Church "style"

[jaydam]

On the afternoon program, Steve was talking about the setup of the church.

But how do we know that the church setup as described in the New Testament is to be the prescribed form of church?

Originating from an eldership culture, the church would naturally take on the style its forming members were familiar with, but is this to say that means such style is THE way is must/should be done?

As a church crosses cultures, its musical style, teaching style, etc. will change. Can we say it is wrong for its leadership style to change as well?

[mattrose]

I think you are right that we shouldn't automatically assume that the early church should be followed in every single way imaginable.

There are some things we obviously feel comfortable doing differently from them (we're currently using an internet message board, for example).

There are other things we obviously feel we should stick close to their practice (like doctrine)

Organizational style is definitely one of those more ambiguous things where we're not sure if we're free to do our own thing or if we ought to stick close to what is described in the New Testament.

For my part, I would argue that the organizational structure was not simply what existed in the culture. I would argue, instead, that the early church purposefully didn't want temples or priests b/c they were the temple and priests (Jesus Himself being the High Priest). I think an elder structure of leadership was not just a cultural reality, but a bit of transcultural wisdom.

Do I think local churches are OBLIGATED to follow this example as tightly as possible? Not necessarily. But if they don't, their departure should be very well thought out.

I realize I'm not really saying much... just wanted to get what should be a pretty interesting conversation rolling

[Homer]

Jaydam wrote:

Originating from an eldership culture, the church would naturally take on the style its forming members were familiar with, but is this to say that means such style is THE way is must/should be done?

Wouldn't we need to say Paul was not inspired when he appointed elders in every church; that it was just his idea? And the Jerusalem church had elders prior to Paul's conversion.

[jaydam]

Jaydam wrote:

Originating from an eldership culture, the church would naturally take on the style its forming members were familiar with, but is this to say that means such style is THE way is must/should be done?

Wouldn't we need to say Paul was not inspired when he appointed elders in every church; that it was just his idea? And the Jerusalem church had elders prior to Paul's conversion.

The Jerusalem church having elders would seem to support my point. It was not Paul who created elder-styled leadership under inspiration, but was how things culturally were run. Predating elder led church, it was elder led society.

I don't see that my proposition would take away from the inspiration of Paul (depending on how you are meaning it), anymore than considering other things Paul discusses to not be mandated outside the culture intended. A woman covering her head, speaking - or not - in an assembly, adorning herself, etc.

I would contend there are other places in the Bible as well where inspiration meets its present culture.

[Paidion]

It was by NOT following the apostolic way of operating the Church that that same early Church gradually developed into the Catholic Church.
If you are happy with the Catholic Church "style", fine. But if not, it may be well to follow the apostolic way.

[steve]

I think I'm standing pretty much in the same place as is Matt. When asked, I always point out that there is no example of a church in the New Testament being led by an individual (except in cases where the founding apostle remained long enough to personally lead until other leadership could arise). I also am prepared to say that exceptions in modern times may occasionally be justified. Nonetheless, where exceptions are allowed, it is not done without changing something of the character of the church itself. Whether what it loses is something indispensable or not would be a matter for debate, I imagine.

However, even where exceptions may be permissible, I would not think them desirable. There may be cases, in churches devoid of other qualified leadership, where an individual may need to serve in the emergency. However, I would think it a mistake for a group to organize with the intention of setting up a different model from that found in scripture. What is lost in doing so may be little missed by us, but may be more valuable than we have discerned.

Jaydam has observed that the eldership model may have arisen from presuppositions arising from living in an eldership model society. To be more precise, most scholars think it arose in the church from an eldership model in the synagogues—which may be true. In fact, the elder-based leadership of the synagogue may itself have arisen from the elder-based assumptions of ancient societies in general. Even if this could be determined to be so, however, it might not serve so much as an argument for abandoning it, as a reason for retaining it.

Modern society seems to have a penchant for radical renovation of classic institutions which, for millennia, embodied ancient wisdom. An ancient society, whose population revered the wisdom of virtuous older men, cannot be shown to have been inferior to a modern society, which rejects, almost as a reflex, the wisdom of the aged.

It may be impossible accurately to compare the merits of the early churches against those of modern churches, since we don't have a full accounting of all the evils that may have been present in churches 1,900 years ago. However, it would be hard to make a persuasive argument that our modern churches—based, as they often are, on the individual leadership of charismatic superstars—exhibit fewer evils than did those that followed ancient patterns of leadership.

[jaydam]

It was by NOT following the apostolic way of operating the Church that that same early Church gradually developed into the Catholic Church.
If you are happy with the Catholic Church "style", fine. But if not, it may be well to follow the apostolic way.

I'm not sure the choice is explicitly apostolic or Catholic as you create a false dichotomy. There are plenty of church examples which I would call unapostolic in the sense you likely mean it - Acts style church with elders - yet these "unapostolic" churches are not Catholic, nor do they have any chance of becoming such.

[jaydam]

I see a prudence to the Acts style as it creates a leadership tension which I believe ensures one man's opinion does not hijack a church assembly.

However, I don't know if I can place the church style within the sphere of doctrine - in other words, something which must be adhered to. Or as some might say, to leave the early church model is on the level of committing a sin because the early church is God's mandate.

For example, with the pace of modern society, if a family finds themselves overworked and unable to take the time to study the Bible to the degree they would desire, or minister to each other in times of need or counseling, or any number of other difficulties, is it wrong for them to team up with like families? They all pitch in a little money so that one among them can afford the time to dedicate to sitting in the hospital with one of them when they are sick, and can have the time to learn more than any of them singly could, etc. - a lead pastor.

I can just see a place in many lives, say when the father is working two jobs, and the mother is homeschooling 3 kids, that it is practical for them to find other families who can all pitch in a couple hundred dollars a piece to cover a modest living for a pastor to help them facilitate learning and support.

If Christians so decide to unite and financially support one person for such a role, it does not look like the early church, it certainly can be abused if the supporting families do not keep the pastor they are supporting in check, but I do not see an inherent problem with such a style of "doing church" apart from it just looking different than the early church.

The example I give is to be understood as distinct from the modern celebrity church style, or the methods of pastors to get money by leading gullible people to tithe, sow faith money, etc.

[Paidion]

Hi Jaydam,

I'm not sure the choice is explicitly apostolic or Catholic as you create a false dichotomy. There are plenty of church examples which I would call unapostolic in the sense you likely mean it - Acts style church with elders - yet these "unapostolic" churches are not Catholic, nor do they have any chance of becoming such.

I wasn't suggesting that departing from the early church model necessarily leads to a Catholic-type organization. I used the Catholic church as an example of departing from the primitive church model. The vast majority of churches are quite unlike the primitive church. For example, people sitting in pews as if they were an audience, with a pulpit in front on a raised platform from which the church meeting is operated, is itself a total departure. The early church ministry was that of the body of Christ. Although there were overseers to see that all was orderly, any member of the body could minister. As the apostle Paul put it:

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. (1 Corinthians 14:26 )

and

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. (1 Corinthians 12:7-11)

But in many modern churches, the body isn't needed at all, just the preacher and the song leader. Well, maybe the body is needed—at collection time.

Yes, I know I must sound cynical. But having experienced body ministry, how can I applaud expressions of the church (and I think I'm being charitable to allow even that appellation) which have departed from early Christian practice, and which seem more like a show with a stage at front entertaining an audience , than a church body in which Christians minister to one another?

[jaydam]

The vast majority of churches are quite unlike the primitive church. For example, people sitting in pews as if they were an audience, with a pulpit in front on a raised platform from which the church meeting is operated, is itself a total departure.

Paidion, would you not classify it church when Paul came to talk and the people sat and listened even to the point of a man falling out a window? What about a gathering of early church believers where an epistle is read?

Are these occasions not "church" because all but one person is sitting, listening and learning?

Is it only church when all people are on equal footing to minister, and there is no audience?