Unity, Ecclesiastical Freedom and Church Membership
By Alan Allison
This is a transcription of a taped message. It was recorded to be included in Searching Together's New Testament Church Conference tape series that was recorded in Wisconsin, July 2004.
http://www.searchingtogether.org/
Outline-
My Journey of Discovery- Is Today's Church Unified and Free?
Many Assemblies in Achaia
Financial Gain
Imposed Statements of Faith
Preeminent Titles and Priest Craft
Liberty of Mature Sons in Christ
Exclusive Church Membership Divisive
Relationship VS Exclusive Membership
Abandonment of Needy Christians Excused by Exclusive
Membership Teaching
Previous Relationships Lost Because of Exclusive
Membership
Persecution - Institutional or House Church
Journey of Discovery- Is Today's Church Unified and Free?
Please turn your bibles to John 17:20 & 21.
"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."
In order to introduce myself and the subject I would like to address this morning I thought the best way would be to tell you a couple of stories about my early few years walking with Christ.
I was saved in 1976 at the age of 30, when a dear brother named Paul, who was my next door neighbor, led me to Christ. Upon my conversion I suddenly was stripped of my confidence in the atheist/humanist world view I had previously believed. I felt naked and without a compass not knowing what I should believe, yet doubting all that I held to be true before. I asked Paul which way I was to go and whose word I could trust. He knew that I was raised a Roman Catholic before I had come to deny the existence of God and warned me not to fall back into that religion of many errors. He also warned me about the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons. He said that they were definitely teaching error. I asked him how we could know that the Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, nondenominationalists and Pentecostals were not groups we should avoid. He held up his Bible and said that if it doesn't square with this word of God, it isn't true. I ardently began to study the bible.
My odyssey of discovery began, and it wasn't long before I ran into obstacles. I went on a church retreat with the Baptist church with whom Paul fellowshipped. I wanted to be baptized that weekend because I discovered that I was to have been baptized as soon as I was saved, yet I was planning to immediately resume a personal evangelistic tour of California. The pastor had that weekend off. The rest of the brethren were all staying in a large home on the Mojave River in the desert town of Victorville.
I asked Paul, who was not a pastor but simply a humble truck driver, to baptize me in the river. He said, "I can't do that. That's the pastor's job." I said, "Why not?" He tried to explain that he wasn't ordained and that he thought that the pastor would be upset if he heard that Paul had done something like this. I argued that Philip wasn't a pastor but just an evangelist and that the Ethiopian Eunuch was heading toward the Gaza desert and asked "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" Paul got very nervous. He struggled all morning and into the afternoon. I began to ask the others there if they saw any problem with Paul baptizing me. Some abstained, and others got a bit excited about the prospect and encouraged us to do it. With great trepidation, Paul finally agreed. I was baptized in the shallow river of melted snow from the nearby mountains. Perhaps the warm baptismal fount at the church building would have been better.
It wasn't long before I began to recognize a lot of similarities between the errors I found in Catholicism and those in the Baptist and Protestant church denominations. In this case, I began to see that there was a distinct priest or professional caste, and that they had certain duties and privileges not shared with the so called laity. When I examined the Scriptures I found no such clergy/laity distinction or hierarchy.
A year or so later I joined a Baptist missionary out reach to the inner-city of Newark, N.J. After serving there for a few months, I discovered, with the help of the Holy Spirit and an older brother back home in California, that it was a cult. I will briefly explain those distinctions that led me to that conclusion.
I was required to memorize many of the leader's statements when I was having trouble enough memorizing the Scriptures. The focus of them was constantly on authority. We were required to memorize all the Bible verses that related to authority. Even Romans 13:1-7 was applied in this ministry outreach as a foreboding warning to those that defy authority. They taught a Baptist version of the Shepherding Movement. Discipleship, death to self with an emphasis on submission to the chain of command, and micromanaged accountability were taught repeatedly ad nauseam. The leaders said that they were going to see to it that we die to ourselves. We were required to fill out weekly charts with spaces for each hour of every day that had to be completed with brief explanations of what we did during those hours. The head and founder of the ministry reviewed every chart, from the saints in every ministry, in every one of seven different city groups from across the country. It was impossible to join any other local fellowship because our time was occupied with duties every hour of the day.
Husbands were accountable to the men's director, and their wives were accountable to the women's director. Marriages had conflicts between the husband's decisions and the women director's decisions. Courting, especially those outside the ministry had to be approved by the director. We were discouraged from writing home about how the ministry was run. We were told that the ministry was unique in that it was in an environment, the inner-city, which few of our relatives would understand. We were only allowed to go home for a visit with the expressed permission from the head of the ministry who lived in LA, California. We were expressly forbidden to reveal the contents of a secret, 1" thick syllabus that, among other things, delineated a profile of various classes or types of churches as defined by the author and ministry leader. The organization was a corporation with the leader as the CEO. Our only interaction with other fellowships was on Sunday when the fund raising crew raised money from the "C-3 churches." C-3 churches were predominantly white wealthy churches.
