|
|
VOLUME ONE NUMBER FOUR - July, 1993
Institutionalist
Rose-Colored Glasses
|
In our last issue (Vol. 1., No. 3), we proved beyond cavil that churches governed by one-man pastorates are utterly unscriptural. So then, are we saying that 99.9 percent of all conservative churches in America today are unscriptural? That's exactly what we are saying. But, you ask, the conservative men and women who live in the church world all proclaim loudly that "all Scripture is inspired, infallible, inerrant, given for reproof, correction, rebuke, and instruction." These Bible-believing Christians all say that Scripture is their only rule for faith and practice. So, if the Scripture gives absolutely no sanction for a one-man pastoral autocracy, how in the world did all the churches in the world end up with one?
The answer is this: nobody, but nobody, really submits himself to the Scripture. Not you, not me, not anybody. But all of us, no matter those eccentric, radical, cantankerous, obstreperous, or nonconforming that we may be, do conform quite well to tradition. If you think that you know somebody that's an exception, try this experiment. Ask them if they believe the Bible is every word true, and if they will will submit to its clear teachings. If they say yes, then read them I Cor. 11:10, and ask them if their wife wears a head covering in their local assembly. The responses you get will be quite instructive. Here are some possibilities.
"Are we saying that 99.9 percent of all conservative churches in America are unscriptural? That's exactly what we are saying."
- that's a controversial passage, many respected Bible scholars don't believe that's what Paul really meant. To which you respond fine, what did he mean? If your friend is knowledgeable, he will then give you reams of exegetical craftsmanship designed to show you that Paul didn't really mean what he said. Of course, none of it really makes any sense, but it sounds so erudite. We can call this the "theological dodge." Whether any of the arguments against the head covering are valid or not is irrelevant to our purposes here. The point is, your friend does not want to run crosswise against his liberated, individualistic, feminist American culture. Therefore, he spends hours and hours of his valuable time trying to justify his cultural traditions, rather than just admit Paul meant what he was trying to say. This way he doesn't have to be weird, and can still claim he's a consistent conservative Christian who submits to the Scripture. If your friend is not theologically so learned that he can give you all the speculations as to what Paul really meant, he will probably just assume there's an answer out there somewhere to get him off the hook, and until it shows up on his doorstep, he isn't going to practice head covering. You would think that he would give Paul the benefit of the doubt, and obey the Scripture until such time as this explanation appeared. But of course, this would mean submitting to the apparent meaning of Scripture, and offending American culture, and most Christians, you and me included, don't do that. And by the way, if your friend happened to be in the minority who do believe Paul meant what he said about the head covering, that still does not mean he is necessarily interested in submitting to the Scripture. He is almost certainly trying to conform to a counter cultural "head-covering" tradition, rather than trying to do what Scripture commands. - the head covering was an incident of Paul's culture, and his command to wear one can not be taken universally for all times and places (especially, God forbid, in America). This is the old "cultural" dodge. The cultural argument is no good, because it proves too much. For example, "first century Christians were immersed in a homophobic culture that expected heterosexuality as a commonplace, but today, we broadminded, humane, tolerant Americans don't believe that way, so therefore, we should ignore those quaint Scriptural admonitions against homosexuality." Even though the cultural argument is good when applied to nonessential, incidental customs, it is no good when used against Scriptural things that were meant to be permanent, for all ages and cultures. But even though it is generally fallacious, it is often used as a device to keep the Christian who says he believes in Scripture from having to act upon it. Maybe the headcovering was a cultural nonessential, despite the fact that Paul said it should be done because of the angels, and angels aren't cultural. But whether the head covering was a mere cultural phenomenon or not is not the point here. What's of real interest is the bias that every American Christian has against the head covering. I don't think that theirs is single Christian in America that, upon first reading, has tried to look at that Scripture objectively. Why? Because he doesn't want to. It might be embarrassing if it turned out that Paul meant what he said.
"Why do professional church-system advocates avoid the plain truth of Scripture? Because they have a vested interest in the system. How many of us will follow the truth, it it means not being able to feed our wife and kids?"
