I appreciate your concerns, and indeed agree with most of them -- I think you've misunderstood me.
I do believe that any local church would benefit from looking more closely at the way the early church operated, and being open to modifying its traditional practices if those traditions are not in line with the pattern we have in the NT. And the more a church does seek to understand and adhere to a purely Biblical standard the more interested I am in it. That was really what I meant by my original statement.
Far from having an "us vs. them" view, I don't think even the assemblies with which you and I are familiar always come as close to the pattern as they think they do -- in fact I think some of our long-standing and cherished traditions are really not Biblical at all and we would be better to change them. And I know full well that there are other types of congregations which actually come closer to the Biblical pattern in certain ways and in certain areas.
I am not sure I follow your argument about speaking in tongues. Even in the first century, Paul did not command everyone to speak in tongues or expect that they would; he only laid down principles for the conduct of those who did have that particular spiritual gift. Where the gift is not present, there is surely no reason to become agitated about how to regulate it.
And re the "love feast" -- I've never heard of this being a point of conflict either. Nor have I ever heard the term "Lord's Supper" applied to anything other than the simple taking of bread and wine. The act of breaking bread in remembrance of Christ is repeatedly commanded and exemplified in the NT; the eating of a full meal is not commanded and only obliquely exemplified. I think it would be lovely, and very likely beneficial to any fellowship, if the believers did gather for a communal meal; but I would disagree with anyone who asserted that such a practice was as vital and indispensible as the Lord's Supper.
I am not at all interested in exalting church order above the work of evangelism, shepherding, and teaching; but I do think that sometimes our tendency to follow human traditions, ideas and conventions rather than the simple Scriptural pattern can create unnecessary obstacles and hardships to our carrying out that work.
Just to give one example, I would never say it is wicked for a congregation to set aside one Sunday meeting for a "gospel meeting", but I don't see that practice exemplified anywhere in Scripture, I don't believe it is an effective form of evangelism, and I believe it actually limits many people's understanding of what the gospel is by confining it to the "get-saved message". Plus, having that meeting takes away time that might be better used in edifying the believers and equipping them to go out and preach the gospel as they have been commanded to do. It also amazes me how many earnest and sincere Christians seem to think that by supporting such a "gospel meeting" they are somehow doing their part in evangelism, even if there are no unbelievers present (which is, in fact, usually the case). But if anyone dares to question this practice -- whoa, nelly. "He doesn't believe in preaching the gospel!" (Insert tutting and sad shaking of heads here.)
This is what I really mean when I say I'd like to see more New Testament churches. Not churches that have "gospel meetings", but churches whose members preach the gospel; not churches where the women wear head coverings, but where there is a willing and heartfelt submission to God's order; not churches that pride themselves on following New Testament principles, but churches that really do.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re:
Date: 2003-07-09 06:34 pm (UTC)I do believe that any local church would benefit from looking more closely at the way the early church operated, and being open to modifying its traditional practices if those traditions are not in line with the pattern we have in the NT. And the more a church does seek to understand and adhere to a purely Biblical standard the more interested I am in it. That was really what I meant by my original statement.
Far from having an "us vs. them" view, I don't think even the assemblies with which you and I are familiar always come as close to the pattern as they think they do -- in fact I think some of our long-standing and cherished traditions are really not Biblical at all and we would be better to change them. And I know full well that there are other types of congregations which actually come closer to the Biblical pattern in certain ways and in certain areas.
I am not sure I follow your argument about speaking in tongues. Even in the first century, Paul did not command everyone to speak in tongues or expect that they would; he only laid down principles for the conduct of those who did have that particular spiritual gift. Where the gift is not present, there is surely no reason to become agitated about how to regulate it.
And re the "love feast" -- I've never heard of this being a point of conflict either. Nor have I ever heard the term "Lord's Supper" applied to anything other than the simple taking of bread and wine. The act of breaking bread in remembrance of Christ is repeatedly commanded and exemplified in the NT; the eating of a full meal is not commanded and only obliquely exemplified. I think it would be lovely, and very likely beneficial to any fellowship, if the believers did gather for a communal meal; but I would disagree with anyone who asserted that such a practice was as vital and indispensible as the Lord's Supper.
I am not at all interested in exalting church order above the work of evangelism, shepherding, and teaching; but I do think that sometimes our tendency to follow human traditions, ideas and conventions rather than the simple Scriptural pattern can create unnecessary obstacles and hardships to our carrying out that work.
Just to give one example, I would never say it is wicked for a congregation to set aside one Sunday meeting for a "gospel meeting", but I don't see that practice exemplified anywhere in Scripture, I don't believe it is an effective form of evangelism, and I believe it actually limits many people's understanding of what the gospel is by confining it to the "get-saved message". Plus, having that meeting takes away time that might be better used in edifying the believers and equipping them to go out and preach the gospel as they have been commanded to do. It also amazes me how many earnest and sincere Christians seem to think that by supporting such a "gospel meeting" they are somehow doing their part in evangelism, even if there are no unbelievers present (which is, in fact, usually the case). But if anyone dares to question this practice -- whoa, nelly. "He doesn't believe in preaching the gospel!" (Insert tutting and sad shaking of heads here.)
This is what I really mean when I say I'd like to see more New Testament churches. Not churches that have "gospel meetings", but churches whose members preach the gospel; not churches where the women wear head coverings, but where there is a willing and heartfelt submission to God's order; not churches that pride themselves on following New Testament principles, but churches that really do.