We had to raise our own support from friends and church affiliations back home. The syllabus and the directors mocked the inner-city store front churches as though they were not authentic churches. We planted no churches ourselves, but simply taught black children the bible. The adults in the community were thought to be too far gone to reach with bible truths. The C-3 churches were looked upon with disdain as those not having a clue of what real sacrifice for the black inner-city people was about.
Our fund raising letters were edited and sent out by the ministry. Our personal mailing lists had to be given to the ministry. They included things in the letters that we did not necessarily agree with, yet they were written as though we had said them. Even after we quit the ministry, fund raising letters were sent to our mailing lists. Every aspect of our lives was controlled by the directors. We had no way to make money. We were to rely on a meager stipend that was allotted to each of us. If the funds we received from our supporters exceeded that meager sum, it was consumed by the ministry. We were so poor that many of us could not save enough money to get a bus home if we wanted to quit and run.
Was it God's will that I join this organization? I have no doubt at all that it was. I believe that God wanted me to see ecclesiastical tyranny first hand. I believe that He wanted me to see that, should I ever get in a position of leadership, I should never subject His people to such unbiblical control. This experience burned into my soul the love of the freedom that we have in Christ as mature sons. It motivated me to make a life long study of those traditions, church practices and teachings that instigate some to oppress, enslave and divide the free people of God.
A few months later, in 1979 or 80, I met Jon Zens. I had little idea at the time how much God would use this brother's excellent teachings, through the publication Baptist Reformation Review, to shed light on the deep theological underpinnings of these false traditions the church had inherited from those who have gone before us.
It seemed, when a certain few errors regarding the Law and grace were exposed, and the error of priest craft and hierarchy were challenged, that I had seen all that needed correction. Unfortunately, this was simply the first layer of the onion of errors that I was going discover. Brethren, when your concerns in a fellowship are disregarded; when liberty is smothered by those who want to control God's people; when you find the church at large is sick and seems ineffective; and when divisions between the brethren are not mended, does it ever occur to you that something may be very wrong with today's church? Could it be that the many traditions that form the basis of our liturgy and church government are wrong? Could it be, in the traditional church, with one man ministry as opposed to mutual ministry, competition between churches and between gifted teachers, where jealous ownership of the sheep is thinly veiled, and a party spirit is accentuated, that we have gone astray from the teachings of the New Testament?
Why have you and I, so many times, heard it justifiably said by unbelievers that Christians are splintered into a thousand different groups? They wonder how anyone might discover the true one from the false. They also note that Christians fight and can not agree on anything. Yet Jesus prayed "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."
Divisions and Denominations
There are many statements Paul makes in 1 Corinthians chapters 1- 4 condemning the practice of sectarianism and personality cults. He makes it clear that this practice is divisive.
Turn your Bibles to 1 Cor. 1:10.
"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ. 13 Is Christ divided?"
Brothers, in light of all of the divisions that we see today, what justification is there for continuing in the tradition of the denominations? Does God approve of these denominations? Does God approve of the divisions they have created?
Many Assemblies in Achaia
Names of churches, according to city names, can be helpful in identifying to whom an apostle was addressing an epistle, but don't these appellations get a little out of hand when they engender a competitive, alma mater loyalty to a name, instead of a devotion to the one entire body of Christ? Surely John, Paul and Jesus had no intention of naming the churches by their cities so as to divide up the body of Christ into distinct groups.
The word "church" seems to have a completely different meaning today than it did in the NT times. Today we think of a sprawling conglomerate of many groups competing for the allegiance of the saints with erudite and eloquent orators that can draw and impress a crowd. In Jesus' day, the church was where 2 or 3 gathered in His name. The church was regarded as one body without divisions or differing sects. The New Testament church names given were not the pride swelling identity of those in each city, but rather they were merely given for ease of communicating. The NT writers identified those they were writing to who happened, at the time, to live in the general regions of certain geographical areas.
Some believe that what Paul condemned in the party spirit of following Apollos and Cephas was different than today's denominationalism and segregated, isolated and independent churches. I believe they imagine that the church at Corinth was a group of believers that met in one place, or were all under the solitary oversight of a few elders and in one so called "local church government." If this were so, it could be argued that division in such a solitary group would be condemned, but the kind of division that we have among various independent churches or denominations today is not condemned in these passages. They could also argue that divergent beliefs found in each local church today could be silenced by the pastor because those who teach or discuss those different doctrines are causing divisions in the local church. They would further argue that these who want to examine the Scriptures in a different light than the pastor are those seeking a following that will divide the local church. But different teachings are not necessarily to be silenced. Rather they are an indication that the body of Christ needs to study and reconcile differences in order to attain unity in the faith. However, what Paul condemns is not a Berean spirit that seeks to rightly divide the word of truth. He condemns a party spirit. He is not just focusing on division in each local assembly, but on divisions between brethren of other assemblies. If this is true, then the institutional church is in serious violation of the commands of Jesus and Paul for biblical unity.
I would like to bring to your attention a few passages in Acts and Corinthians that seem to contradict that notional model that Paul was only condemning division and a party spirit within a local solitary assembly in the city of Corinth. First of all, there were many Christians in Corinth. By the emphasis upon many, it would seem that it was impossible for all of them to meet at one place.
Read with me in Acts 18:8b ff.
"And many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized."
After those believed, Paul later received a vision from God telling him of more people that God had in the city.
Read verse 9.
"9 One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: "Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. 10 For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city." 11 So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God."
While we know that there were many Christians in the city of Corinth, we know that the 2 letters to the Corinthians were written not only to those in the city, but to those in Achaia. There were believers all over the territory of Achaia. Corinth was in Achaia but Achaia was a large territory.
Look at verse 27. "27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him."
It appears that Apollos was welcomed by more than those who simply lived in the city of Corinth, but rather to those in the territory of Achaia.
Turn to Acts 19:21.
21 "After all this had happened, Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. "After I have been there," he said, "I must visit Rome also."
Paul then traveled through Achaia several times in his journeys. We know that he converted those in Achaia. Please turn to 1 Cor. 16:15.
1 Cor. 16:15 "You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints."
Read with me in 2 Cor. 1:1. Watch how Paul addresses the saints that he is writing to in these 2 letters.
2 Cor. 1:1 "To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia:"
Note that Paul spoke of the church in Corinth, but distinguished them from the saints throughout Achaia.
Check out 2 Cor. 9:2.
2 Cor. 9:2 "I have been boasting about it to the Macedonians, telling them that since last year you in Achaia were ready to give;"
Now turn to 2 Cor. 11:10. Here we see Paul addressing the saints in the regions of Achaia and he even says that he loves them. Those regions certainly include Athens, Cenchrea and those in the country sides of Achaia.
2 Cor. 11: 10 "As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11 Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!"
Then he refers to all of the believers in Achaia again. Please turn to 1 Thes. 1:7.
1 Thes. 1: "7 And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia."
Here he is referring to places that today are two countries-the former Yugoslav Macedonia and Greece.
Brothers, Achaia is 260 miles long going north and south and 200 miles wide going east and west. Achaia included many islands and the large peninsula of Peloponnesus south of the isthmus at Corinth. It was divided up by large inlets in the Aegean Sea. Corinth was a major trade center. It was an important short cut for cargo to be shipped through because it was on a narrow 5 mile wide isthmus, it also had harbors on both sides in which ships and their crews could winter over. It was a vital crossing for trade because of the danger of going around southern Achaia due to the stormy winds. The bottleneck of the isthmus also funneled trade between southern and northern Achaia. These merchants and sailors came from all over the Mediterranean area. Many farmers and herdsmen from all over Achaia brought their produce and traded for supplies and hardware in Corinth. Though it was a central hub for those in Achaia, the brethren who lived a hundred miles away, or even 20, could hardly have intimately known or regularly met with the saints in the city. The epistles to the church at Corinth included those in Achaia, but the Corinth that Paul addresses certainly was not simply a solitary gathering of believers in one locale. The Corinthian letters were circulated throughout Achaia.
The point I now make is that the concerns of Paul about divisions would likely have been different groups in the city, the outskirts and perhaps even in remote places in Achaia, including Athens and Cenchrea. They were not simply one house church that was having an internal quarrel. I believe that sects were forming around these different personalities of Apollos and Cephas. They were given over to a party spirit. It would seem that if they were pridefully at odds with other groups, isn't it likely that they would have gathered in separate places? How then is that any different than today's churches and denominations that take pride in being the select of the elect? Can you hear some say, "I go to John MacDonald's church"? Or "I go to Jack Haffner's church. I am a Calvinist. I am full gospel. I am charismatic. I belong to the Presbyterian Church of America. I am Four Square. I go to the Vineyard. I follow Jack Smith. Al Martino is my pastor. I am NT or house church." All such boasting is not of the Lord. Are we not to love one another? Let us then speak the truth in love while denying the man made structures that divide us that are the one body of Christ.
Remember that enmity and division have no place among the people of God. Even the Jews and Gentiles were made one body by the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross. Why would we attempt to nullify the work of Christ by rebuilding walls of separation?