- to require a head covering is "legalistic." The "legalism" dodge is probably the best one, because there is nothing so ugly and life-killing as legalism. If you can paint a legitimate practice of Scripture as "legalistic," you not only can avoid doing something you don't want to do, you can actually be considered to be performing a positive good: you can fight legalism by not wearing a head covering, and to heck with what Paul said. Regardless of what you think about the head covering, you will recognize the "theological dodge," the "cultural dodge," and the "legalistic dodge" as they are applied to many areas of controversy. The whole purpose of these dodges is to kid ourselves in to thinking we are obeying the Scripture when we really aren't. We need to examine how well-meaning, conservative, Bible-believing Christians can look at the overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that the early church was not governed by a one-man pastor-pope, and then look at you as if you're the crazy one when you suggest that maybe we ought to do away with the professional autocratic pastor. The reason that 99.9 percent of American one-man pastors don't submit to the plural elders idea is simply because they do not want to. It has nothing to do with the scriptural evidence for plural overseers. Because one-man pastors do not want plural-elders government, they use the traditional techniques to dodge the implications of Scripture:The "theological dodge." Yes, so say the pastor-popes, it is quite true that there is no such thing as a one-man pastor in the Scripture. However, since the Scripture never prescribes as normative plural overseers, but merely describes the situation in the churches, we don't have to take the New Testament pattern as binding on us. Our way is better.
Coming Soon!!
The "cultural dodge." The early church was in an embryonic, early stage of development. It reached maturity later on, and then, because it was more highly organized, one-man (professional) pastors became necessary. This has become especially true in the bureaucratic, highly organized twentieth century. Obviously, the rudimentary kind of plural oversight practiced by the early church will never work in the twentieth century. Our way is better. The "legalistic dodge." If you try to impose plural elders as a norm, rather than just a suggestion, you are burdening the church with legalistic bondage. The church should be free to experiment with all forms of church government. After all, other, non-Scriptural, forms of church government might work better in different cultures. Our way might be better. To all of which we reply: baloney sausage. For the twentieth-century church to think that it can do anything better than those churches described in the pages of Scripture is quintessential arrogance. Why do professional church-system advocates use the aforementioned dodges, and other psychological defense mechanisms, to avoid the plain truth of Scripture? We said earlier the reason was they don't want to obey the Scripture. Why don't they want to obey the Scripture? Because they have a vested interest in the system. That's a polite way of saying that it would cost them money (i.e., their salary). How many of us will follow the truth, if it means not being able to feed our wife and kids? So where does that leave us? House church folks have the Scripture safely in their corner, but no one in the church system cares, and no one will listen, simply because they do not want to. We can quote Scripture and church history to them till we are blue in the face, and they will keep right on with their pulpit committees, soporific Sunday morning sermons, church splits, laity-crushing power struggles, sheep-stealing competition, and pastor-dominated morning orchestrations. I would suggest that we forget trying to convince them with the Scripture they refuse to look at, or consider as authoritative. What we need to do now is show them that their way is killing the life of Christ. And after we show them that, we show them real-life, functioning, living, breathing, house church alternatives. Because that is the only way they will ever listen to us. We have to show them. This means no more armchair house church radicals. There is nothing more tragic and frustrating to see people who know the truth about church life, but who fritter their lives away in soul-killing system churches, enduring one insufferable Sunday morning ritual after another. We have a suggestion for anyone caught in this trap: don't talk anymore about house church. Stop talking. No go out and DO IT!!!
ONE MILLION DOLLAR REWARD!! For Scriptural evidence of:
By Hunt Keith. It was wonderful to make a stand on what God has required of me that I seek to please Him and not man, not even God-fearing Christian men who like traditions above God's word. It amazes me that such godly men can be so convinced in their way when they can't establish their way in Scripture. For example, where do they find in the New Testament the local church controlled by one pastor? If this were correct structure, why didn't Paul address his letters to "The Pastor" rather than to the saints and elders and deacons? I look at how frustrated and fearful one-man pastors live. They feel that the burden of the growth of the church is their responsibility and its success or failure depends on their leadership. How happy they would be if they would recognize their elders as co-equal. Plural leadership protects against on-man shows. Aren't we all sick of egos yet? Don't we long to see men die to themselves and let Jesus live through us? I love God for refusing to compromise His word and refusing to bow to men's ideas about how to run His church. Seems to me the church may be due a spanking. It wouldn't surprise me if we see tough time ahead that will force men to forget their religious labels and traditions and fall together at the feel of the Jesus, the True Head of HIS church. It's HIS church, dear one-man pastor.
What the critics are saying about NRR...
By Bill and Evelyn Finn. Why did we leave the institutional church? We grew up in the institutional church and continued working in it until the beginning of 1993. We began to feel uncomfortable with the institutional church in 1983 but continued working in our local church because we really did not know what to do or where to go. Is has been our experience that the Lord makes us very uncomfortable, much like the way a mother eagle gradually dismantles their nest when it is time for the eaglets to move out. We continued praying for the Lord to show us what to do and when to do it. We had a close friendship with Paul and Cindy Strickland and continued to keep in contact with them after they left the institutional church. We attended several Friday night Home Fellowships with 7 or 8 other families. This started satisfying our thirst for fellowship and worship. However, Sunday morning and Sunday night worship (worship?) was still a problem as we did not know where we were supposed to go and we felt empty after these services. One of our major dissatisfactions with Church was the near "mandatory attendance" for all church functions. It left little or no time for family or fellowship outside the church walls. We are a very family oriented couple and felt that our family life was really suffering. Bill's work schedule starts at 5:00 a.m. when he leaves for Charleston and ends when he returns at 7:00 p.m. In addition, he works every other weekend. Family time was squeezed out and all of us were unhappy with the situation. Our 7 year old son, Joshua, often complained that he never got to spend much time with Daddy. He felt like we practically lived at Church on Sunday! All the church rules and regulations robbed us of the joy of worshipping the Lord. Not only did Bill have to schedule a vacation with his supervisor at work, but we also had to just about get approval from church leaders to get a Sunday off. Several families felt led of the Lord to start a Home Church meeting in individual homes. The New Testament Church started in individual homes and in many countries today this is the only church there due to government restrictions. The Home Church concept allows freedom of true worship and genuine fellowship. Even the children are encouraged and allowed to share and ask questions during the worship service. Being in a home setting, everyone attending feels more relaxed, less inhibited, and more free to open up and bare their souls. For our family, we are sold on the Home Church!
FREUDIAN SLIP...The following was seen on a church sign:"WE CARE ABOUT YOU Sundays 10 A.M. Only"-From Gary Shank, Olathe, Kansas
"Can you find anyone in the New Testament who was always the speaker, who delivered funeral orations over the dead, who presided over marriage rituals, who was the sole person baptizing the new converts, who went to a seminary, who presided over a liturgical service, who was salaried, who patted old ladies on the hand, who was the sole person responsible for visiting the sick, who was almost always dressed up in a suit, who prayed in a funny voice, who was hired and fired at the whims of a congregation, and who stood at the very center stage of all that there is of the Christian faith. If you can find that man in the New Testament, I'll eat my Stetson hat! Such a person never existed until the Reformation... At that time he was invented by men without any thought of trying to justify his existence Scripturally. He is a man made tradition...[the emphasis is ours]." This is a quotation from Gene Edwards' latest book, How to Meet Under the Headship of Jesus Christ. This is the best house church book ever written, and probably ever will be. You have got to read this book. You've just got to. You can get it for $11.95 from Message Ministry, PO Box 3568, Beaumont, Texas 77701, phone (409)838-4080. The book is advertised as being written for those believers "who want to abandon it all, from top to bottom, and start over in a way that is a revolutionary, radical departure from all present day church practices."
From "What
Small Churches Do Better" "At first I was distracted by six or seven kids in the front... I wondered if we would be able to worship with that noise... Then came the surprise... all those young people started running throughout the room hugging the old people. The room filled with laughter and greetings." "...the prayers of a small group are just as effective before God as those of a large group... Too often we're tempted to think of God as a politician who listens to a large group of his constituents but who might not regard the concerns of only a few. Nowhere does God instruct us to get the maximum number of people praying in order to influence him." "A soul can go to heaven as well from a small church as a large one." |
You may send your opinions, flames, weighty observations, etc., to
Dan L. Trotter
work e-mail:
dtrotter@pascal.coker.edu
home e-mail: dantrotter@yahoo.com
Since 09/30/00 this number of people have ignored the Surgeon General's warning and have read this thing, resulting in gosh knows how much mental and emotional trauma: