|
|
Vol. 1 No. 8 - November, 1993
Give
Me a King, Give Me a Pastor
|
By
Dan Trotter.
Many who examine the tenets of radical house church Christianity probably
think that we are anticlerical, because we attack the commercial seminary-supported
church system. Although it is true in a certain sense that we are anticlerical
because we attack the unscriptural clergy-dominated system, it is not
true that we are anticlerical in the sense of opposing the people who
are themselves clerics. As a matter of fact, I have nothing but sympathy
for these pastors, because, in my opinion, there is no group of people
on earth who are more abused and mistreated. In short, the American commercial
church is cruel not only to "layman," it is also cruel to those sincere
men of God who try to do God's will from within the system, and who end
up being crushed by it. WARNING!! The Surgeon General has determined that these people are stark, raving mad! You better stop reading this thing!
By Paul Strickland. I would like for us to consider the rise of the monarchy in ancient Israel and see if there are any parallels or similarities between it and the Christian church today. Let us begin by looking at I Samuel 8-10. Here we see Israel coming before the prophet and judge Samuel and demanding that he appoint a king for them. Considering the corruption of Samuel's sons, whom he had appointees as judges, the elders of Israel seemed to have just cause to demand a change. Their error, though, was their failure to recognize the Sovereign Lord as King of Israel, their desire to "be like all the nations," and their lack of trust in God to deliver them from all their enemies as they walked with Him. The Lord's answer to their request was quite clear: "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them." In the ensuing chapters we see the choosing, anointing, and coronation of Saul as King of Israel. The point to be made from all this is that the rise of the monarchy in ancient Israel was never in God's "perfect" will, but, as it were in His "permissive" will and plan. I hesitate in using words "perfect" and "permissive," being aware that the Sovereign Lord is in full control of all things, and that He is well able to "work all things after the counsel of his will." He is truly sovereign in all things, but man is also responsible for his actions and choices: "this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." Ancient Israel had the same problem in understanding God's "perfect" versus "permissive" will concerning divorce. They often chose to live in the "permissive" because of the hardness of their hearts. Moses gave them the statute by way of concession and permission, not in the perfect will of God. As you read the history of the kings of Israel and their rule, keep in perspective that the monarchy was by way of concession and permission, not by way of the perfect. Ancient Israel had chosen a monarchy over a theocracy: "they have rejected me from being King over them."
An interesting parallel can be made of all this to the New Testament church. There is almost unanimous agreement by Bible scholars that the church established by the first apostles was not led and governed by a monarchial bishop (one-man pastor, professional clergyman) and his board of advisors or deacons, but by a plural eldership, all equal in authority. The gradual rise of the power and prestige of the monarchial bishop over his fellow elders concurred between fifty to two-hundred years after the death of John. This eventually led to the rise of the bishop over a city, metropolitan bishop, archbishop, and finally the bishop of Rome - the Pope. Why did most of the local churches opt for a monarchial bishop to lead and govern them, rather than the plural eldership established by the apostles? Is it possible that there is lurking in the human heart that longs for someone other than God to rule it? Or is it the vain desire for the external pomp and glory that can never be realized by rugged judges raised up for a season, prophets of God who are "little men" in the world's eyes, apostles who make tents for a living, and elders who are of their own number whom they know very well (remember, an expert must always be from one-hundred miles away). It appears to me that the New Testament church fell into the same trap as ancient Israel and started demanding a one-man rule and leadership. They progressed to a one-city rule, eventually culminating in a Papacy. Rather than allowing the Holy Spirit to govern them through the traveling apostles and prophets, and the safety of a light-handed local plural eldership, they opted to raise up one monarchial bishop over each church. (It is interesting to note that almost all ancient and modern religions have priests and professional clergy.) This phenomena often resulted in the "barring of the church doors" to the traveling apostles and prophets who were sent by God. Take note of "Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say." 3 John 9. The eventual establishment of the monarchial bishop/professional clergy system in the local church surely often drew ignoble men such as Diotrephes who loved to be first. It must surely have also tempted very noble men, for "power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely." Note the wisdom of God in a loose confederacy of tribes, each governed by a plural eldership, with judges and traveling prophets raised up in the sovereignty of God. Note also the wisdom of God in establishing an autonomous local church, governed and led by local plural elderships, with traveling apostles, prophets, teachers, and other ministry gifts visiting the local churches and imparting spiritual gifts and blessings to them. Note also in church history that as the polity and authority of the local church became more centralized, there was a corresponding decline and loss of the appearance of the apostles, prophets, and other ministry gifts. The people of God have often chosen the permissible over the perfect. I am fully aware that a perfect system and order in and of itself will never make a mature people. Individual hearts must be turned toward and tuned in to the Lord and His will. But even in the worldly political realm, history teaches that some systems of government are recognized as being safer and better than others - the demise of communism, for example. If this be true in the world, how much more important that the pattern laid out in the Holy Writ be fully followed and obeyed? (Heb 8:5) Many are longing for a return of divine power and presence to the church today. As Moses was warned by God to follow the pattern shown him on the mountain. I believe the church must also follow the pattern laid out in the Holy Scriptures. If through apathy, cowardice, or disobedience we fail to follow the Scripture in this regard and choose to "be like all the nations," we may very well forfeit the privilege of His power, presence and peace. Artie Hall is coming up next. He is going to attack a sacred cow: the Sunday morning sermon. Its a rough job, but somebody's got to do it, and thank the Lord it's not me. Please direct all nasty letters to Artie. Thank you.