Eph 2:14 "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,... Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,"
Business Churches
Financial Gain
I have been the owner of a "mom and pop" garage door repair business for 17 years. Consequently, I've learned to recognize what a business is. If I were to show up at your house to replace a garage door and arrived on a bicycle with a few tools in my back pocket, wouldn't you begin to have doubts about the choice you made when picking me out of the Yellow Pages?
In order to run a business you must have the proper equipment, supplies, and buildings appropriate to what you produce. You must have a way of advertising to get new customers, and you must perform in a satisfactory manner in order to keep them. Location and capital are essential to success. There must be enough revenue to pay the employees and for the owner to make a profit. There must be enough profit to support the family of the owner, and the stock holders, or the business will eventually close.
When I see the typical institutional church, I see that they have a building that houses at least 200 people. Ordinarily, that is a minimum number of parishioners in order to support the pastor and his family. There are greeters and seating accommodations. The building is trimmed with religious symbols and décor to provide a religious atmosphere like a theater. There is parking provided. They have a business office and secretary, a Yellow Page ad, and a shingle announcing the time of presentations and the officiating preacher. They have a doing business as or DBA name for their assembly and the advertisements. The institutional church has licenses for the pastor, building permits for the premises and is usually incorporated just like any other business. They have by-laws, constitutions and business meetings. They collect and distribute large sums of money. Consequently, they do accounting and audits. As a tax free, non-profit organization they must structure their organization to comply with the 501-C3 regulations of the federal government. The pastor oftentimes bends biblical protocol to accommodate the civil government. And certainly, mutual ministry (shared leadership and teaching) is sacrificed in order to give the pastor more responsibilities to justify his salary.
Brethren, can anyone deny that the institutional church is simply a business? Is there any indication that the New Testament church was a business? House churches do not have to operate like a business. In fact, the house church I was a part of for ten years, never collected a dime. All giving was done in such a way that the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. There was no need to receive any money for teaching, preaching and oversight if one had a trade or profession. While the other saints participated in mutual ministry, the need for one teaching elder to spend a burdensome amount of hours in preparation was unnecessary. We had no name; there was no exclusive membership roll or list; we were not incorporated; we did not see other Christians as excluded in any way from our church; any Christian would have been welcome to lovingly participate in ministry to the saints; we were not incorporated as an agent of the state; we had no Yellow Page ad, nor buildings other than our homes; we broke bread together (full meal-the Lord's Supper) when we met; we sang hymns, and spiritual songs; we read and taught from Scripture; we prayed for those in need; we got to know one another well through casual fellowship; we became close friends and took care of one another, all without doing anything that resembled a business. We were as close to a New Testament form of fellowship as we could discover in Scripture.
Please turn your bibles to 1 Tim. 6:3:
"If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain."
Where in the New Testament church do we see elders being paid a salary? Wasn't it just those itinerant preachers and church planters like the Apostles that received their living from the gospel? Those who were stationary and overseeing brethren in one location could get jobs, or have businesses to support themselves and their families. Those who traveled had to pay for travel expenses and for staying at inns along the way. It was difficult for someone traveling to get a job or run a business. While I believe there is liberty to give financial compensation to those who labor in the word, teach and oversee, if the mutual ministry of all the saints is encouraged, I see little need to lay this burden upon the saints.
Where is tithing taught in the NT? Tithing is not a NT stipulation. Due to the enormous cost of operations, it is understandable that the institutional church would impose this Old Testament regulation. This teaching and practice comes from the Constantinian state church practice along with Sabbath keeping. These were necessary to keep up church attendance and, in turn, keep the money flowing in to pay for the opulent buildings, liturgical vestments, house wares, ceremonial instruments, altars, icons, paintings, parsonages and salaries for the professional clerics of the medieval state church. In the state church the prelates were also paid by government taxes. We have inherited these errors of practice, but not from the New Testament.
As a business, the institutional church creates several problems. While I may have friends who are competitors in the door repair business, by and large, we have nothing to do with each other. We are trying to get customers to stop using the other companies and start calling us for service. When the church starts to build a business, it needs plenty of customers in order to cover the cost of overhead and to make financial gain. Any action by others inside or outside of that particular fellowship that appears to be drawing sheep away from the proprietor/pastor is deemed sheep stealing. When the sheep leave, the cost of doing business falls upon those fewer sheep that remain. This then is a threat not only to those making financial gain from the offerings of the sheep, but to those who have to pay more to cover the bills. The business church then engenders the idea of owning the sheep. I'll speak more about the branding of sheep later. Brethren, can anyone but Jesus claim ownership of the sheep?
The pastor is usually the proprietor who mainly benefits financially from the business church. If his job security is threatened, he will do what is necessary to prevent it. This desire for financial gain puts him at odds with those in the congregation who might perform the same teaching and leadership tasks as he gets paid for doing. This ulterior motive of financial gain is the impetus of division and competition in the church. Those gifted to teach and to lead in the assembly who have been attacked by those pastors with the spirit of Diotrephes are legion. How many capable teachers and leaders of God's church have been hammered down, denigrated and falsely accused of contentiousness, division, taking over a church and sheep stealing? How many of these saints have been so abused and discouraged that they have withdrawn from using their God given gifts, or worse, they no longer seek fellowship because they are weary of being falsely accused? Yet, the duty of elders is to equip these saints for work of ministry (Eph. 4:12), not to devour them, quench the spirit by denying them access to a church forum, or drive them away. This spirit of Diotrephes destroys the biblical mutual ministry and the "one anothering" so vital to body life by sewing evil suspicion, slander and creating bureaucracies designed to keep the proprietor/pastor and the ruling elite in power.
In regard to serving mammon rather than God, allow me to tell you a true story of the growth and waywardness of a very large church in the San Fernando Valley, CA. I won't mention the names of the principals or the church. It is a sad, but typical story. There was a man that was endowed with a great ability to teach. He became very popular and drew a large congregation to himself. As his popularity and the size of the congregation increased, he felt it was necessary to increase the size of the property and build larger buildings. The church even had grown to such a size that they thought that they could support a grammar and high school. They built a gymnasium and offices. Of course they borrowed a lot of money, but it was justified because the revenue was more than adequate to cover the payments.
The years rolled by and they continued to grow and prosper. Then one day the renowned preacher felt called to become the dean of a university back east. The church sought after another preacher that could assure a large attendance. Because the new preacher wasn't as well liked as the former, the congregation attendance plunged. There were many volunteer duties left undone. They began to fall behind on their payments. Interest and penalties were building up. As the pressure to cover for the short fall in labor and revenue began to increase upon those that remained, many more began to leave. There was much infighting and blaming of one another. Many lost their joy of fellowship.
The bills mounted. The pastor's secretary, who was my spiritual mother in the Lord, heard the new pastor say to another principal, "We need to move out of this area where we have poor riff raff immigrants, to an area up on the hill where there are many doctors, lawyers, and businessmen." Brethren, if they had a biblical calling in the beginning, they surely had lost it when income became their dominate focus. This scenario is not uncommon. While much good has been done by the business church, the damage far out weighs the good in situations like this. Is there anything in the NT that would justify business churches like this that deny mutual ministry of the saints in order to create a one man ministry around a superstar pastor?
Along these lines, I would like to address one more of many problems in the institutional church. Allow me to read a worthy excerpt from Pastor Joey Faust's letter regarding Dr. Laura Schlesinger's book, Woman Power.
It is a crying shame that a Jewess on talk radio will stand up and reprove mothers for working outside the home, for not respecting their husbands, for withholding the marriage-bed, for deserting their homes, for slandering their husbands, for allowing relatives to come between them and their husbands, etc., when such subjects are "too controversial" for the average, lukewarm, sugar-coated, "let's win friends and influence people" Christian pulpit! Where are the preachers? Where are the men? Where are the elderly women who are willing to TEACH young women to quit griping, and slandering their husbands, and forsaking their children? Why is it that a Jewess is standing up for homeschooling, and calling parents to forsake the public, humanistic indoctrination of youth (which has all but damned this nation), yet such a subject is considered "too controversial" for most, so-called Baptist churches? Why are contentious Christian wives coddled and indulged by aged women in Christian churches? Why is it that Laura Schlesinger can do more for a young, rebellious wife in ten minutes, than many of these Christian women (and even pastors) can do in five years with their coddling, coaxing and sugar-coated "love"? It is because many Christians will no longer walk by the Word of God. They have turned to the flesh, to emotion, to feelings. They will not even live up to the natural light of conscience! Irresponsible counseling, in the name of "compassion," is not Biblical love. It is secret love without knowledge:
For complete letter, e-mail Pastor Faust at pastor@kingdombaptist.org
(Telephone: 817-453-5542)
17th Annual Conference of Assn. of Fundamentalists Evangelizing Catholics, November 16-19 in San Diego area. Details at www.dodone.org/NxtC.html or send e-mail. Please contact Bill Jackson.
Would it be unfair to suggest that a reason there is a drift away from upholding the unpopular aspects of the word of God, come what may, is that there are proprietor/pastors that are too concerned about losing members and their offerings? When the message is supreme and not confused with exigencies of attendance and offerings it is much easier to be single minded about the whole counsel of God. Didn't Jesus warn us about serving 2 masters, God and money?
Imposed Statements of Faith
Statements and confessions of faith have been used for good and for evil from the first councils in church history. They are useful in defining and teaching the basic doctrines of the church. They are useful as guide lines and aids to understanding. Where they begin to get in the way of church life and the Berean spirit of the priesthood of all believers is when the authority of the word of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the assembly is usurped and quenched by the imposition of these statements and confessions upon the congregation. These confessions often stand in exclusive business churches as products or logos of the business. They are misused as means of imposing uniformity upon the congregation. This eliminates competition for ideas and varied teachings and perspectives that could distract the assembly from a dependence upon, and a monolithic allegiance to, the pastor and his favored perspectives and teachings.
The business church and these "unquestionable" statements of faith and church practice are threatened by gifted bible scholars within their assemblies. Those then who aver contrary to the statements of faith are silenced without a fair hearing, and excoriated and driven out if they persist. This censorship quenches the honest Berean spirit and the vital dialog and discovery process that is essential to building in the individual the idea of individual responsibility to God regarding His word and incremental discovery that is essential to personal understanding and conviction.
Furthermore, the business churches are threatened by the competition of other churches in their neighborhoods with their differing views, practices and statements of faith. As a result, unity and intermingling fellowship with other churches are not encouraged by today's leadership, which did take place in the early church. It is this very problem that is the root of a break down in communication between churches. Scripture exhorts us to strive for unity in the faith in Ephesians 4. How often I have wondered why the biblical truths I know that certain churches hold to are never heard nor examined by other churches that hold to obvious falsehoods and who could profit immensely from an open dialog between these churches. How can the unity of the Spirit, we are required to strive for, ever occur, brethren, if we refuse to talk and listen to one another in love for fear of rivalry and of losing donation producing sheep?
Preeminent Titles and Priest Craft
What is common in the institutional business church, and I suppose is even found among some house churches, is the exalting of one man over the brethren by using preeminent titles and the unbiblical concept of office holding. Turn your Bibles to Matthew 23 verse 8.
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
Here we have three examples of preeminent titles, "Rabbi", "Father", and "teacher." Jesus is obviously forbidding the practice of exalting one brother over the others by the giving of preeminent titles. Yet, among the institutional churches, the calling of church leaders by titles such as Reverend or Pastor is a common violation of Jesus' command.
The practice of "one bishop rule" is an error which began in the 2nd century. We see none of the churches in Scripture use the expression "The Pastor." There is no evidence that only one man oversaw any of the churches mentioned in Scripture, nor is there any evidence of a function of "senior pastor." Oversight was the function of all of the brethren that desired to oversee and that were qualified and recognized to do so. Those whom God had ordained were recognized by the brethren in the churches that met from house to house. And the brethren were told, in Hebrews 13:17, to be disposed to be persuaded by these elders to follow them as they followed Christ. There were no seminaries that ordained men. Except for Jesus Christ, there is no biblical example of office holding, or even the concept of office holding, among the brethren in the church. We are all brothers. One is our teacher the Christ, one is our Father in heaven, and we have only one Master.
Here is an excerpt from a paper entitled AUTHORITY AND MINISTRY IN THE LOCAL CHURCH by RUDY RAY:
There is no "office" as such in the local assembly. Most people have the idea that "office" is an official position. Most believe that if a person is "officially" placed in the position of elder, pastor, bishop, etc., then because of that "office" they have "authority." It is in this sense that there is no such thing as an "office" in the N.T. But there are functions (Rom. 12:4; cf. Vine's N.T. Dictionary). A function is the action, duty or work that a particular person should perform. Example: an elder should oversee.
We have constructed a lot of notions about "office" that rest on human tradition, and are not found in the N.T. The King James has "office" in Rom. 11:13, 12:4 and 1 Tim. 3:1. In Rom. 11:13 the Greek word is diakonia or "service." In Rom. 12:4 the Greek word is praxis, or "action/function." In 1 Tim. 3:1, "office" is not in the text. The verse simply says, "if any one aspires to oversight" (episkope).
The dependency upon the one man ministry of "The Pastor" has debilitated the church. Professionalism and priest craft have emasculated the church and caused the drying up and atrophying of the gifts, mutual ministry, and performance of priesthood duties of all of the saints in the assembly. We have been kept under the tutelage of elitists that think that mutual ministry and the contributions of the least gifts are dispensable in contradiction to 1 Cor.12:22. "On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable."
These truths shedding light upon the practice of preeminence and office holding expose the leadership models, i.e. proprietor/pastors, to be false in the institutional business church and house churches.
Liberty of Mature Sons in Christ
The institutional church, with the emphasis upon one man ministry upon elitist pastors and teachers, belies the denial of the change from the Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant.
Jer. 31:31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD."
At one time, the Lord took his people by the hand. This is referring to the direct speaking of God through Moses and the Law. The external code is in contrast with the change to the law written on the heart in vs. 33 and that changes the relationship of others to the NT believer in vs. 34 from a Mosaic Levitical priesthood to New Covenant royal priesthood of all believers. This is speaking of the new birth and the indwelling Holy Spirit echoed by John.
1 John 2:27 "As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him."
What power is ours in the Holy Spirit that would obviate the need for anyone to teach us? This is a marked change from the Old Covenant. It speaks to a difference between children and mature sons.
Phil. 3:15 "All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you."
While there is a difference between a young believer and a mature one, the difference is far greater between an OT "child" under the tutelage of the law and without the Holy Spirit, and a NT son with full rights of an heir who is the temple of the Holy Spirit. God speaks by way of the Holy Spirit directly to each believer through His word, mutual ministry, conscience, and providence. Paul then is confident that though a believer may succumb to the false teachings of "those mutilators of the flesh", God too "will make [it] clear" that the believer is in error.
Gal. 4 "What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir."
The change that God has wrought in the believer makes him a mature son. Moreover, while without the Spirit in the NT sense, the Hebrews were taken by the hand like children. In the New Covenant, because of the Holy Spirit, we have inherited full rights as sons. The NT assumes the Christian free to serve without encumbrances of do's and don'ts and the paternalistic oversight of a special priesthood. We are now all priests under the New Covenant. Those who rule as overseers do so by ruling among God's flock as brothers. Matt. 23:8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi', for you have only one Master and you are all brothers."
The Holy Spirit, and a change in our nature, carry the greater burden of control in the believer's life. The elder recognizes this change and facilitates a climate of freedom and responsibility through teaching and equipping the saints for shared mutual ministry and the building of loving relationships. He is loathe to create juvenile dependency by discouraging participation in ministry, or by crowding out the fledgling efforts of even the least parts of the body.
Exclusive Church Membership Divisive
Now, please turn your bibles to Ephesians 2:19.
"Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,"
From this text we learn that all of the faithful in Christ Jesus to whom the letter to Ephesians was written are members of God's household. Note that God's household is singular and obviously includes not only the Ephesians, but the faithful in Christ Jesus. The faithful of Ephesus are only a small part of God's household.
Further on in Eph. 4:4 we see that, "There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
The biblical church membership is the kind that includes all of the faithful throughout the world and throughout time. We are one body. So then, what is this membership that is referred to in many institutional churches today? Are they, who use this term "church membership", speaking of the same kind that includes all of the faithful in Christ Jesus? No, they are not. They are speaking of another kind of membership-one that separates a certain group of believers that have fulfilled the requirements of membership from all of those brethren that have not fulfilled the requirements of church membership.
What are the requirements of membership in the institutional churches? For some it is a membership class and a commitment to that particular fellowship. For others it is to be baptized into that particular local church. For some it is only allowed with a letter of transfer from another accredited church. For others it is a demonstration of commitment to regular attendance. And still others it is that the candidate for membership signs a covenant with that church to do certain things such as financially support the ministry and regularly attend the meetings. I know of no church that requires membership to attain certain privileges that would allow for a member to be a member of more than one fellowship at any given time. In any case, however, those who are inside the church membership are treated and look upon differently than those believers outside of the membership.
Since we are stuck now with 2 different concepts of membership and only one word to describe them, I will refer to the concocted version as exclusive membership, or for sake of brevity, e-membership. For the biblical form I will use the term membership.
In vain do those who try to justify this practice of e-membership search the Scriptures for any evidence to support it, because it isn't there. In fact, it is fundamentally opposed to Scripture because it creates division in God's household. It creates a "we with Apollos, they with Cephas" mind set that is condemned in Scripture.
Relationship VS E-membership
I suppose the principal reason offered for the "necessity" of e-membership is that the elders need to know who those souls are for whom they must give an account to God. Another would be that the sheep need to be fenced in so they don't wander from pen to pen bringing shame and disgrace upon themselves as unfaithful, uncommitted and whimsical church hoppers. Of course the main reasons I believe churches require e-membership are the same reasons one would be required to sign up for an athletic club. It guarantees the club that you will be frequenting their establishment rather than paying dues to, and using the facilities of another competitor. E-members are allowed certain privileges that outsider Christians are not. If business people can somehow get you to commit to being their patrons by way of a membership card, discount card or monthly membership fee, you, in some part, become part of their customer base. Securing voluntary allegiance is paramount to the success of any business.
There is an unholy attitude of sheep ownership that ensues from the external and legal practice of covenant making. In marriage it is expected because in fact you become one flesh and your body belongs to your spouse. However, when the dynamic of the household of God becomes divided and perverted, some assemblies and pastors imagine that they own those who have become e-members, so much so, that for the e-members to fellowship with saints in another assembly, it is looked upon as some kind of adultery. This I call the branding of the sheep. There is only one brand my friends and that is the name of Jesus, not the Double XX Ranch Fellowship. This distortion of equating exclusive membership with marital faithfulness to a few brethren and separating them from the others in the one body of Christ, whether in an institutional church or house church, is divisive. It is cultic and condemned by Paul in 1 Corinthians.
