![]() |
![]() |
Vol. 9, No. 1 - August 2003
HOUSE CHURCH DIRTY DIAPERS CHRONICLES NUMBER SEVEN
Shall the House Church Movement Became a Resting Place For Every Doctrinal Pervert?
Back in 1993 when I first began to practice home church, I had a good friend named Paul whom I was trying to convince to come join me. Paul was a very conservative-minded risk-averse person, and he had a lot of concerns. One of his concerns which I sort of pooh-poohed at the time, but which I now take very seriously, had to do with the problem of doctrinal orthodoxy. Back then I was oh-so naive. I assumed that the only doctrinal problems ever to be faced by a group of believers attempting home church were the same doctrinal problems with which the evangelical church at large routinely had to deal; namely, such issues as Arminianism versus Calvinism, charismatic gifts, infant baptism, etc. I assumed that tolerance of those who held opposing views on these issues would be quite sufficient to maintain the unity of a biblical home church. I wrote a New Reformation Review article entitled "Are Truth and Unity Reconcilable", in which I upheld the necessity of both truth and unity, but in which I pushed harder for an emphasis on unity. It wasn't that I believed in truth the less, it was simply that I assumed everyone in the home church movement believe the fundamentals of orthodox Christianity, and the push needed to be for the toleration of those who held different views on non-foundational issues. I remember several times receiving emails from institutional church types, asking me how did I deal with doctrinal deviancy, since I didn't believe in doctrinal statements or a hierarchical clergy system. I would smugly (and correctly) point out that some of the worst doctrinal errors imaginable occur in religious systems that feature buildings, denominational-type structures, and organizationally-empowered clergy. I would cite the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons as examples, and ask the skeptical institutionalist why did he think his church-system was going to stop heresy? I would point out the Presbyterian Church U.S., the Methodists, the Episcopalians (who are just now getting ready to ordain their first homosexual bishop), as examples of doctrinal perversion, and then respond that if any heresy developed in the home church, the answer is for the church to kick the heretics out, as most of the denominations have decidedly not done.
Today, in 2003, I am not nearly so naive. Having been involved in the home church movement for the last decade, I have seen wandering around within the movement enough doctrinal screwballs to fill a theological zoo. Here is a list of positions that have been personally represented to me by fellow house-church brethren. Jesus was married. The Bible is full of errors. Your humble editor is "worse than Hitler" for saying there is a hell that some people will go to. Aberrant views of the Trinity. There will be no resurrection of the dead. And of course, the ubiquitous King James only folks, who inform me that the translation commissioned by the seventeenth-century homosexual king of England should be used to spiritually edify Mandarin-speaking Chinese people. I even heard of one house churcher, for crying out loud, that believes that slavery in the modern world is legitimate! (I pray my informant erred about this last brother, but given what I've seen, I bet he didn't.) I do not for one minute believe that there is anything inherent with the home church philosophy that encourages doctrinal aberration. I believe the proper view of home church is based upon the apostles' doctrine and practice as evidenced in the Bible, and obviously, a biblical church will not promote unbiblical doctrines. In fact, a biblical church will do everything possible to keep doctrinal heresy out, through proper procedures of church discipline. The early Christian church was bedeviled with all sorts of doctrinal fruitcakes, and that church was constantly exhorted by its apostolic leaders to keep itself doctrinally pure. Here are some examples:
· 3 Jn 4 "I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth."
· Titus 1:9, 2:1,7 "holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he [the overseer] may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to refute those who contradict... (2:1) But as for you speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine... (2:7) in all things show yourself to be... with purity in doctrine..."
· I Tim 4:6 "...be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith, and of the sound doctrine which you have been following."
· II Tim 1:13,14; 3:15-16 "Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me... (v14) Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you. (3:15) From childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation... (3:16) All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..."
S o, what is it about home churches in America that seem to attract the weirdos? I have several suggested answers. (1) Home churches reflect the prevailing anti-doctrinal, anti-biblical culture of the wider evangelical environment, (2) the unbalanced denigration of doctrine by the "radical" Gene Edwards wing of the home church movement, (3) the large influence of the charismatic movement on the home church movement, and (4) the latitudinarian and tolerant culture of the home church movement.
We live in a doctrine-hating, truth-despising new age. As the western church stumbles into the twenty-first century, it is unsure of many, many things that Christians in the mid-twentieth century took as axiomatic. A look at The International Church Council Project will show you a list of things that are being debated in today's evangellyfish church that ought not be up for debate, among which include: "The Eternal Fate of Unbelievers (more quaintly knows as "Hell"), "Homosexuality," "Biblical Distinctives Between Males and Females (do you remember a more civilized time when we used to call 'em "Men" and "Women?"), "The Trinity," "The Omniscience of God," "Biblical Inerrancy," and "Church Discipline.". There is no excuse for this. A church that squanders its theological heritage is no better morally than parents who blow their children's inheritance at Las Vegas crap tables. But that is where we are, and Christians who end up in home churches are most often Christians who have come out of some sort of evangelical background, which means they are being thrust from an insipid Christian culture that's afraid to assert the theological equivalent of two plus two equals four. It should not be surprising to find this attitude carried over into the home church movement.
I just received an email from a follower of Gene Edwards which claimed that he and his fellow church members don't hate the Bible, and in fact constantly use it. I have no reason to suspect that this is not true. However, as pointed out in a previous NRR article ("The Gene Edwards Disaster"), when one listens to Gene Edwards and his followers, one is confronted with a constant barrage of rhetoric which can only be described as disrespectful towards the proper use of the Bible. I am not a scholastic, and I know the Bible can be misused and turned into a paper crutch, a substitute for a living relationship with Christ. But that is the misuse of the Bible, not its proper use. Listening to Edwards and his followers, one does not receive the impression that they are merely trying to correct an imbalance, rather, the impression is that the Bible is superfluous as one walks with Christ. Edwards' literature is everywhere, and read widely by house church people. Even if the Edwardsites do have a proper respect for the Bible and foundational doctrines of the faith, there is no way that those who are only familiar with their literature could know that. The misimpression is everywhere in the home church movement that there is some sort of war between fundamental doctrine and the love of Christ. And the Edwardsites have done nothing to correct this misimpression, and have done much to further it.
I once heard Gene Edwards say that the charismatic movement has more profoundly affected the modern church than any other influence ever has. Much of this influence was good, was necessary, was wonderful. I myself was deeply affected by the movement. I have prophesied, worked miracles and had them worked on me, and still speak in tongues, so you will not find me within one trillion miles of cessationism, which I consider silly. But I will tell you this: I have watched charismatics from close range for over thirty years, and I promise you, nobody can produce weirder doctrines than charismatics can. (Example: heaven won't be as good as it is on earth now, because we won't have the devil to kick around any more!) Nobody can be as unconcerned, or unlearned, about what the Scripture says as can a charismatic. Nobody can produce extra-biblical beliefs and practices like a charismatic. And these charismatics do not change one whit when they start doing house church. And if you try to acquaint such a charismatic with Scriptures contradicting his "experience," he will likely accuse you of being a "denomination," or a "Sanhedrin." There are some exceptions, but generally, plain propositional Scriptural truth bounces off a charismatic like an Iraqi rocket-propelled grenade bounces off an American tank.
I remember reading the website of a prominent house church leader who claimed that Arminians and Calvinists were both right. I also heard the same sentiment from a speaker at one of the Southern House Church Conferences. Now, one thing that both Arminians and Calvinists can both agree on, is this: they are not both right. No, sir. On the fundamental points of contention, they are diametrically opposed. They can not both be right. Not if there's a God who created reason and logic. Not if we are not living in Alice's Wonderland. Not if [a = a], and [a not equals b]. What is it about house church people who want to square a circle in the name of unity? Why do they want to pooh-pooh fundamental doctrinal divisions, and pretend they don't exist? Is it so we can all live together in a smarmy fog of warm ecumenism? Is it that they have been sloshing around in our relativist, "tolerance-" loving culture for so long that they can't even recognize that two mutually inconsistent propositions can not both be true at the same time?
I recently guest-taught at a friend's home church. One of the members was an ex-Primitive Baptist, who believed that there should be no musical instruments, no women speaking in the assembly, that there should be one brother in charge of the whole assembly, that only the King James version should be used, and he'd never seen a miracle, so he'd probably never see an apostle either. No one else in the church came close to this bundle of extremist positions. Had I met this brother when I wrote Are Truth and Unity Reconcilable, I am sure I would have urged the brethren in this church to tolerate him, and work with him (the brother was loved by all, with impeccable Christian character). I think most home churchers are just like I used to be. We are used to attracting folks with all sorts of doctrinal backgrounds, ignoring that, and working with them. This is a virtue. But it is a virtue which, when extended to its extreme, becomes a terrible vice.
I know of another home church which has an elder who believes the following: Jesus will not return physically to the earth. The Christian dead will not be physically resurrected. The wicked will not be physically resurrected. The earth will not be redeemed from its bondage to decay. Sinful earth will continue for eternity. Now, that's heresy in anybody's book. But the rest of his church (most of whom do not also hold to these heresies) excuse this situation, and say that it is not a problem. Now, its one thing for individual believers in a church, who are not leaders, to be messed up with some doctrinal deviancy. I say, let 'em come, maybe they'll be straightened out by the rest of the church. But to have an elder who believes this nonsense, and to have the rest of the church not give a fig about it? Is this what the modern house church movement has come to?
There are certain things that should not be tolerated. There are certain things that ought not be debated. There are certain things that should not even be so much as mentioned in polite company. But the home church movement has not learned that. It too often has confused reaction against the idiotic denominational traditions of men with rebellion against the revealed, inerrant Scriptures of God. It too often confuses unity with tolerance of gross transgressions of Biblical truth. Unity based on tolerance of gross error is a false unity, which will eventually implode.
Unity must be based on (1) the tolerance of non-essential differences, and (2) truth. Now, I realize that formula is quite easy to cite, but terribly difficult to implement. What's non-essential to you, might be very essential to me. And, although some Scriptural truths are palpable, others are not as clear, and certain propositions claimed to be truth are quite debatable. But, so what? This just means that unity is difficult. You and I might make different calls as we decide what we can tolerate and what we can't tolerate. However, if you take the attitude that the Bible's propositions are not true, or, that the Bible's propositions, even if true, have no relevance, then you have made unity more than difficult. You have made it impossible.
There are too many of us (and I have erroneously taken this stance for years) that have defined unity as merely: "the tolerance of differences." This definition of unity assumes that there are no differences that are essential, that anything can be tolerated. (You will notice that the phrase "non-essential" was taken out of the proper definition in the preceding paragraph.) This definition further errs by failing to understand that a fundamental core of common beliefs is absolutely essential if a home church is to function. If that consensus concerning fundamental truths is not present, there is not enough toleration in the world that's going to make your church work. You'll be so busy steering your way around controversial issues that you'll end us staring at each other and talking about football or home school curricula. I would suggest that if you can't find folks that agree on the basic theological minimum, that you don't even try to do church together. I told the Primitive Baptist brother I mentioned above that I could never do church with him, and he reciprocated and said he could never do church with me. And we were both right. Did we breach the unity of the body of Christ? No. We were both just talking common sense.
One thing that makes agreement on truth more critical is the high degree of commitment and intimacy that is involved in doing biblical home church. I can have unity with a lot of women at a certain superficial level, but when it comes down to marrying someone, I have got to have a lot of agreement on a lot of issues, or else my wife and I are going to be miserable for a long time. And if we have fundamentally different world views, it does not matter a whit if both she and I are wonderful people who tolerate each other's differences. Furthermore, when I do choose one wife, it doesn't mean that I am slapping the face of all the other women in the world whom I didn't marry. Rather, it means that I've found a soulmate with whom I want to share my family life. I think the analogy is obvious. I'm looking for soulmates with whom I want to share my church life. And there are a lot of wonderful Christians out there with whom I will never share my church life, because we disagree on too many things. That doesn't mean that I've caused disunity, it merely recognizes that I've made certain choices that make a huge difference in how I do church, and I need to work with other Christians who've made those same choices.
There is a brother who came to the Ninth Southern House Church Conference, and who posted a critique of it on the Internet. I thought his criticisms of the home church movement contained therein were right on the money (I say this even though I helped sponsor the conference he was criticizing). I close by quoting the relevant passages for your edification: Unity of the Spirit... depends on shared biblical truth. The argument [presented by a speaker] was, well, instead of dividing you should have a meal with someone and hear what they have to say. Indeed, Jesus did just that very thing in Luke Chapter 11 and the cause for division became even more acute.
During the question and answer session it was obvious that this house church movement was as spiritually divided and doctrinally fragmented as any of the institutional churches or denominations they would like to view themselves as alternatives to. The institutional churches and denominations maintain an artificial unity by means of things like property trusts for the buildings they meet in. The house church movement maintains an equally artificial unity by means of merely meeting in homes.
It is not the packaging that determines what something is in its essence, it is the substance inside the package. Meeting in homes is no more a basis for a genuine unity of The Spirit than is meeting in Cathedrals. When some people are scripture-based and some experienced-based they plainly do not adhere to the same standards. One has a biblical standard as its foundation, and one does not. One is doctrinally solid, the other is in error... One is biblical, the other experiential.
While ecclesiology is important and there is indeed much to be said for the departure from New Testament principles in the modern church, one faction of this movement... wants to move away from an unbiblical position into a more biblical one. The other faction is moving away from one unbiblical position into another unbiblical position. One has a biblical foundation, and the other an experiential one. Where you meet, or even what format or model you follow in the meetings will not compensate for differing foundations. This movement is again as divided and as fragmented as any denomination and there is no real unity in the biblical sense, nor can there be any when there are such widely different beliefs and foundational perspectives. They simply do not sing from the same theological hymn book. Once leaders with no solid biblical foundation are in any way tolerated in a movement, the movement is doomed. Either [such] men ... are disfellowshipped, the good men leave, or the whole thing dies a protracted death like the denominations and institutional churches who compromise the Word and accommodate things they should not in the name of a false unity.
Simply stated, the churches in the House Church Movement do not sing from the same hymn book. When people do not believe the same things they cannot have real unity irrespective of whether they meet in a basilica, a house, or a barn.
|
You may send your opinions, flames, weighty observations, etc., to
Dan L. Trotter
work e-mail:
mailto:dtrotter@coker.edu
home
e-mail: mailto:dantrotter@yahoo.com