By Artie Hall. Gene Edwards does a great job in his book, How to Meet, explaining were the Sunday morning "sit, listen, and shut up" meeting came from. If you read the book, you find out it sure wasn't from the Bible. He blames John Calvin for the whole mess. (Read the book, you'll like it.) You have to admit that no matter how good the speaker is that you may be listening to from week to week, you come to the place where this person just has nothing left to say that you haven't heard already, particularly after 30 years. The eternal weekly sermon this is a study in insanity. [Note to Artie from the Editor: Artie, you can't say things like this in public! You're going to ruin what's left of my reputation!] Now,
I don't fault the fine people involved in this practice. They are some
of the finest folks you'll ever meet. I do fault the system that creates
this practice. (Thank you, Mr. Calvin.) What incredible pressure is put
upon a man when he is forced, week after week, to declare the oracle of
God or at least claim to! Most of us just ain't that spiritual. And we
don't really have that much to say, at least not 30 years' worth to the
same audience. (Even Jesus only taught for three-and-a-half years, for
crying out loud!) Just what did they do in the Bible when they met? I'm
glad you asked that. "The
eternal weekly sermon thing is a study in insanity."
Aha! There it is -- the sermon! They had teaching together -- a weekly sermon. You got me, right? Not on your life. Maybe the events in the first reference, Acts 2:42, could vaguely resemble a sermon, but in Acts 20:7-8, there is absolutely no way to get a sermon out of it. At best it was kind of a benevolent, organized argument, with questions, answers, and opinions flying all over the place. In your mind you hear the word "sermon" and immediately there pops into view all the Sundays as a kid you wanted to be somewhere else... immediately followed by the same thought about all the Sundays you wanted to be some place else as an adult. The word "teaching" is not much better. Remember those afternoon lectures in college after you had lunch? Woe, your eyes were bleeding or at least felt like it. I have great news! There is nothing even remotely like any of this stuff in the Bible. Why do I say this? Greek, that's why. Word study anyone? There is a marvelously liberating, wonderful Greek word that sometimes is not translated so hot. The word is ? (dialegomai). You are really gonna like this word. This is why. There is absolutely no way you can translate this word "to preach, teach, or sermonize." The basic meaning of this word is to "have a conversation." There has to be more than one person talking to have a conversation. Right? This could even be a "heated conversation," hence, a "controlled argument." Go to the verse in Acts that long-winded preachers have used for centuries to justify their long-windedness: Acts 20:7 and 9. You know the scene. Paul is meeting with the saints at Troas, probably for the last time, so he "preached" so long that some kid fell asleep in the window and fell out of the thing.
ONE MILLION DOLLAR REWARD!! For Scriptural evidence of:
NOTE:
In the unlikely event you win, Artie Hall will pay you, at the rate
of one dollar (1$) per year for the next million years "If Paul could preach all night long, then why can't I?" That's what they say. My answer: first of all, you ain't Paul. Second of all, he wasn't preaching. Paul was having a conversation. Dialegomai. You know, he talked. They talked. He talked some more. They talked some more. Questions. Answers. More questions. More answers. Haven't you ever done this till the wee hours of the night? A boring sermon? Not on your life! (Besides, I bet you couldn't raise someone in your congregation from the dead like Paul did that boy!) This same word, dialegomai, used in Acts 17:2, 17:7, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8, 19:9, 20:7, 9, and 24:12, 25. Read them and rejoice. This word is even the one used about the angel arguing with Satan over Moses's body in Jude. Get a sermon out of that! The early church just didn't do it. Was there ever preaching? Well, sort of. There were times when Jesus, Peter, Paul and all the rest did preach. They preached to people who did not know the gospel or who had only recently heard the gospel. (This was probably the context for the word ÎiÎý (didache), "teaching," in Acts 2:42.) When this was the case, there were entirely different Greek words used. The Greek word (kerusso) is used 32 times, usually translated "preaching," with the preaching being directly related to presenting the good news of salvation to people who have not heard before. (Look under "preach" in Strong's Concordance.) The word (euangello) is used 18 times in the same context. Maybe that denominational preacher, if he really likes to preach, should do so on a street corner somewhere, instead of in a religious building each week. (See "gospel: in Strong's). NRR could safely offer a million dollar reward to anyone who could find the Sunday morning sermon in the Bible. [Editor's note to Artie Hall: you asked for it, you've got it, but if anybody wins, YOU are paying for it! See the "reward box."] It just ain't there. In fact, if you can find justification for the eternal weekly "sit down, shut up, and listen to a sermon" meeting in the New Testament, I'll eat my L.L. Bean Irish Walking hat. There are times when, as a Christian, you should probably sit and listen to someone who knows more than you. If you don't think that person exists, I'm sure not going to stand next to you in a thunderstorm. Trust me. There IS someone who knows more than you. However, you do have the biblical heritage of being able, perhaps even while that person is speaking, to ask a question or make a comment. I'm sure those synagogue sessions with Paul were anything but polite. Seldom should meetings for Christians ever take the form of "sit down, shut up, and listen." Just think, if you join the revolution, you may never have to sit through another sermon again. You won't even have to feel guilty about it. Wow! What a thought!
DIALOGUE... Dear NRR: Your newsletter... has the opportunity to be a source of inspiration and learning... Instead it is a wedge between those of us who try to conform to what is truly taught in the Bible and those who hold to tradition. Church government, as it is expressed in the New Testament, is not a new concept in this century. It does not make anyone a radical Christian or any better or more enlightened than anyone else in the Christian world. It does mean that God has shown us (you included) one more part of His plan and made it real to us. It should give us a desire to express that knowledge to others so that they may understand and benefit from it. By beating this concept over the head of the traditional world (church), you drive them further from the truth. Making jokes or ridiculing the walk of someone will not improve their walk with God, but you could be helping to tear them down. Which is worse, to not know the truth as revealed, or [to] be publicly ridiculed and humiliated about what you believe? ...I saw some truth, but nothing that would bring about unity...[W]e are what we believe and our beliefs should be doctrinally sound. When the beliefs of two or more cannot be reconciled, it brings about division, although it should not, among believers... to those with dissimilar beliefs, your newsletter is an attack. An attack on anyone will never bring about a positive response. It only serves as a tool for those in contention to better arm themselves for the next attack, or even strike back. No matter how true what is said may be, if it is done in the wrong spirit, God is not in it and will not honor it. That is what has happened. You have no doubt heard about your newsletter being slammed by the pulpit. The response is as expected. Throw stones at someone and no doubt they will throw stones back. No godly love, just stones... You may have risen some doubt in some minds, but the caustic attack from the pulpit has had just as much of an effect. The wedge is driven deeper between churches and this is not good... Those whom God is changing to His express purpose are the ones we should be uplifting, not ridiculing because of what they are coming from... It is my belief that by accepting your newsletter in its present context, I am endorsing or condoning what is written in them. In all good conscience, this I cannot do. If it is your intention to continue in this same way, remove me from your mailing list. -PW, Sumter, SC Dear PW: We dealt with the problem of negativism in the September issue (Vol. 1, No. 6). There we were addressing those who still clung to the commercial system church ideology, and who thought we were negative because they didn't like us goring their oxen. But in your case, you apparently agree with our theology, but you don't like our style. I will defend NRR's style later, but first, I would like to make a preliminary response to a few of your points. You strongly imply that because we are radical, we are claiming to be "better" than others. Wrong. I don't feel morally superior to anyone, any more than I felt morally superior when I told my little girl that no two plus two did not equal five. It think it is possible to emphatically state your case (as you did in your letter) without feeling "better" than the one with whom you are disagreeing. You imply strongly that doctrinal unity is a prerequisite for personal unity among Christians. If that is true, then God help us all, because we will never, ever be unified. Let me finish be explaining the theory behind our style. Our goal is not to try to convert establishmentarians. I have carefully culled my mailing list to keep off those who might be offended. Our goal is to buck up those who have themselves been ridiculed or misunderstood by friends and family for becoming radical. I've been there; I know what it's like to think I've gone crazy because nobody else in the world sees what I'm seeing. When we lampoon the church system, we realize, of course we realize, that attacking the bad is not going to by itself establish the good. However, one of the severest hindrances to the establishment of what we want to see is Christians who have caught the vision, but still make excuses about the system church, and stay in it. We want to help push them out the nest. In closing, may we ask one question? If it is true, as you say, that we are "driving wedges" between Christians, and that we are "arrogant and belittling," etc., how is what you write any less guilty of what you accuse us of? I prefer to believe that you are passionately expressing a deeply-held conviction. Which is exactly what we are doing. --DLT |
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: