influences outside of their approval and control, and what I am suggesting here is a great help in that regard. And of course it goes without saying that the teenagers in the church, indeed, any of the children whose parents are happy for it to be so, need to be at the midweek Bible Study. It is therefore important to ensure that it is an occasion to be enjoyed and which they therefore want to attend.

At rock bottom the rediscovery of biblical church life is actually about so much more than just the rediscovery of biblical church life. It is the rediscovery of biblical living and life-style in its entirety, and nowhere is this more critical in its application than in the rediscovery of biblical family life. As Christians we ought to instinctively understand that nothing is as important as our families. In order to serve the Lord, and to be in obedience to scripture, a man’s first priority is his wife and children. Likewise, a woman’s first priority is her husband and children. Without this even biblical church life is but an empty shell, and the Lord is completely dishonored. Two of the strongest things Paul ever wrote concerned what he saw as being the scandal of family life not being as it should be in regards to the different roles God has designed for men and women:

Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.[250]

So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.[251]

Here the Apostle simply describes how the womenfolk are the homemakers in marriage and their husband’s helpers, and that going about family life any other way causes people to actually malign the Word of God and gives the enemy cause for slander. The simple truth is that, as believers, when our family life is not what scripture teaches it should be, Satan just loves it and is even able to bring God’s Word into disrepute as a result because of it.

A Qualification!

Before I bring the topic of children in the church to a close, though, I want to qualify something further so as to be absolutely clear that there is no misunderstanding. I mentioned earlier the way in which Western society has moved away from the Victorian-type stance that ‘children should be seen and not heard’ to the point where family life is conducted virtually as if we don’t even particularly want to see them either. Yet this is happening precisely whilst one of society’s increasing obsessions is that of ‘children’s rights.’ It would appear that the more modern Western civilization claims to be standing up for children and their rights, the more it encourages us – with working mums and everything associated with current economic and social development – to actually neglect them. It is also tied in with an extremely damaging loosening of discipline which, of course, undermines the necessary accountability of children to parents. The result of this is that those who speak up in favor of any kind of discipline are tarnished with the brush of intolerant and unloving authoritarianism. Further, any hint of a belief in the efficacy of corporal punishment and one is immediately branded as a perpetrator of violence and abuse against children. And the real tragedy is that Christians are influenced by it all, even if only subliminally.

And precisely because I was bold enough to state earlier that it is quite possible to train one’s children to be obedient and respectful, and well able to quietly amuse themselves for an hour or so during, for instance, a church gathering, there may well be some who now think that I am therefore quite obviously one of those old-fashioned disciplinarians whose children are to be pitied because of the unyielding sternness and severity with which they are being brought up. If such is the case then let me put your mind at rest.

Fun is my middle name; and if there is anything that it could be said that Bethany and I have a very great deal of together, then fun is it! This is not to say there are not times when outright fun would be inappropriate, but simply that the underlying default of our relationship together, as with Belinda, is love, laughter and the sheer enjoyment of each other’s company. Indeed, the more obedient and respectful a child is the more fun you can have with them. And the more fun you have together - assuming, of course, that everything else necessary for bringing up a child well is in place - the more obedient and respectful that child will become. And that is a not-at-all-vicious circle which I am more than happy to live with. So please do not think that the presence of discipline and child-training means the absence of fun and frolics. Indeed, they are both equally part of the same thing and two sides of the same coin; that is, the utter delight and enjoyment that parents and children are meant to experience in their ongoing relationships with each other. The reason so many parents don’t delight in their children’s company is because they have brought them up poorly and that they therefore really aren’t particularly pleasant to be with. Conversely, the reason that many children don’t want to be with their parents any more than they have to is because, quite frankly, mum and dad just aren’t as nice, kind, respectful and loving towards them as they should be. Biblical church life reverses this travesty and calls us to account in order to ensure that family life becomes what it should be, and that mum and dad, as well as the children, are behaving themselves as they ought to.

What About the Women’s Silence Verses?

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”[252]

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”[253]

Several things need to be said about this. Firstly, it is dishonorable in the extreme to take verses like this and end up ignoring them by utilizing the completely disingenuous ploy of just consigning them to the dustbin of ‘the culture of the day.’ This is not to say there are no such verses in the Bible, but before one does conclude that a verse has no application for us, and especially when occurring in a New Testament letter, one does need to have some extremely well thought out and scripturally-based reasons for doing so. When dealing with the difference in function between men and women, which, as it happens, is one of the most controversial topics for believers today, Paul goes out of his way to precisely make clear that what he is writing is nothing whatsoever to do with the culture of the day, but with the Lord’s order in creation. In other words, Paul grounds the headship of husbands over wives, and the importance of women thereby not teaching or being in leadership in the church, in the very nature of creation and what happened in the Garden of Eden. Further, his argument in 1 Corinthians 11 is that the man is the head of the woman simply by virtue of Adam having been created before Eve.[254] All the verses in the New Testament concerning wives submitting to their husbands are, therefore, based on this simple fact of God’s order in creation,[255] and the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the culture of the day. These things are as much abiding commands as is being honest, forgiving others when they sin against you or honoring the marriage bed.

A Trans-Cultural Command

Therefore, when Paul prohibits women from either teaching or having authority over men, the basis of his reasoning is exactly the same. It is all to do with the Garden of Eden at the dawn of human history. Adam was created first, and Eve was deceived.[256] This is completely trans-cultural and transcends any limitations of social or cultural consideration. It is therefore as universal as any other command to Christians in the New Testament. I have always considered it ironic that the verses which feminist Christians are most desperate to get round by defining as just being ‘culturally based’ are precisely those in the New Testament which the inspired writer went out of his way in defining as being of universal application. Further, the moment you try to counter anything in the Bible merely on the grounds of it being patriarchy-based, and therefore not God’s final will but merely the result of the culture of its day, then on what grounds can you demonstrate your feminism to be anything other than you being influenced by the culture of your day? So, in order to settle that particular dispute, what is the final authority to which we have to turn? Why, the scripture, of course! And scripture, as you have doubtless noticed when you read it, is decidedly patriarchal in its teachings, the very thing the feminists are trying to get round in the first place. We therefore see, in yet another area of life - that is, God’s order for gender and family - Christians rejecting what the Word of God teaches in favor of other ideas that go against it.

Silent Night?

So what about these verses which say women should be silent in church? What are we to make of them? There are, amongst those who take them seriously and who subscribe to, and practice, New Testament church life, two different understandings. Some maintain that the verses in question should just be taken at face value, without any qualification at all, and that therefore only the men folk should speak or pray during the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ time. Women are, in this scenario, free to sing and say ‘Amen’ to prayers because that is something everyone is doing at the same time, and the general push is that women should not verbally address the gathered assembly, which is what they would be doing if they spoke during the worship and sharing time. This is not to say that women cannot speak for the entire duration of the Sunday gathering, but simply that they are to refrain from doing so during the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ time. They can, of course, whisper to their husbands or children about something that requires immediate attention, but that is not the same thing as addressing the whole church and therefore being the one person heard by everyone in any given instance.[257] This is the understanding of those in this camp as to how the principle, which we have already noted, that God’s order for individual family life – that is, the headship of the husband – is reflected in the extended family of the church.

Now it is certainly the case that this view is a completely honorable one, and it certainly passes the test of actually taking the verses in question seriously. Further, no-one could be reasonably surprised that such a conclusion might be reached given the available biblical evidence. There is, however, another understanding of this passage, and it is one which, in the view of the author, makes better sense of it and doesn’t make the mistake of reading what Paul wrote backwards.

A Different View

The important thing in this regard is context, and therefore ascertaining at which point in this letter Paul commences dealing with matters concerning the Lord’s Day gathering. Irrespective of which commentary you look up, or which expert you turn to, absolutely everyone is agreed that by the end of chapter 11 he is dealing with precisely that. But the question that needs to be answered here is: but where does he actually commence that particular section? And in my reading of the letter it seems pretty obvious that he does so in chapter 10 where he precisely begins his treatment concerning matters relating the Lord’s Supper. It therefore follows that the whole of chapter 11, and not merely the second half, is to do with the subject of the Lord’s Day gathering of a church. So if that is the case, and I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that it is, then by the time Paul gets to his verses at the end of chapter 14 about women being silent, he has already established that, in order to pray or prophesy, the women folk ought to have a head covering, signifying to the angels that God’s order for gender and family life – that is, the headship of a husband over his wife – is being observed, practiced and honored.[258] We are not concerned here with what that head covering actually is - although my own understanding, for what it is worth, is that it is long hair - but rather with the simple point that Paul is assuming that the ladies are, if nothing else, at least praying and prophesying in the gathering: and of course this would necessarily concern that part of the gathering which I have referred to as the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ worship and sharing time, as opposed to the more general fellowship and Lord’s Supper part of the day.

A Limited Silence

So if, at the end of his treatment of the Lord’s Day gathering, Paul then stipulates that there is a silence in the church which women are to observe, he obviously does so being also fully aware that he has already made it clear that they can take verbal part if they have the requisite covering on their heads. This is what I mean by the mistake of reading the letter backwards. If an earlier part of his letter is written on the assumption that women can take verbal part in the worship and sharing time, then any later statements pertaining to silence during that time must be taken in light of that and not the other way round. It therefore seems to me to be completely reasonable, given that Paul was obviously not daft, to assume that he is not flatly contradicting himself but simply referring to a limited and temporary silence, rather than a comprehensive and complete one. This is further borne out by the fact that the immediately preceding verses deal with the question concerning at which point in the gathering those who speak in tongues or prophesy should keep quiet.[259] He is not thereby telling them that they are not to speak in the worship and sharing time at all, but merely that there are occasions when they should be quiet as opposed to saying anything. And so with the women folk! I therefore conclude that Paul’s insistence concerning women being silent in the church simply relates to what he has been dealing with in the immediately preceding verses; that women should not, therefore, take verbal part with the men in the testing of prophesy.[260]

Everyone Does Mean Everyone: but Leadership is Male

It is therefore clear that, regarding the ‘1 Corinthian 14’ part of the gathering, the ‘everyone’ of verse 26 also includes the women, as it does also the children – both boys and girls. Even in regard to ‘a word of instruction’ the church of which I am a part would see no problem with the ladies bringing something in that category. Remember, the context here is of everyone being free to do a little, so any teaching is going to be very short and much more of a devotional kind than that which establishes authoritative doctrine. Further, given that everyone is free to do the same, including the children, nothing is therefore being done by way of leadership. We therefore do not see any problem with a woman sharing something she has learned from scripture in such a context. However, in the light of what Paul wrote to Timothy about women not teaching or having authority over men,[261] we have always been very clear as a church that our midweek Bible study should always be conducted by one of the men. Such is, after all, much more of a leadership type thing to do, and the fundamental biblical issue here is that leadership is male and therefore not something for the ladies. Whether in family or church life, leadership should, quite simply, be for the husbands, for the men. The issue is not whether or not women have the necessary general ability to be leaders or teachers in the church, the writer accepts fully that they do, it is rather simply a matter of God’s revealed order, as taught in both Old and New Testaments, for the structure of family life.[262]

It seems clear then that, when it comes to the Lord’s Day gathering of the church, women are free to participate in much the same way as the men: and of course don’t forget that the children are likewise. But should the need arise for anything to be said or done that is in any way authoritative, and therefore of a leadership nature, then that would have to be for the men folk, pure and simple.

Reaching Consensus Concerning This Issue

This immediately raises a question which quite naturally leads us into another area that affects biblical church life, and that is: so how are you supposed to know which of the above two understandings to implement? And this is where we immediately return to the already established principle of each church governing itself collectively. Or to put it another way, each church is ultimately responsible for deciding about such issues for itself. This doesn’t, of course, mean that you thereby have to try to reach consensus about everything under the sun all at once. Remember as well that the way in which consensus works is simply that you don’t change anything unless you collectively consent together so to do, and a realization of that makes the process appear a bit less daunting than it often does to those who do not have personal experience of it. This doesn’t mean, though, that absolutely everyone has to agree to something before it is done, any more than it means that a mere fifty-one per cent majority concerning something is enough either. No, it just means that the vast majority of people in the church need to be in agreement before any changes are implemented. Also, at any given moment, and regarding any given issue, you doubtless already have a default as a church which you are already implementing and according to which you are gathering; and the principle to go by is that of just sticking with whatever default you already have about things, and not changing anything unless you have corporate reason to believe the Lord wants you to look afresh at whatever the issue might be.

Natural Defaults

When a new church comes into being there is therefore usually already a natural default regarding whether the women speak or not, and it is simply the case that they will either have already been taking verbal part in the worship and sharing time, or will have been silent. Therefore, if a clear cut scenario concerning this has already emerged, just stick to that. At the end of the day it really isn’t that crucial. Then, if you all conclude at a later date that a change needs to be made, then so be it. However, for the time being just stick with whatever your natural defaults as a church are by way of practice and just take it from there. Let the emphasis be on building each other up and growing closer to each other in the Lord rather than focusing too much on what changes may or may not be needed further down the line.

My own practice concerning this, when helping new churches start, is to simply encourage them in whatever consensus they already have. Believing as I do that women are free to take verbal part in the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ time, I obviously wouldn’t push the other viewpoint with a church which already has the same understanding as myself. However, if I am with a group of believers whose default is that of women’s silence then neither would I try to persuade them of my own point of view concerning it. Given that both views are equally honorable in that they each take scripture seriously, and are in line with the Bible’s wider, and totally clear, teaching concerning the difference in gender roles, then spiritual unity between believers in a church is of far greater importance than the issue as to which of these views is ultimately the correct one.

Live and Let Live

Neither should there be any problem when visiting other churches which have a different consensus regarding this sort of thing than your own church does. The idea is that you simply defer to whatever the consensus is of the church you are visiting. For instance, when Belinda, Bethany and I are with churches that believe women should not speak during the ‘1 Corinthians 14’ time we simply deport ourselves accordingly and they refrain from verbal participation. But conversely, when people visit us from other churches, we expect them to likewise honor our consensus and we don’t ask our women folk to refrain from speaking just because visitors are present among us from a church where the consensus is that women should remain silent. It’s a question of the mutual honoring of honest differences in our understanding of scripture, and there really is no need at all for problems to arise concerning it. Live and let live is indeed the rule here.

Thus Saith the Hippy

I must, however, digress somewhat at this point because I don’t want anyone to make the mistake of just assuming that my own cultural background is one that naturally resonates in sympathy with the biblical viewpoint on this subject of gender differences, or of thinking that I was raised in some old-fashioned church situation that just unthinkingly honors ‘the old ways.’ Nothing could actually be further from the truth. When the Lord grabbed hold of me I was a long-haired, footwear-rejecting hippy who was, by sheer cultural and philosophical default, as progressively modernistic and feministic as the next long-haired, footwear-rejecting hippy. If there was ever anyone who was not a natural Patriarchal embracing-type person, then it was me. But then this newly converted hippy started to read the Bible, and two things happened. Firstly, I discovered the most amazing things about the Lord - what he is like and what he thinks - and came to realize more and more just how wonderful he is. But secondly, I discovered other things about which I thoroughly disagreed with him - and quite profoundly too! However, such a contradiction could hardly last for long and I soon reasoned, and then concluded once and for all, that the Lord couldn’t be both God Almighty and wrong at the same time. The only place I could then come to was a clear and completely unequivocal understanding that whenever I disagreed with something in scripture then it must, by definition, be me who was wrong. The problem was my sinful nature and not that the Lord was mistaken about things. I realized, in fact, a simple principle which has guided me ever since, and it is simply this. If the Bible says something then it is right, and if I don’t like what it says then it is because I am wrong. And so it is with this issue regarding what the Word of God teaches about gender roles! [263] So hippy or not, scripture always gets the last word.

Another Hurdle at Which to Fall

It must be said too that, as with the issue of child training, nowhere are people more likely to falter and fall than at this hurdle – and especially in the United Kingdom and an increasing large part of America. Speaking for my own country though, feminism has virtually become the norm amongst Christians in Great Britain and those who stand where we do as a church on this – even though we are in full agreement with the understanding held by the vast majority of Christians for nearly two thousand years – are regarded at best as dinosaurs, and at worst the chauvinistic oppressors of women. I have been approached by believers who wanted to become biblically based in their church life only to have them lose interest faster than the speed of light once they realized that we agree with the Word of God that leadership is male and that husbands are the heads of their families. Amazingly, there are even those who want to have (otherwise) biblical churches which are feminist based and which recognize women elders and teachers.

This, for me, however, is a bridge way too far. People are free, of course, to do whatever they wish in such regard; but it is not something with which I would want to have anything to do. I am always delighted to have fellowship and friendship with feministic believers, and in such regard being able to agree to differ and concentrate on what we do agree on is a powerful thing, but I could never - and Belinda feels as strongly about this as I do - be part of a feministic church, however biblically-based it was in other regards. Even though they are doing so inadvertently, such feministic believers are undermining and damaging family life precisely whilst claiming to be enhancing it through biblical church practice. This, to me, is a contradiction beyond belief.

When, and How, Should a Church Recognize Elders?

We have already covered the role of elders and are here concerned simply with the practical aspects of knowing when, and how, to actually recognize them. Perhaps the most important thing is to understand that it is better, when becoming a church, to err on the side of taking too long to do this as opposed to moving too hastily. The basis of the recognition of an elder is that you are recognizing a man you are already relating to in that capacity, and who has already won you over and proved himself to be biblically qualified over a period of time. Although an elder should be able to teach, the things you should look for are much more related to character and spiritual maturity than any ability to ‘perform’ in the public sphere.[264]

It would, of course, be a great help for any church facing this to do some study together on the relevant passages where Paul deals with the necessary qualifications.[265] However, for our purposes here I will paint a picture with some broad brush strokes and sum up the essence of what the New Testament teaches. In order to be recognized as an elder a man needs to have a good track record as a mature and stable believer. He should be honest, self-controlled and not prone to losing his temper or being subject to intolerance or impatience. He should not be dominating or overbearing, but rather a friendly outward-going type who is easy to get on with. In addition he should be humble and correctable. He should be eminently approachable and have his home open to others so they can enjoy the frequent hospitality of both himself and his family. He should not be materialistic or unduly pursuing money, but should instead be the epitome of generosity. Most important of all, his family life should be biblically in order and he should be a good, loving and self-sacrificial husband with an obviously good marriage. Should he and his wife also be parents, their child(ren) should be obedient and respectful, and clearly greatly loved and secure in the joy, fun and safety of their family life. Though there is no requirement that he has a teaching ministry in the same way as would an Ephesians 4 type pastor/teacher, he must nevertheless be able to show people what scripture teaches about fundamental biblical issues, as well as being able to spot and refute any seriously wrong teachings that are introduced into the church. He must also be able to be firm, yet gentle, with people when the need arises.

A helpful way to think of elders is that they are responsible for the spiritual ‘quality control’ in the church, as well as being a safety net. Don’t ever think that just because you now have eldership they are going to start doing everything. No way! Neither must you ever think of them as being the main decision-makers, thus letting everyone else off the hook when it comes to deciding what needs to be done in regards to whatever decision is before the church at any given time. Nevertheless, having elders does mean that everyone can start to relax a bit more and feel safer. If serious problems arise, whether in public during the gathering, or more privately behind the scenes, then all the brothers ought to be thinking in terms of what they should to be doing about them. However, if no one else does do anything, then at least everyone knows that the elder (or at least one of them if you have a plurality) will. Likewise, if a wolf comes in that no one else can handle, then everyone can feel secure in knowing that the elder(s) will take care of whoever it is.

We can sum it up like this: when a church is relatively new and young, or if it has been around a while but has a very small number of people, the issue of eldership is not going to be a priority. However, further down the road, and when numbers start to grow, it is important, assuming that there is someone who the church collectively relates to as being qualified, that they are then duly recognized and given everyone’s backing to perform the relevant duties as and when the need arises. Don’t start looking to them as ‘the big leader’, and don’t change how you relate to them as if they have somehow just got a ‘promotion.’ No.! Remember, they are still just one of the lads. But when they do have to function in any definite way, and especially if it is a difficult situation in which there is upset or dissension, then make sure that you give them the benefit of the doubt and that they have your backing. It doesn’t mean they are always going to be right; and sometimes they will be (maybe quite badly) wrong. Believe me, it is not easy to function in eldership when controversy rears its ugly head, and any brother so doing really will need both spiritual and emotional support from the rest of the church.

Lastly, having a plurality of elders is obviously the ideal. However, in exactly the same way that having bad elders is worse than having none at all, so it is with the idea of plurality. A single elder who is properly qualified, and who performs his function well, could be seriously compromised, and the church subsequently damaged, should another man who is not ready for the task be recognized too soon, and merely for the sake of having more than one. Having no elders is better than having one or more bad ones; and having one good elder beats plurality hands down should the prospective candidates not be fully biblically qualified.

How Should Conflict From Other Churches Be Handled?

It would be wonderful if I could assure you that you won’t experience the kind of problems anticipated by this question - but sadly I can’t. You may, of course, be fortunate, but the simple fact is that most people who form into biblical churches do experience problems of one kind or another from other believers and churches. What we are doing, though entirely consistent with the teaching of scripture, is so completely different from anything most Christians have ever come across – even though they’ve been reading it in their Bibles for years – that it is very easy for them to just feel threatened and affronted and become defensive. This is especially true of church leaders who do tend to take the emergence of new, and especially different, churches somewhat personally. After all, they make their living as the ‘experts’ on whom other believers are meant to be dependent, so when they see Christians turning their backs on the existing church system for something which is precisely without the kind of leadership they exemplify, they often react as if such believers are being drawn away from their ‘safe and protective leadership influences’ into the mortal dangers of some strange new sect. They then do one of two things. If they are honorable - and many are - they will consider what you are doing with a certain amount of impartiality and, even if they still think you are wrong after so doing, will at least say, “God bless you and I wish you well.” If, however, they are not truly honorable, then the chances are that, in order to protect themselves and their position, they will use their influence to do whatever they can to defame and caricature you so as to cause as many people as possible to conclude that you are merely a deceived troublemaker. Sadly, I have seen this happen on all too many occasions.

So what can you do about it? Well, basically – nothing! We have already seen that it is vitally important to leave an existing church on good terms, at least from your side of the equation. You obviously can’t have control over how others respond to you, but you can ensure that your reasons for leaving are purely in order to be obedient to the Lord, and not because you have a wrong attitude either to individuals in the church – and especially the leadership - or to the church corporately. Once you have left you must then ensure that you are not being exclusive, or rejecting fellowship with other believers just because you have come to a different view about church life. In other words, when it comes to fellowship with others then you must make sure that your heart is as open to those people now as it was before you heard about biblical church life, and that you are not withdrawing fellowship from your side in any way. The best advice is simply this: take whatever opportunities that reasonably come your way in order to continue in fellowship with those who constitute the wider Church of Jesus Christ in your area. Make it as clear as you can that you don’t want to fight with anyone about church matters, but that you must nevertheless do what you believe to be right. Be ready to explain yourself to people from scripture, but don’t be ‘evangelistic’ about it. Make sure you are not just trying to always be talking about biblical church life whenever you have a chance for fellowship with brothers and sisters in traditional churches, but rather concentrate on what you do have in common with them. If people ask you concerning it, then feel free to answer; but not belligerently or divisively. And just keep your head down. Get on with serving the Lord in the little bit of the vineyard he has put you in and, “…as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”[266]

One thing that might be worth trying, though – and only you will know if it is feasible in your particular circumstances – is to see if any local leaders of churches who have a teaching gift would be happy to come and teach your midweek Bible study every now and then. In many instances this would be a waste of time as you would find that even if any local church leaders did agree to come amongst you they would probably just use the opportunity to show you how wrong they think you are about church life; but in some situations it might be worth a try, and so I suggest it purely on that basis. So have fellowship with individual believers in the wider Body of Christ whenever you reasonably can, and whenever the specter of conflict raises its head then just keep yours well down and maintain as low a profile as possible.

Chapter 22

Outside Help

I approach this chapter with some trepidation because, in my determination to make this book as practical as possible, I am going to encourage those of you who are actually able to start a church to be open to getting outside help from others; those who have a calling on their lives to help establish and nurture churches. Outside help should only be pursued if you really believe the Lord is leading you to request it, but it is definitely something that is worth your prayerful consideration. More questions can be answered, and more issues helpfully addressed, in a few hours spent with someone who is spiritually qualified and who has years of personal experience of biblical church life under his belt than by reading a dozen books.

However, just as there are many things going on today on the Christian scene that are merely ‘house church’ as opposed to biblical church, so too are there a number of people promoting themselves as house church leaders and teachers who are far from being biblically qualified for the function. In fact, some of them would be extremely damaging to your spiritual health and well-being. I am therefore going to give some pointers as to the kind of people I would strongly advise you against seeking out, thus increasing your ability to exercise discernment and avoid outside hindrance.

In this age of mass communication and the internet it is easier than ever for anyone to put up a website, send out a magazine (whether online or hard copy), write a book or advertise and promote themselves as ‘leaders’ and ‘teachers’ in the so-called ‘house church movement.’ However, this book is strictly about biblical church and I want to ensure that my readers don’t ever confuse the two. The essence of qualification for Christian leadership, be it local eldership or wider itinerant ministry, is more than simply being able to communicate well in public and teach - regardless of how biblical the content appears to be.

Firstly, there is the matter of personal character; and secondly, whether or not the person in question has actual personal experience of what they are teaching. Otherwise it is mere theory rather than something they have experienced and worked out in their own lives over years. It is a biblical axiom that you can only lead others where you yourself have been. Therefore, anyone who makes themselves available to help others regarding a return to biblical church life should first ensure that they have a great deal of practical experience themselves over a good number of years before presuming to teach others about it. This chapter is a practical guide concerning the kind of people that are safe to approach for help, and those to whom you would do well to give a wide berth.

The Ministries to Avoid At All Costs

The reader should be aware that there are men (and now women) on the house church scene, just as there are in traditional churches, concerning whom I would, without apology, crawl over broken glass to protect people from. Firstly, there are those who are dangerous because they teach things which are totally against scripture, and in so doing seek to lock people up exclusively to themselves and their ministry, thus bringing unwary believers into bondage and spiritual subservience to them. Arrogant and ego-centric in their outlook and teaching, they would have us believe that they alone impart the truth and that only through their influence and input could people ever aspire to become part of a truly biblical church.

I have, for example, come across itinerant ministries in house church circles who teach that those in the church they are helping ought to stop reading the Bible for themselves for a period of time, in order to be freed from any erroneous preconceived ideas so that they can be shown by the itinerant leader what the Word of God really means. Further, those under their influence are directed that they should not have any other teaching influences in the church, and that any church not set up by them is not a church at all. In other words, there are those on the house church scene, and some of them quite well known, who are walking sect and cult makers. Such people should obviously be avoided at all costs.[267]

Secondly, there are those who promote themselves as house church leaders and teachers who do not meet the personal qualifications for spiritual leadership as outlined and defined in scripture. I know of men who have been divorced whilst in ministry, yet who continue to promote themselves as leaders as if nothing were amiss. Such conduct is to behave without integrity. The thought of men who promote themselves on a platform of getting back to what the Bible teaches, yet who go completely against what it says concerning one of the most important aspects of the spiritual qualifications for leadership - the need for stable, successful and proven marriage and family life - is off-putting to say the least.

It should go without saying that at the heart of any church leadership must be the clear demonstration that here is a man whose family is in good order, who has cared for and nurtured his wife and children as both a devoted husband and father. For Paul, the issue was clear and simple, “If any man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?”[268] It is, of course, a rhetorical question! There should be no doubt that there is forgiveness and restoration for people whose marriages have failed, but we are not here talking about people’s spiritual standing as individuals before the Lord, but about whether or not certain individuals are qualified to consider and promote themselves as church leaders, whether the leadership in question be that of local eldership or a wider itinerant teaching ministry.

I therefore urge you to be brave and to ascertain whether any outsider you are thinking of bringing in to help you as a church passes this test. Do not be afraid to enquire regarding a potential outside helper’s marriage state to establish whether he has been divorced since he embarked on his ministry. Be sure to get things absolutely clear, too. The question you need to ask is not merely whether he is married, but whether he is married to the same woman he was married to when he embarked on public ministry in the first place. Be absolutely assured that a truly godly man with nothing to hide will not mind in the slightest should you so enquire of him, and would consider it his bounden duty - his joy, even - to provide you with a clear and totally transparent answer.

Should you hit up against any kind of evasion or prevarication concerning the answers then you would do well to be suspicious. In such a scenario I would recommend that you do the same as if the answer to your enquiry was that the man in question had divorced since being in ministry: that is, withdraw your request for his help with a simple and gracious explanation as to your reasons for doing so. Remember, if a man has failed in the most important leadership role there is - as a husband and father[269] - then why, we must ask, as scripture does itself, would we expect him to be capable of succeeding in being able to help a church?

I cannot sufficiently emphasize how important this is. Such men show themselves to lack what, perhaps more than any other single thing, should characterize a man of God - honesty and integrity! Scripture states clearly that any man wanting to be a teacher of God’s Word must expect to be judged more harshly than those who do not and, therefore, to be subject to a far greater accountability than would otherwise be expected of him.[270] The sad truth though is that many Christian leaders, including some on the so-called ‘house church’ scene, expect to get away with living at a lower moral standard than would otherwise be biblically expected even of non-leaders.

There are some extremely worrying people out there and I have come across numerous self-promoting house church leaders concerning whom a browse of their websites would have you believe they are ‘house church experts’ par excellence - but who simply don’t pass the scriptural tests of being men who are properly proven in the Lord. They put their desire for leadership and public ministry before a genuine desire for holiness and faithfulness to God’s Word and are, therefore, spiritually dangerous. Should you ever have cause to think that you have turned to an outside ministry who appears to be in any way in this category, then you would do well to end your involvement with them as soon as possible. Simply explain to them your concerns, terminate your involvement with them and ensure they are not invited into your situation again. You must also be willing, once you know of a clear and present danger, to warn others who could be affected, by at least sounding the alarm and making available to them the necessary evidence so that they can properly consider your concerns and their position and response in the light of them. It will, of course, be for them to make representations to the person concerned as they see fit and to come to their own judgment. To so act is not gossip or backbiting; assuming, of course, that you have first personally confronted the individual concerned.

It causes me nothing but pain and distress to have to bring such things to the readers’ attention, but if I am going to encourage those wishing to form into biblical churches to be open to receiving outside help, then I must also draw attention to the potential dangers and pitfalls involved.

Let me make it clear though that I am not necessarily calling into question whether or not such men truly love the Lord, and neither do I imply that they have no love at all for others in their hearts. Far from it! I fully accept that, in all probability, they do want to both serve the Lord and be a blessing to others. However, the problem is that, whilst being fully aware that they are not conformed to that which scripture defines as being the necessary qualifications for spiritual leadership, they remain defiant against it and refuse to do the right thing in stepping down from public ministry.

You hardly need to be a rocket scientist to understand what Paul wrote to Timothy about leaders needing to have successful marriages and families, and these men in question are the very people who claim, as teachers of the Bible, to be the ones who understand what it teaches, yet who themselves go completely against it in such regard. This is precisely what makes them so dangerous: It is their blindness to themselves! It’s the way in which they are so adept at rationalizing and explaining away clear statements in the Word of God and twisting them until they convince themselves that such instructions don’t actually apply to them. To have one’s marriage fail whilst in leadership ministry of some kind, and to then continue in that ministry as if nothing had transpired is the most appalling denial not only of biblical truth but of everything that really matters concerning our Christian walk. When a believer can rationalize away something of such fundamental and foundational importance in order to square it with their conscience, then what else are they going to be able to turn a blind eye to regarding themselves? Such men are not safe precisely because they are so incredibly deluded concerning themselves, and outside help from anyone who is self-deluded, regardless of how many conferences they speak at, or how many books they have written, is something you can well do without.

If men in church leadership whose marriages fail do the honourable thing by stepping down from public ministry, it doesn’t automatically mean that they could never again re-emerge to eventually perform any wider calling they believe to be upon their lives; but it would obviously need to be after a good number of years during which they prove themselves to now be a faithful brother in a local church somewhere, much as if they were new believers. If they then, over a good number of years, build up the personal spiritual track record they should have had before stepping out into leadership in the first place, then who knows what the Lord in His grace might yet do in their lives?

Nevertheless, when such men are not willing to step down when they ought, disobeying what scripture teaches, then how can they believe themselves qualified to help and guide others through the refining, maturing and sanctifying process of being part of a biblically based church? Indeed, their own lives are in far greater need of such refining, maturing and sanctification than those whom they would presume to lead. We can only shudder in horror at the thought of such spiritual and moral blindness in those promoting themselves as so-called itinerant ministries, and steer well clear of them.

Before we leave this unpleasant but necessary subject let me give you an idea of just what is out there on the Christian scene, waiting to trap the unwary, by sharing a little of my personal experience of such people. The following characters’ names have been changed so as to spare their blushes, but they are people I have personally known who are just waiting to lead anyone gullible enough to follow them.

Ministries to Avoid: Horror Story No. 1

Horror story Number 1 first contacted me when he was a missionary in Southern Europe wanting advice regarding the transitioning of churches which he was involved with into something more biblically based. He came to visit Belinda and me at our home when he was next in England and we spent the best part of a day with him. Our time together seemed pleasant enough although one or two little niggles, to which we paid little attention at the time, did raise their heads. Some months later he returned in order to attend one of our Sunday church gatherings so he could get a clearer picture of how we do things in practical terms; and although no-one was quite sure why, we found ourselves with some real reservations concerning him and a definite sense of unease. In particular, and this is sadly pretty much par for the course, he kept dropping hints about his need for money for his ministry - something which doesn’t go down well with us as a church at all. However, we thought nothing more of it once he had left.

He contacted me again some months later informing me that he and his wife were separating, the marriage having apparently been in trouble for some time. I duly expressed my sympathy for the distress both he and his wife must have been going through and assured him of our prayers for them. I also urged him to step down from ministry and to concentrate his every conceivable effort on saving the marriage, as this should be the greatest priority of his Christian life. Sadly, however, things didn’t work out. They duly separated and it was clear that the marriage was over.

However, a year or so later I discovered to my surprise that not only was he doing everything he could to launch himself into a ‘house church ministry’ in America, but that he was partly doing so by mentioning my name, thus making it appear that he was tied in with me in some way and had my commendation. I chalked the information up for possible future reference, but didn’t have any reason to think further. Until, that is, our paths crossed again some time later.

Whilst Belinda, Bethany and I were in America on one of our trips there we visited a church at which I regularly teach only to discover that they were actually hosting this guy, and that he had done some teaching for them just the night before. Clearly under the impression that he and I were buddies, and that I considered him to be bona fide, they were taken aback when I explained that nothing could have been further from the truth. They were then further horrified when I also informed them that the woman this ‘house church teacher’ was traveling with wasn’t even his wife, who was back in Europe. As cunning as the day is long this conscience-less character had been trading on the fact that everyone just assumed, knowing he was married, that the woman with him was his wife, thereby being completely deceived by him.

I immediately tracked him down (he didn’t seem best pleased at seeing me) and made clear what I thought of what he was doing and informed him that the church there now knew the truth about him. I reiterated that he shouldn’t even be continuing in ministry given his failed marriage and separation from his wife - let alone whilst traveling un-chaperoned with another woman - and that he should be seeking help for himself rather than offering it to others.

He responded that I was being unloving and judgmental, that God was leading him and that I therefore didn’t have the right to say that what he was doing was wrong. He further explained that his ministry had become all the more valid and fruitful given the way he was now able to identify with people going through marriage breakdown, and that the Lord was using him powerfully in such regard. In other words, never mind what the Bible says!

Ministries to Avoid: Horror Story No. 2

I first met Horror Story Number 2 at a house church conference, although we had engaged in some correspondence prior to it. I was teaching the main sessions and he was doing a couple of the seminars that were scheduled to occur between the primary talks. He was fascinated by what I was outlining in the talks concerning the historical origin of all our unbiblical church practices and asked if I would send him a copy of my notes, which I duly did.

As I talked with him at various points throughout the duration of the conference every spiritual alarm bell I have within me went off. If I have ever experienced the gift of discernment from the Lord that something was, spiritually speaking, seriously wrong with someone, then this was it. Particularly concerning was that he was fairly well known on the house church scene even then, and has subsequently become more and more influential. Yet there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Holy Spirit was warning me about him, and that he was one of the most deceptive believers I’d met in a long time.

My reservations were soon confirmed over the duration of the conference as I observed that whenever he appeared he was followed by what can only be described as a veritable ‘entourage’ of greatly adoring young people - the ‘church’, in fact, that he was supposedly in process of ‘planting.’ He did nothing to discourage this display, but positively revelled in it. It also transpired that whenever the seminars were taking place this ‘entourage’ would only go to hear him and not any of the other speakers whose seminars were also in progress. It was the most blatant example of a little house church ‘sect’ in the making that I have ever seen.

Even more concerning though was his teaching which had little to do with the Bible and everything to do with locking people up to himself as a kind of ‘guru’ figure. Apparently, being a true and genuine church could only be a reality if he were the person who was the ‘planter.’ Yet as insidious as all that clearly was, the worst was yet to come.

Because of my concerns about him, plus my awareness of the influence he was having over people wanting to form into house churches, I engaged him in detailed correspondence in order to try and help him to a better place spiritually. I was aware of something in his life that was very, very wrong and which needed to be addressed; but I just didn’t know what it was. He kept writing his books and speaking at house church conferences and increasing his influence - and I kept praying.

Then it all came out! He was discovered to have been involved with a woman other than his wife, his marriage subsequently going under and ending in divorce. Though sad beyond words at what had happened, both to him and his poor wife and children, I was nevertheless relieved that this would at least end his ministry and get him out of the limelight in order that the Lord might both protect people from his influence and do a work in him.

Did he do the honourable thing though and step down from ministry though? Did he conform to the teaching of the Word of God he was so keen to teach others? Do bears live in the desert? Of course not! This man continues in ministry to this day as if nothing is amiss, doing everything he can to cover up what happened and to hide the truth about himself. I was further both amazed and heartbroken at the way in which other house church leaders gathered round him, almost as if he was some kind of victim, and encouraged him to continue in his public ministry.

Then, quite unbelievably, he sought my endorsement and wanted me to commend him as a bona fide teacher. Even though I had made it absolutely clear to him that I believed he should step down and stop teaching, he was nevertheless still more concerned to keep his ministry going and to protect his reputation than he was to lay it all to one side and just concentrate on saving his marriage. All I could do was to explain to him as fully as possible why I could not biblically accept or endorse him as a legitimate ministry, and to challenge him to have the honesty and integrity - indeed, the sheer decency - to step down from leadership and to stop perpetrating the hypocrisy of disobeying the teaching of the Bible whilst promoting himself as having a ministry of bringing others back to its truth. Needless to say my appeals were ignored, and I was made out to be the bad guy.

This serves as yet another perfect example as to why I make the distinction I do between ‘biblical church’ and mere ‘house church’.

Ministries to Avoid: Horror Story No. 3

I am relieved to say that our final example of why it’s so important to be careful to whom you look for help is virtually unknown and has no significant influence regarding ‘things house church.’ I am including him simply because, should you ever chance upon his website, you might be forgiven for thinking that you had stumbled upon someone of real spiritual substance who had extensive experience of starting biblical churches.

When he initially contacted me, having found our church website, he conveyed considerable excitement at having found others who thought similarly to him about church life, so I duly arranged to meet with him at his home. It became clear that he had an extremely keen mind and had been blessed with a comprehensive grasp of scriptural truth, and I was both pleased and encouraged to have met someone so grounded in the Word of God who wanted to move in the direction of biblical church life.

It became clear quite quickly that he had only been married a short while, his first marriage having ended in divorce. Sad though I was to hear of yet another failed marriage, I nevertheless fell back on my usual stance in such circumstances - that you can’t ‘unscramble eggs’ - and so thought little of it. Indeed, I was pleased to see his and his new brides’ happiness, and because he had no teaching or leadership role of any kind his marital circumstances didn’t seem to be of any great concern. In fact, the two of them weren’t even going to a church and he hadn’t been part of one in any significant way for several years.

Some weeks later Belinda, Bethany and I met him and his wife at a restaurant at a half way point between our homes, given that we live a significant distance apart. It was certainly a pleasant enough time together, but it did become increasingly obvious that he had definite tendencies towards paranoia, as well as a need to be in control all the time. This was confirmed to me by Belinda who through the years has proved herself to be an extraordinarily good judge of character. We didn’t think much of it though, if only because we had no way of knowing whether or not there would be any further contact with them. Then, as so often seems to be the case, it all started to happen.

He contacted me again a few months later and told me that his second wife, the one whom we had met, had left him as well, and that they were in process of a divorce and that he was, not unsurprisingly, in a bit of a bad way. I went to visit him at the first opportunity in order to offer whatever help and support I could, and to encourage him in the Lord. The fact that he was not part of a church made me all the more keen to be there for him, so over the next couple of years I befriended him and visited him whenever I reasonably could.

Being as capable as he was in the Word of God, and as a result of lots of talks we had about biblical church life, it came as no surprise that he eventually got a married couple he knew, plus a single guy who was an old friend of his, to start meeting with him as a church. I was greatly pleased for all concerned, especially given that none of them were part of churches elsewhere, and I just hoped that his paranoid tendencies and need to control people wouldn’t get in the way.

As time went on though he went more and more into ‘ministry mode’ and talked increasingly as if he had some kind of public leadership profile. As far as I was concerned we were just brothers in the Lord who fellowshipped together now and then, but things got increasingly awkward as he kept trying to relate to me on the basis of our time together being ‘leaders meetings’ or some such. I don’t think like that even if I am with other church leaders though, and as far as I am concerned we are all simply brothers and sisters in the Lord.

He then revived a website he had apparently put up some years before which had various teaching articles he’d written on it, but which he hadn’t maintained and had been offline. He revamped it to make it look like he had been in some kind of public ministry for years and had extensive experience of starting and leading house churches, which was quite simply not the case at all. The single guy in the church then told me that he was only still going to the meetings because he wanted to try and get the married couple away from him before they became too much under his control. Horror Story number 3, it would appear, was making it clear to the three of them that they shouldn’t disagree with anything he taught because his teachings were so biblical. Further, he was propounding a particularly extreme version of a particular theological ‘ism’ and teaching that agreement with it was virtually the test as to whether or not someone was a genuine believer and following the Lord. It became clearer by the day that he was one of those extremely unfortunate believers who are far more conditioned and influenced by their mental and emotional problems than by the truth of scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

The last time I saw him he spoke of himself as being an elder, even though I was fully aware that no-one had officially recognized him as such; and I could not, in all good conscience, flinch from therefore raising with him the not inconsequential matter of him having had two marriages end in divorce whilst a Christian. I wasn’t surprised that he responded by suggesting I was wrong to question whether he was qualified as an elder, but I was somewhat taken aback when he assured me, in all seriousness, that the divorces were completely the fault of his two ex-wives. Therefore, he explained, because he was an entirely innocent victim, it was obviously fine biblically for him to be an elder. I duly responded that he must be the only person in the world who thought that a man could have two wives walk out on him and not be himself, if even only partly, in any way to blame. Within a few days he sent an email to the three other people in the church, which he forwarded to me, declaring me to be a troublemaker to be avoided at all costs. The single guy eventually told him that he agreed with what I had said and was duly excommunicated within a few weeks.

But if you were to come across this guy’s website you would never dream what the reality of his life actually is. You would rather read some quite impressive teaching articles by someone of whom you would be led to believe has been in a public teaching ministry for many years, and who had both brought into being and led house churches. You would think that he was the ‘real deal’ and someone who looked like they could be a real help to any group of believers who wanted to start being a biblically based church together. What his website doesn’t tell you though is that he hasn’t actually been part of a church in any significant way for years, and that he has been divorced twice as a believer, the second one being pretty recent at the time of writing. Neither will it tell you that the church where he ‘currently serves as a pastor-teacher’ is but three strong - himself and one married couple - with the only other person ever to have been part of it having been excommunicated for disagreeing with him.

The point is clear: Men like these, who are so adept at deceiving themselves, will inevitably deceive others. They are good talkers, good writers and good at producing websites, yet none of them, according to the New Testament, are even remotely qualified to be recognized as being in any bona fide type of church leadership whatsoever. If I can cite three such examples from just my own limited personal experience, then ponder for a moment just how many of these sad, deceived and dishonest ‘church leadership-types’ are out there. We must, indeed, be very careful.

The Well Meaning but Not Very Biblically Based and Therefore Not Very Helpful People

And so to a rather different category! There is no problem with the men in this category as far as their integrity, honesty and personal spiritual track record are concerned. Their personal walk with the Lord is proven and they don’t have ‘skeletons in the cupboard’ like those in the previous section. Their family lives, apart from the prevalent tendency today amongst Christians towards feminism, are what they should be and they can be categorized in every way as faithful and mature brothers. However, the difficulty - and the reason I mention this category at all - is that these are people who, although promoting themselves as house church leaders and teachers, have never properly been part of such a church themselves. They have little or no personal experience concerning that which they presume to advocate to others.

This is usually because they have only recently transitioned out of the institutional church system themselves, yet assume that they should continue to function, and be looked to by others, as leaders. Because their background is of standard unbiblical church life they have never had any experience of being the type of leadership that the New Testament teaches. Yet even though they have never been part of biblical church life, they nevertheless promote themselves as leaders, teachers, church planters and the like, claiming to be able to pass on to others what they themselves have never experienced. They are mere theorists unable to draw on any significant personal experience of that which they claim to be able to lead others into. Though spiritually qualified for leadership in the sense that their personal lives are truly in order and display the necessary spiritual maturity, such men are nevertheless still lacking the necessary personal validation for leadership in biblical church life.

I have spoken with numerous such itinerant ministries on the house church scene down the years and have found a similar story across the board. You find these men (and women too) at house church conferences animatedly promoting their latest book, or some upcoming house church teaching event they are speaking at, and you would be led to think that when it comes to biblical church life they are veritable veterans. As you probe further though you are far more likely to discover that they were writing their book, or planning and promoting their itinerant house church ministry, before they had even left whatever unbiblical church it was that they were previously members of.

I have noticed a recurring pattern with these people in that, even though they may have started a house church here and there, they rarely become a regular or significant part of any of them themselves. They attend every now and then but never become part of a particular church such as they teach everyone else to do. Recall, if you will, the principle we earlier noted in such regard: the main characteristic of unbiblical church leadership is that such men are apart from the church, whilst the main characteristic of biblical church leadership is that leaders are a part of the church. Sadly these men fail that test. They tell other people what to do by way of church life; they just don’t do it themselves. They have never made the transition from unbiblical to biblical leadership. Precisely because they have never been just a brother in a biblically based church, and have not thereby experienced the reality that biblical church leadership is to do with servant-hood and function, and not position, and they therefore can’t themselves become the right kind of leader for a biblical church.

It’s a bit like going to a marriage seminar and discovering that the person teaching it is only just back from his honeymoon. He’s properly married, he knows what the Bible teaches about it and is able to pass that biblical information on to others in an interesting and helpful way, but he still doesn’t know what he’s talking about. After all, a newly married man knows little about marriage experientially except that he loves his wife and that being married to her is wonderful. And in so far as that goes he is absolutely right, but he nevertheless lacks the personal experience needed to be able to truly lead others – and I mean by example rather than by just talking - regarding the whole subject of married life. Likewise, the only way a man can be considered to be qualified as a leader of others in regard to biblical church life is if he himself has got years of personal experience under his belt through having been part of such a church himself.

Newlyweds only have the most minimal of understandings as to how the difficulties and problems that will eventually come their way will need to be handled. However, a couple who have been married for ten, twenty or thirty years have what only the passage of time can impart: personal experience! When a biblical church comes into being - rather like a marriage - no-one who is part of it has a clue about the sort of problems and difficulties they are going to have to face together down the years, and I have been utterly amazed at just how inexperienced some of these supposed ‘house church leaders’ and ‘teachers’ actually were when they burst forth with such flourish into the public arena as self-proclaimed ‘experts.’ It would actually be quite amusing if it wasn’t also so serious for those who are misdirected and led up the garden path by their well meaning, but immensely unhelpful, ignorance on the subject.

Even though I concede without the slightest hesitation that these are wonderful brothers who greatly love the Lord and who seek to faithfully serve Him, I must nevertheless caution my reader regarding the teaching and ministry you would have from them. There are books out there with titles along the lines of “How to Start a House Church” and “The ABC of House Church Planting” written by people who were themselves totally new to the whole concept when they put pen to paper. It is unconvincing in the extreme and also, I think, slightly arrogant.

When married couples want serious advice and guidance about marriage then the last people they need help from are newlyweds still in the throes of honeymoon bliss. Precisely because these men are without significant personal experience of on-going biblical church life themselves, and because they have never been leaders in the biblical sense, but only hierarchical big chiefs, they have virtually no idea of the kinds of things that can happen or problems that can arise in a biblical church setting, or how to handle them biblically when they do. They obviously try to hide this fact because no-one is going to attend a conference or go to a teaching event to listen to a self-proclaimed ignoramus, but it still doesn’t change the fact that they don’t really know what they’re talking about because it’s the equivalent of trying to comprehensively describe somewhere they’ve never actually been. A pound of experience is worth a great many tons of mere talk, theoretical teaching and biblical head knowledge.

Further, because they tend to hold to the more extreme charismatic and pragmatic side of things they also labour under the all too common charismatic misconception that faith means talking big and simply believing what you’ve said. It is only natural that they then try to get everyone else to do likewise and to buy into their erroneous understanding that if you just do things charismatically-correctly, have enough faith, think positively enough and bind Satan loudly enough then after a short while you will have started a house church ‘movement’ which will have soon replicated into yet a few dozen more churches until the whole region where you live is just one big network of house churches. Outside of the most exceptional sovereign moves of the Holy Spirit such ideas are quite ridiculous, and to be influenced by people who teach that such a revival-type situation should be the norm, and that ‘house church’ is the way to make it happen, is a sure-fire recipe for almost certain disappointment and disillusionment.

I hear serious talk from these guys about having a ‘vision’ for bringing churches into being by the millions in just a few years, and it makes me wonder how anyone can even begin to take them seriously. Indeed, a recent ‘house church’ book maintains that, by planting house churches in a particular way, we are going to see half the world’s population converted in the next few years. By such standards Paul the apostle really didn’t do too well at all and only managed to start a pitifully small number of churches in comparison. No! This obsession these guys have regarding church growth and multiplication has little to do with a biblical understanding of church life and everything to do with an almost mystical, charismaniac-type pragmatism. It is another example of what we saw earlier whereby believers are simply formed into evangelistic cell groups in the name of being churches, only in this instance with almost delusional expectations for numerical growth. It is the age-old error that spiritual ‘techniques’ guarantee to cause God’s hand to move in certain predetermined ways. It is unhelpful - and unbiblical - in the extreme, and I strongly caution against it.

So be careful what you get yourself into. In an age of instant soup and coffee, there will be no shortage of instant experts - just add one part advertising acumen to two parts self-promotion, stir in website (with prominent ‘Donate’ button) and serve immediately!

To Summarize

Outside help can be of great help; it could equally, if you make an unwise choice, become a terrible snare. I therefore list the kind of things you need to know about someone before you invite them into your situation, and what to look out for once you have:

•          Have they divorced since being in public leadership ministry?

•          Have they themselves been part of a biblical church over a period of years, by which I mean the same church with the same people? This is a tremendously important point! There are those who claim to have been involved in such church life for years, which sounds impressive and just what you’re looking for, but who carefully play down the fact that it was in numerous different church situations, most of which usually not lasting more than a few months, or a year or so, before blowing up and resulting in a complete and utter shambles. A decade of experience spread between three or four failed attempts at church life that all came to grief is hardly a solid recommendation.

•          Do they adhere to, practice and teach God’s order for family life, acknowledging that leadership and teaching in the church is, therefore, for the men?

•          Do they teach that the manner of church life, indeed the manner of everything, must be based purely on the teaching of the Bible and not on pragmatic considerations as to what seems to work best in practice at any one time?

•          Are they aware of the dangers of what I have referred to as charismania? Do they accordingly reject anything to do with the miraculous, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the ‘charismatic movement’ which doesn’t conform to the clear teaching of scripture?

•          Are they trying to get money out of you?

•          Are they using you merely as a means of furthering their own ministry?

•          Do they give even the slightest impression that if they came in to help you they would consider you to be in some way ‘under the umbrella’ of their ministry?

All of the above need to be taken into careful consideration before bringing anyone in from the outside in order to help out. It is an enormous blessing to have someone with the appropriate calling and experience come and help out here and there, but it is vital nonetheless to ensure that whomever you invite is truly biblically qualified in the Lord in the ways we have seen. Otherwise, what should be a blessing could just as easily turn into a counter-productive and most unpleasant curse.

Postscript

In covering the content contained in this book we have taken a journey which, by any consideration, is of some importance. I therefore encourage you to be both careful and considered in your response to it, and not to just put it down, forget about what has been said and just go back to the way things were before you started to read it.

It has become somewhat trendy in recent years to talk about ‘paradigm shifts’ and seeing something from such a different angle that you suddenly, for the first time in your life, see it as it actually is rather than merely how you always thought, or assumed, it was. Galileo caused such a shift in regards to our understanding of the nature of the cosmos and planetary rotation, and Albert Einstein did likewise in regards to how we ought to perceive the nature of the relationship between the physical universe and time. Though in a much more humble and low key way, I am nevertheless seeking to cause such a shift in the minds of believers concerning what church life ought to be like. I have demonstrated that, according to the teaching of the New Testament, it should not be the way the vast majority of believers perceive it, and that it is actually as different as were the universes of Galileo and Einstein to the accepted understandings that went before them.

I have further demonstrated that there are indeed formidable and profound reasons to think that the Reformation is not yet over, and that the move of God which began at that point in history is far from ended. We have the true gospel back, as we have also retrieved believers’ baptism and the gifts of the Holy Spirit; yet when it comes to church life we are still practicing the opposite of what we see in scripture. In other words, when it comes to church life, Christians remain totally pre-Reformation in their understanding and practice. The paradigm shift of which I speak is simply giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt, and then living our corporate church life according to it - and to it alone.

I therefore invite the reader to join with a movement that is currently but a small stream, but which, I pray, will one day become a raging flood. It is a movement which has neither headquarters nor coordinating executive director. It is without big leaders or hierarchical thinkers and strategists of any kind. No-one is in charge and no-one acts as its guiding light. For this movement, unlike others we see all around us, is simply the Lord himself moving amongst groups of believers who are, for the most part, completely unconnected to each other, but who are, nonetheless, experiencing the same thing. In that sense it isn’t actually a ‘movement’ at all, for such terminology forever conjures up the idea of some over-arching leadership directing things from the top. No, it is rather nothing less than the actual restoration of New Testament church life - the emergence of biblical churches.

So come on and dive in! If I have convinced you from scripture that what you have read in the pages of this book is true, then let that challenge you to be a little local ‘Luther’ where you are, and to start finishing the Reformation in your own church life and experience. Become one of the increasing numbers of believers who have already embraced being such, and play your part, wherever you are and in whatever situation you find yourself, in ushering in the final phase of the Reformation.

I leave you with this thought: If scripture says something, then whatever that thing is, it is right. Conversely, if something goes against scripture, then whatever that thing is, it is wrong. Therefore, when it comes to church life and practice, who are you going to go with: the Lord Jesus Christ and his written Word, or the traditions of the Early Church Fathers?

About the Author

BERESFORD JOB has been involved in full-time pastoral and Bible teaching ministry for over 35 years. His aim is to make known to believers the whole counsel of God thereby helping them to grow and mature in their discipleship. This he does not only through teaching events and writing, but by making available a comprehensive catalogue of audio teaching on cassette tape, audio CD and mp3 format. He is especially involved in helping to start, and then nurture, churches which are based solely on the teaching of scripture, and which therefore reject merely man-made practises and teachings. In pursuing these goals he travels widely with his family both in England and America, with occasional trips into Europe. He lives in Essex, England, with his wife, Belinda, and their teenage daughter, Bethany. He and Belinda have been part of the Chigwell Christian Fellowship, where he is recognized as an elder, since it began in 1986.

Further Resources

Beresford makes available over 300 audio studies covering just about every biblical subject under the sun. They are available in cassette tape, audio CD or mp3 file formats and can be ordered through the Chigwell Christian Fellowship website at www.house-church.org and www.housechurch.co.uk

Notes

Notes

Notes

Notes

Notes

[1]  1 Corinthians 11 v 2 (Revised Standard Version)

[2]  2 Thessalonians 2 v 15, 3 v 6 (Revised Standard Version)

[3]  Matthew 15 v 3, 6 (Revised Standard Version)

[4]  Mark 7 v 8-9, 13 (Revised Standard Version)

[5]  Matthew 15 v 1-2 (Revised Standard Version); Emphasis added

[6]  Mark 7 v 1-5 (Revised Standard Version); Emphasis added

[7]  Nehemiah 8

[8]  Exodus 23 v 19b

[9]  The more obscure Mosaic laws often have their explanation in the occult practices of those who occupied the Promised Land that Israel was set to enter after Moses received the Law on Mt Sinai.

[10] This is how the system of kosher food developed.

[11] All the above can be found in Tractate Shabbat

[12] Teachers

[13]  Mishna: from the Hebrew word shanah which means to repeat, teach or learn

[14]  Gemara: from the Aramaic word gemara which means completion

Talmud: from the Hebrew word lamadh meaning instruction

[15]  Tractate Avot 10:1; Brackets mine

[16] Though applied in a somewhat different context, this is the same principle to which Jesus referred when he pointed out that a man cannot serve both God and Money. One can only have but one Master.

[17]  Tractate Berachot 3:2, Tractate Sanhedren 11:3, Tractate Yevamot 89b-90a; Brackets mine

[18]  Tractate Eruvin 21b; Brackets mine

[19]  I am greatly indebted to the excellent teaching ministry of Mr Arnold Fruchtenbaum for the information relating to the tradition of the elders. His books and tapes are available through Ariel Ministries, P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, California, 92781, USA. Telephone: (714) 259-4800  Website address: http://www.ariel.org

[20]  Matthew 11 v 2-6

[21]  Micah 5 v 2; Daniel 9 v 24-27

[22]  Daniel 7 v 13-14

[23]  1 Corinthians 4 v 6

[24]  Article “The Three Messianic Miracles” by Arnold Fruchtenbaum; Ariel Ministries website: http://www.ariel.org

[25]  Luke 5 v 12-16

[26]  Luke 5 v 17-26

[27]  Luke 5 v 27-33

[28]  Mark 5 v 8-9; Luke 8 v 30

[29]  It is interesting to note that the demonology of the modern charismatic movement generally advocates the same approach as the Pharisees, with those so practicing remaining seemingly completely unaware that what they are doing owes absolutely nothing to the teaching of scripture and everything to Pharisaic Judaism. When it comes to the casting out of demons there is absolutely no need to do anything other than simply command the spirits to leave. As believers we have the authority of Jesus Himself over them to do this, and it is foolish in the extreme to seek to engage with them verbally. It is even more foolish to take the slightest bit of notice of, or to believe, a word they say.

[30]  Matthew 12 v 22-23

[31]  Of further interest here is the fact that it was immediately after this incident that the Pharisees accused him of casting the demon out by the power of the Devil, and Jesus replied with the assertion that they had committed the sin of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In this context it becomes clear that this was Israel's rejection of Jesus as their Messiah in the full knowledge that He was indeed just that. Jesus proved Himself as such not only according to the Old Testament Scriptures but also according to their own extra-biblical teachings. The judgment was, of course, Israel's deportation by the Romans after the events of AD70, this being the outward sign that their place as God's vine had been taken from them in order to be replaced by the (largely) Gentile church. That it is a national, and not an individual, sin can be seen from the fact that many of the people who rejected Him at this point eventually came to faith in him. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles specifically informs us that many priests in Jerusalem did eventually believe (Acts 6 v 7).

[32]  John 9 v 1-7, 29-38; Italicized brackets added

[33] The only exception to this rule was if the person in need of healing was likely to die if not healed before the start of the following day: but of course the healing of a man born blind obviously does not fit into that category.

[34] Shabbat 108:20

[35]  Luke 5 v 27-32

[36]  Luke 6 v 1-2 (Revised Standard Version)

[37]  Luke 6 v 6-11

[38]  Matthew 15 v 1-14

[39]  Sotah 4b; Challah (J) 58:3

[40]  Matthew 15 v 14a

[41]  Luke 17 v 11-14

[42]  To put this into a New Testament historical perspective Paul the Apostle died in AD 64. It is also possible that, at the time Clement wrote, John the Apostle was still alive.

[43]  Acts 20 v 17-28

[44]  1 Peter 5 v 1-3

[45]  Titus 1 v 5-9

[46]  The Story of the Church, pp 20-21, Chapter – The Apostolic Age; Published by Inter-Varsity Press. His Lightfoot quote is taken from the Bishop’s Commentary on Philippians, p. 93.

[47]  The Lion Handbook of the Bible, p 620, Section on 1 Timothy 3; Lion Publishing, 1978, 2nd Revised Edition

[48]  Believer’s Bible Commentary, pp 2134-5, Section on Titus and Elders; Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990

[49]  Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, p 128; Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1985 Edition

[50]  Ibid. p 167

[51]  He was an Anglican Bishop

[52]  The Early Church Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius, p 32, Section on The Church and Ministry, sub-section The Clergy and the Laity; Translated from Clements First Epistle to the Corinthians, by Henry Bettenson; Oxford University Press, 1991 Edition.

[53]  1 Peter 2 v 4-5, 9

[54]  1 Peter 5 v 2-3

[55]  Translated from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians, p 40, Section on Exhortation to Unity and Obedience; Bettenson

[56]  Ibid, Translated from the Epistle to the Magnesians, pp 42-43, Section on Exhortation to Unity Under the Church’s Ministers

[57]  Ibid, Translated from the Epistle to the Trallians, p 44, Section on Obedience to the Ministers

[58]   Ibid, Translated from the Epistle to the Smyrneans, p 49, Section on Unity under the Ministry - the Supreme Authority of the Bishop

[59]   Ibid, p 149, Section on The Bishop in Baptism

[60]   Ibid, p 150, Section on The Clergy and the Laity; Brackets mine

[61]   Ibid, p 272, Section on The Eucharist, sub-section The Sacrifice

[62]  Introducing the New Testament, p 403, Chapter 22 – Authority; Lion Publishing, Revised 1999 Edition

[63]  Bettenson, p 32, Section on The Apostles and Their Successors

[64]  Ibid, p 89, Section on The Notes of the Church – Succession – Tradition – Scripture; Brackets and emphasis added

[65]  Ibid, p 267, Section on Choice of Bishops; Made by Bishops, with Approval of Clergy and Laity

[66]  Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, p 210, Under heading for Priest, Section 1 (c); Brackets mine

[67] We will return to the subject of church government and leadership in much greater detail in a later chapter

[68]  Prophecy Today magazine, May/June 1988 issue; Emphasis added

[69]  Acts 2 v 37-41

[70]  Acts 8 v 12

[71]  Acts 8 v36-38

[72]  Acts 9 v 17-19

[73]  Acts 10 v 44-48

[74]  Acts 16 v 29-33

[75]  Acts 19 v 1-5

[76]  Bettenson, p 49; Already quoted

[77]   Bishop/overseer was merely a synonym for elder/presbyter and pastor/shepherd. Bishops/elders/pastors were, as we saw in chapter four, simply older brothers who had been raised up in the local situation and recognized by the churches they led.

[78]   Bettenson, p 60, Section on Baptism

[79]  Ibid, p 146, Section on Baptism, sub-section, Should not be ministered rashly and not to infants

[80]  Ibid, p 154, Section on The Discipline of the Church, sub-section on Mortal and Venial Sins

[81]  Ibid, p 147, Section on The Sacraments, sub-section on The Ceremonies of Baptism

[82]   Ibid, p 269, Section on Christian Initiation, sub-section on The Gift of the Spirit: Contradictory Statements

[83]   Ibid, pp 268-269, Section on Christian Initiation, sub-section on Infant Baptism and Original Sin

[84]  Acts 8 v 18-24

[85]  Acts 8 v 9-13

[86]   Prophecy Today magazine, May/June 1988 issue

[87]   The Lion Handbook of the History of Christianity,  p 115, Chapter on Beginnings, section on Instruction Before Baptism

[88]  Introducing the New Testament, p 397, Chapter 22, Section on The Institutional Church; Lion Publishing; Brackets mine.

[89]  1 Corinthians 12 v 1-31

[90]  It is instructive to note that the Biblical context of the use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit when believers gather as a church is in small gatherings, and with the complete absence of what we might term ‘up front’ leadership. The two dangers most prevalent in the charismatic movement – which explain why there is so much false teaching and practice amongst its adherents – is firstly, control and manipulation by leaders, and secondly, hysteria and gullibility amongst the large number of people present in such meetings. The blueprint given in scripture for a New Testament church gathering is the opposite of this – small numbers and no ‘up front’ leaders – thereby providing a certain amount of protection from both dangers. I would go so far as to say that, outside of the biblical church format, the practice of the gifts of the Spirit is not a very safe thing at all, and will merely procreate and further the charismatic deceptions and false practices so prevalent amongst God’s people today.

[91]  1 Corinthians 14 v 26-27; 29-31

[92]   Introducing the New Testament, p 402, chapter 22, Section on Worship

[93]  A Lion Handbook – the History of Christianity, p 151, Section on Acceptance and Conquest and the article entitled, Building for Worship; Lion Publishing, 1988 Edition; Brackets and emphasis mine

[94]  The Story of the Church, pp 22-23, chapter entitled, The Apostolic Age; Brackets mine

[95]  1 Corinthians 11 v 20-34

[96]  Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p 158, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries; Inter-Varsity Press, 1976 Edition ,General Editor: R.V.G. Tasker; Brackets mine

[97]  The Lion Handbook of the Bible, p 594, Section on 1 Corinthians 11 v 17-34; Lion Publishing; 2nd Revised edition 1978

[98]  Christian Beliefs, p 80, Chapter 6, The Christian Community; Inter-Varsity Press, 2nd Edition, 1972

[99]  The New Lion Encyclopaedia, p 173, Section on The Lord’s Supper; Lion Publishing

[100]  A Lion Handbook – the History of Christianity, p 58, Section on Beginnings and an article entitled Archaeological Light on Earliest Christianity; Lion Publishing, 1988 Edition

[101]  Ibid

[102]  We shall be back to these things in much greater detail in Part 2 when we shall be concentrating on what scripture-based churches are actually like in practice when it comes to how they function and operate.

[103]  In the New Testament we see that Apostles such as Paul, Timothy and Titus would lead churches they had brought into being until they were strong enough for the Apostles to move on, knowing that in time they would have their own recognized eldership such as I have described. In such regard it is unfortunate that Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus are so frequently referred to as the ‘Pastoral Epistles’.  Neither Timothy nor Titus was ‘the Pastor’ of a church – a position that, as we have seen, was unknown in the New Testament. They were simply apostolic leaders temporarily assigned until the churches they were leading were strong enough to survive without them, or had come to recognize their own eldership, and therefore didn’t need their continued presence any more.

[104]  Of course, churches which claim to be more biblical than others because they have ‘elders’ who work under the ‘Minister’ are really just working a bit of an ecclesiological con trick on people. Biblically, elders are the permanent leadership of a church. Irrespective of what form a particular church’s concept of ‘the Minister’ takes, it is the very existence of the position itself that, according to scripture, is unwarranted. To have such, but then add ‘elders’ into the mix, is no more a step towards becoming more biblical than is a Catholic Priest referring to the Mass as the Lord’s Supper. The mere presence of biblical terminology is a vastly different thing to actually being biblical. After all, Mormonism has elders, but so what?

[105]  The technical theological terms for what we are dealing with here are ecclesiology and orthopraxy. We are not primarily addressing issues concerning doctrines believed – orthodoxy – but those which have to do with church structure, practice and format – orthopraxy.

[106]   For most believers this is actually a matter of ignorance, and the average Christian doesn’t realize what Scripture teaches concerning these things. Churches which practice the opposite to the New Testament in the realm of ecclesiology and orthopraxy are hardly likely to be at pains to point out that fact to their congregations. Even otherwise capable Bible teachers remain ignorant about it too, for we all know how easy it is for us to read our own understandings back into scripture rather than letting scripture challenge and change our understandings.

[107]   We see a modern day example of this same process in many parts of the charismatic movement. So-called ‘revelations’ of the Holy Spirit are given equal place with the Word of God, and are even placed above it in authority. This is evidenced by the numerous doctrines, practices and so-called ‘ministries’ which the Holy Spirit has supposedly revealed in recent years, even though they go against the clear teaching of the New Testament.

[108]   In this regard the cry of the Reformers, sola scriptura (scripture alone), becomes somewhat of a sad joke. Indeed, there is good reason to maintain that what they started still needs finishing, and that a return to biblical church life actually completes what their scriptural understanding appears to have lacked.

[109]  From the Latin word radix meaning a root.

[110]  Matthew 3v10

[111]  In this regard the author stands both amazed and appalled at the way in which so many Bible-believing Christians are today blurring the doctrinal distinctions, which so many gave their lives to establish, and are seeking ecumenical unity with Rome. Whilst I freely accept that there are many genuine believers within its ranks, the Roman Catholic Church nevertheless cannot actually be said to be a Christian Church at all. It remains, both ideologically and theologically, in opposition to the biblical truths rediscovered by the Reformers and continues unchanged in its heresies; and particularly in its ongoing denial that salvation is by grace alone through faith in Jesus.

[112]  For more on this little understood and deeply disturbing aspect of church history, see The Reformers and Their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin, copyright 1964 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprinted in 1991 by The Christian Hymnary Publishers, Box 7159 Pinecraft, Sarasota, Florida 34278.

[113]  At least that time it was, thank the Lord, without actual bloodshed.

[114]  Numbers 22 v 28-30

[115]  1 Timothy 4 v 1-3

[116]  Tractate Berachot 3:2, Tractate Sanhedren 11:3, Tractate Yevamot 89b-90a

[117]  Tractate Eruvin 21b

[118]  Although I am mentioning these two things in a particular order here it should not be taken that I am implying that they should occur in that particular order. Chronology is not the issue here, and the order of events when a church gathers is completely flexible.

[119]  Numerous pictures are used for this purpose, including such things as a field, a flock of sheep and a building. Obviously none of these – unlike an actual definition, such as being God’s family – are to be taken literally.

[120]  This eldership was complemented by men with wider itinerant ministries such as those outlined in Ephesians chapter four. However, the method of corporate decision-making, as we shall see, remains the same.

[121]  Acts 1 v 15-17, 23-26

[122]  Acts 6 v 1-6

[123]  Acts 15 v 1-14, 19-29

[124]  Acts 15 v 22-23a (Italics mine)

[125]  We do well to remind ourselves yet again at this point that the New Testament knows nothing of the position of the Minister/Pastor/Priest of a church. Such positions owe their existence not to the teaching of Scripture, but to the traditions of the Early Church Fathers.

[126]  Matthew 18 v 15-17

[127]  1 Corinthians 5

[128]  New Testament Theology; p 741, Chapter 7: The Church - the Early Community – Acts; Inter-Varsity Press

[129]  Introducing the New Testament; p 397, Chapter 22; Lion Publishing

[130]  Matthew 20 v 25-28

[131]  Ephesians 5 v 22 - 6 v 4

[132]  Colossians 3 v 18-21

[133]  We shall be looking at the verses which get used to back this idea up in the next chapter.

[134] As an interesting aside I have long been struck with the way in which Christian feminists perform so many exegetical acrobatics in order to try and get round the verses in the New Testament which say wives should submit to their husbands, yet happily take those which say children should obey their parents at face value. Any argument which claims to have demonstrated that the submission of wives to husbands isn’t actually what the Bible teaches would equally apply concerning the subject of the obedience of children to parents. Believers who reject the idea of a husband being the head of his wife should at least be consistent and also drop the biblically parallel notion of children being under their authority as parents.

[135]  Titus 1 v 9

[136]  Remember, there is no such thing as ‘the Pastor’ or ‘the Minister’ of a church in the New Testament.

[137]  1 Thessalonians 5 v 12-13

[138]  Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Word; p 307 under entry for ‘Rule’; Marshall, Morgan and Scott

[139]  Titus 3 v 8, 14

[140]  That it is translated as ‘govern’ the second time in the verse just adds to the confusion by investing it with a hierarchical inference that just isn’t part of the meaning of the actual word.

[141]  Hebrews 13 v 7, 17, 24 (Italics mine)

[142]  Matthew 27 v 20 (Italics mine)

[143]  Matthew 27 v 41-44 (Italics mine)

[144]  2 Corinthians 2 v 3 (Italics mine)

[145]  Vine p 124, under entry for ‘Obey’

[146]  It does have to be pointed out here that the New International Version muddies the water even more in regard to this submission by adding the phrase, “...to their authority”. The word ‘authority’ doesn't even appear in the Greek and has been added by the translators purely for effect. It is therefore one of the more serious instances of poor Bible translation.

[147]  Should the rather obvious point that elders are always male in the New Testament ever be questioned in my wife’s hearing, she simply enquires as to whether any women who desire to be elders meet the biblical qualifications for such according to 1 Timothy 3 v 2 and Titus 1 v 6. Are they, she asks, “…the husband of one wife…” or, as the Greek literally puts it, a ‘one woman man.’

[148]  Acts 14 v 21-23 (Italics mine)

[149]  Vine p 69, under entry for ‘Appoint’

[150]  Titus 1 v 5 (Italics mine)

[151]  Acts 6 v 3 (Italics mine)

[152]  Acts 17 v 13-15 (Italics mine)

[153]  2 Peter 1 v 8 (Italics mine)

[154]  Romans 5 v 19 (Italics mine)

[155]  Vine p 67, under entry for ‘Appoint’

[156]  Believer’s Bible Commentary, pp 2134-5, Section on Titus and Elders; Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990

[157]  1 Corinthians 16 v 15-18 (Italics mine)

[158]  1 Peter 5 v 1-5 (Italics mine)

[159]  1 Peter 5 v 5 (Italics mine)

[160]  Acts 20 v 17-31

[161]  Acts 20 v 29-30

[162]  2 Corinthians 11 v 13-15

[163]  Revelation 19 v 9

[164]  Romans 16 v 3-5

[165]  1 Corinthians 16 v 19

[166]  Colossians 4 v 15

[167]  Philemon 1 v 1b-2

[168]  Acts 2 v 42-46; 3 v 1-26

[169]  Acts 6 v 1-6; 15 v 1-35

[170]  Romans 12 v 12

[171]  1 Peter 4 v 9 – This verse has always made me smile in that it establishes, when cross-referenced with Romans 12 v 12, a two-stage spiritual principle which works - at least it does in my life - a great deal. Firstly, the Lord gets us to be obedient in an area of our lives where we previously weren’t and then, after a while, starts working on us to then be obedient concerning it, but without grumbling.

[172]  1 Timothy 3 v 1-7, Titus 1 v 5-9

[173]  Whereas I have no problem per se with academic learning and excellence I nevertheless wonder if we are destroying church life by degrees.

[174]  1 Timothy 3 v 2 (Italics mine)

[175]  Titus 1 v 6-8a (Italics mine)

[176]  Let it be said too that, in the New Testament, neither is it permitted for people in full-time ministry to ask for money. If a man believes he is called to this then he must step out in faith and trust the Lord for his provision. Let him not ask for money, or even hint to others that he needs it. If the Lord is with him then he will be provided for simply by making known his needs to the Lord in prayer. His provision will, of course, be through the free-will offering of those of God’s people so led to give; however, such giving must be entirely unsolicited by the one who receives it. And lest any be wondering if this is practical, then let it be said that the author has lived and ministered in just such a way for a very considerable number of years.

[177]  Ephesians 4 v 11-13

[178]  Ephesians 5 v 22-33, Colossians 3 v 18-19

[179]  1 Corinthians 12 v 7

[180]  1 Corinthians 14 v 26

[181]  1 Corinthians 14 v 31

[182]  Ephesians 4 v 14-16

[183]  Introducing the New Testament, p 402, chapter 22, section on ‘Worship’

[184]  A Lion Handbook - the History of Christianity, p 151, section on ‘Acceptance and Conquest’, and article entitled, ‘Building for Worship’; Lion Publishing, 1988 edition; Brackets and emphasis added

[185]  The Story of the Church, pp 22-23, ‘The Apostolic Age’; Brackets added

[186]  2 Timothy 3 v 16-17

[187]  The author takes this to be the Lord’s Day as mentioned in Revelation 1 v 10. When combined with 1 Corinthians 10 v 21 and 1 Corinthians 11 v 20, the resulting formula – eating the Lord’s Supper and drinking the Lord’s Cup at the Lord’s Table on the Lord’s Day – seems somewhat irresistible in its logic.

[188]  The Greek of Acts 20 v 7, with the verb ‘to break’ being constructed as an infinitive with a genitive article, denotes that the breaking of bread so described – that is, the Lord’s Supper – was the express purpose of their gathering. Further, the fact that it was on the first day of the week is expressed by the Greek to have been the habitual, and therefore normative, practice. Also, for those who would maintain that Jewish days started in the evening and that therefore it would be referring to our Saturday night, it does need to be said that Acts 20 was written by a Gentile (Luke) about a Gentile situation. It is therefore highly unlikely that the calendar being used by Luke would have been the Jewish one, and he would therefore have been referring to the day still known in the West as Sunday.

[189]  Old Testament history, though true and literal, shows us New Testament revelation and doctrine actually acted out in human affairs, rather like a type of living allegory. One can think of it in terms that if the New Testament is the script, then the Old Testament is the movie.

[190]  John 8 v 44

[191]  Matthew 26 v 29, Revelation 19 v 6-9

[192]  1 Corinthians 11 v 26

[193]  1 Corinthians 11 v 27-32

[194]  We cannot, of course, control how others relate to us; however, we certainly can ensure that there is nothing on our part constituting a sin problem regarding a relationship which is, in any way, going wrong.

[195]  1 Corinthians 12 v 12

[196]  1 Corinthians 12 v 27

[197]  Romans 12 v 5

[198]  For a more detailed study of the Lord’s Supper see the author’s “Communion Series”, available  on cassette, CD or mp3 files. Available from www.house-church.org

[199]  Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p 158; Tyndale New Testament Commentaries; General Editor, R.V.G.Tasker; Inter-Varsity Press; 1976 edition. Brackets mine

[200]  The Lion Handbook of the Bible, p 594; section on 1 Corinthians 11 v 17-34; Lion Publishing; 2nd revised edition 1978

[201]  Christian Beliefs, Chapter 6: The Christian Community, p 80; Inter-Varsity Press, 1972; 2nd Edition

[202]  The New Lion Encyclopaedia, p 173; section on The Lord’s Supper; Lion Publishing

[203]  Philippians 3 v 10

[204]  The comparison between Israel’s dead religious formalism and the New Covenant the Lord was in process of bringing into being.

[205]  Remember, the contrast throughout this book is not that of true or false churches, it is that of biblical and unbiblical ones. No one is in any way suggesting that only biblical churches comprise genuine believers who truly love and serve the Lord.

[206]  The Story of the Church, pp 20-21, chapter on The Apostolic Age; Inter-Varsity Press. Lightfoot quote is taken from the Bishop’s Commentary on Philippians, p. 93

[207]  New Testament Theology, p 741, chapter 7: The Church–the Early Community; Inter-Varsity Press

[208]  The Lion Handbook of the Bible, p 620, Section on 1 Timothy 3; Lion Publishing, 2nd Revised Edition, 1978

[209]  Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, p 128; Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1985 Edition

[210]  Ibid. p 167

[211]  Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, p 210; Under heading for Priest, Section 1 (c); Brackets mine

[212]  Introducing the New Testament, p 403, Chapter 22 – Authority; Lion Publishing, Revised 1999 Edition

[213]  Introducing the New Testament, p 397, Chapter 22, Section on The Institutional Church;  Lion Publishing; Brackets mine

[214]  Believer’s Bible Commentary, pp 2134-5, Section on Titus and Elders; Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990

[215]  A Lion Handbook–the History of Christianity, p 58, Section on Beginnings, Article entitled, Archaeological Light on Earliest Christianity; Lion Publishing, 1988 Edition

[216]  A Lion Handbook–the History of Christianity, p 151, Section on Acceptance and Conquest, Article entitled, Building for Worship; Lion Publishing, 1988 Edition

[217]  Introducing the New Testament, p 402, Chapter 22, Section on Worship

[218]  The Story of the Church, pp 22-23, The Apostolic Age; Brackets mine

[219]  A Lion Handbook–the History of Christianity, p 151, Section on Acceptance and Conquest, Article entitled, Building for Worship; Lion Publishing, 1988 Edition; Brackets and emphasis mine

[220]  Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p 158; Inter-Varsity Press, General Editor: R.V.G. Tasker, 1976 Edition; Brackets mine

[221]  The Lion Handbook of the Bible, p 594, Section on 1 Corinthians 11 v 17-34; Lion Publishing, 2nd Revised Edition 1978

[222]  Christian Beliefs, p 80, Chapter 6 – The Christian Community; Inter-Varsity Press, 1972 2nd Edition

[223]  The New Lion Encyclopaedia, p 173, Section on The Lord’s Supper; Lion Publishing

[224]  Chigwell, a town in Essex, England

[225]  There are, however, others who would disagree with me and say it is better to be without a church completely than to have one that is not biblically set up. This is, of course, ultimately something about which the reader must seek the Lord for themselves.

[226]  1 Corinthians 14 v 26

[227]  In recent years we have developed the idea of having a set theme for the meal each Sunday which everyone knows about in advance. This could be anything from Chinese one week to Italian the next, and we just make sure that the wives know ahead of time what is needed and can therefore co-ordinate what each person is going to prepare and bring. At other times we just have a ‘pot-luck’ meal where people bring whatever they want. It works well and really does make the Lord’s Supper one of the best meals of the whole week.

[228] The reader will recall that the Greek word Paul uses in the term Lord’s Supper is deipnon, and it precisely means the main meal of the day towards evening. ‘The Lord’s Meal’ is therefore a perfectly accurate alternative translation.

[229]  Romans 12 v 15

[230]  1 Corinthians 12 v 26

[231] How anyone could believe such a thing is, of course, completely beyond me!

[232]  Titus 3 v 10

[233]  1 Corinthians 5 v 9-13

[234]  1 Timothy 1 v 3

[235]  This resource can be accessed through our church website at www.house-church.org

[236]  1 Corinthians 14 v 26b

[237]  1 Corinthians 14 v 29-30

[238]  1 Corinthians 14 v 40

[239]  1 Corinthians 14 v 26, 31

[240]  1 Corinthians 14 v 27-28 (Notice as well how Paul specifies, “…one at a time…”)

[241]  1 Corinthians 14 v 29

[242]  1 Corinthians 14 v 31

[243]  1 Corinthians 12 v 14-19

[244]  1 Corinthians 12 v 21-25

[245]  Ephesians 6 v 1

[246]  Colossians 3 v 20

[247] Whichever way you look at it that is, after all, what crèches and Sunday Schools actually amount to.

[248] And what a joy it is.

[249] Nine years old at the time of writing.

[250]  Titus 2 v 3-5

[251]  1 Timothy 5 v 14-15

[252]  1 Corinthians 14 v 33b-35

[253]  1 Timothy 2 v 11-14

[254]  1 Corinthians 11 v 2-10

[255]  Ephesians 5 v 22,  Colossians 3 v 18, 1 Peter 3 v 1, 5-6

[256]  1 Timothy 2 v 11-14

[257]  It is, perhaps, worth noting that in unbiblical churches the men have to be silent as well.

[258]  I would emphasize here that this headship is not of any domineering or selfish kind. The Bible does not teach that the husband is the big boss and that his wife should therefore just be obeying him as such. It teaches that his is to be a loving servant headship which, far from being used just to get his own way, is precisely for the benefit, and pleasing, of his wife. (1 Corinthians 7 v 33)

[259]  1 Corinthians 14 v 28, 30

[260]  Because the New Testament was not, at the time Paul wrote, fully complete, prophecy existed in a form it no longer does. Unlike us they could not test a prophecy by scripture precisely because they didn’t have the whole of scripture to test it by. Further, it is highly likely that doctrine was, at times, taught and established through prophetic utterance, thereby equating to being teaching – the other thing women are not permitted to do in the church.

[261]  1 Timothy 2 v 12

[262]  This is not, of course, to say that men don’t have anything to learn spiritually, and in many other ways, from women. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no one whose advice and counsel I take greater heed of than my wife Belinda’s. It is a foolish man indeed who fails to listen, and most carefully as well, to the indescribably valuable woman whom the Lord has given as his helper.

[263]  I laugh and joke with Belinda that, all these years later, I’m still really a hippy on the inside. However, although I still like the look of long hair on men I don’t wear my own long anymore because I know the Lord doesn’t like it. (1 Corinthians 11 v 14) Ironically, though, it could still be a fair bit longer than it is and still be within acceptable biblical parameters; however, Belinda and Bethany prefer it short. Oh, the sacrifices of married life and parenthood!

[264]  1 Timothy 3 v 2

[265]  1 Timothy 3 v 1-7 and Titus 1 v 5-9

[266]  Romans 12 v 18

[268] 1 Timothy 3 v 5

[269] 1 Timothy 3 v 1-7 and Titus 2 v 5-9

[270]  James 3v1

Table of Contents

Other Resources by Beresford Job

Copyright

Dedication

Acknowledgements

Preface

Part One: Traditions

Chapter One The Tradition of the Elders

Chapter Two Jesus and the Tradition of the Elders

Chapter Three Jesus' Campaign Against the Tradition of the Elders

Chapter Four The Tradition of the Early Church Fathers - Part One

Chapter Five The Traditions of the Early Church Fathers - Part Two

Chapter Six Apostolic Tradition

Chapter Seven The Great Reversal

Chapter Eight The Objections

Chapter Nine The Conclusion

Part Two: Biblical Church

Chapter 10 An Irreducible Minimum

Chapter 11 Biblical Church Leadership

Chapter 12 To Submit or Not to Submit

Chapter 13 Meeting in Homes

Chapter 14 Open Gatherings

Chapter 15 The Lord’s Supper

Chapter 16 The Heart of the Matter

Chapter 17 What the Experts Say

Part Three: Getting Started

Chapter 18 Where Do You Go From Here?

Chapter 19 Starting a Church

Chapter 20 Making Church Gatherings Work

Chapter 21 Frequently Asked Questions

Chapter 22 Outside Help

Postscript

About the Author

Further Resources

Notes