In closer examination of the need for elders to know whom they are responsible for, I consider that, since no mention of local church exclusive membership existed in the early church, it was some how possible for elders at that time to know those whom they were responsible for by some other means. I submit that they knew and were responsible for those souls in proportion to the degree in which God had brought these believers into a relationship with those elders. Even with e-membership, an elder can do no more with the souls of the brethren than the depth of commitment to the elder the saints avail themselves, or the time an elder has available to tend those saints. In the case of large institutional churches where there is a very high ratio of e-members to elders, the question arises that if the pastor is responsible to all who are e-members, how is it possible for them to spread themselves out so thinly and still be effective overseers? This is one of the big problems I have with the institutional church. So many saints go uncared for and unnoticed because of the large size of the group and the precious few to oversee them. The ratio of saints to elders is much lower in the house church, and many more saints are actively involved in oversight, instruction and mutual participation.
The New Testament basis for those whom elders are responsible for is relationship, not e-membership. In fact, that is the basis for fellowship with one another as well. We should be accountable to, and for, those brethren whom God has brought into our lives. It is God that puts us together with other Christians for a distinct purpose in His providential plan.
Let me illustrate my concern of institutional church e-membership with a story of my wife Kathy's first church experience she had before we met. If I had mentioned the name of the church, most of you would have heard of it. This church, at the time of Kathy's baptism in 1975, boasted 10,000 e-members or more. They had a physical logistics problem of parking and exchanging the 9 AM worshipers with the 11AM worshipers. They had to hustle people in and out of the building with expeditious precision. The ushers had flashlights with the orange cones on the tip. You could not sit where you wanted, but had to sit in the next available row that the usher placed you in. They packed them in like sardines. "Pastor Jack", as he was called, baptized Kathy one day when she first started going there. She was alone and single. She was new to LA. She was just coming out of the world of entertainment in Hollywood wanting to start anew and make new friends in Christ. She attended that church regularly as an e-member for 2 years. Brace yourselves for this, brethren. Kathy was a little shy, however, not one person had ever even greeted her much less befriended her in those 2 years.
E-membership isn't a remedy for anything brethren. But loving relationship in the household of God is everything in our fellowship with the saints. The other reason offered that it somehow will stop the unaccountable drifters, is equally specious. Those who want to remain unaccountable, whether they are e-members or not, will continue to be unaccountable regardless of e-membership. The only biblical remedy is to build loving relationships with them so that they will want to stay. When relationships are strong, and there is a healthy interdependence created breaking off those relationships becomes difficult, even for the drifter. Again, it is the building of strong loving relationships that is the basis of church discipline. When someone becomes an e-member and yet has cultivated no relationships in that assembly, and should he fall into unrepentant sin, when he is brought before the brethren to be judged, the typical response is that he will just leave and go to another assembly. If, however, relationships have been formed, it is those relationships that he stands to lose and it is the shame he will incur before his friends in Christ that become the real and biblical teeth of church discipline.
It is important to mention at this point that each Christian should be able to identify some gathering of saints with whom he has built relationships who would be able to care for him and hold him accountable should he fall into sin. Brethren, from what group of saints would fruitful accountability come in your life? Loners and drifters have no justification for their unaccountability in Matt. 18 and the community ministry seen in 1 Cor. 12-14. "21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!"
I would add that when the church is viewed by all Christians as one, then biblical discipline will finally be effective. When the brother under discipline tries escape to another assembly his acceptance will be blocked by those in the next assembly. As it is today, however, the other assemblies are often seen as competitors and the fleeing brother as a new customer.
Abandonment of Needy Christians Excused by E-membership Teaching
Surely, there are there few teachings that I find more repulsive than the excusing of one's self from the giving of charity to those brothers in need because they aren't part of "my church." While I would concede that those in daily relationship to us, such as our families and those with whom we fellowship frequently, are first in line to receive our aid, to use the excuse that a Christian is not worthy to receive our aid because he should get it from those in "his own church" is fundamentally unfounded in Scripture. If a poor Christian family is in need, and they are not e-members of a "bona fide church" with a name and a pastor with deacon fund, they become disqualified for any support from exacting Christians. "Let it be a lesson to those uncommitted losers."
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for almost the same lack of compassion toward one's parents. Turn your bibles to Mark 7:9. "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
I would add that we often discount or disqualify even those brethren who are e-members of another fellowship when it comes to giving. But, the parable of the Good Samaritan answers the question "Who is our neighbor?" John 13:34, Gal 6:2, 1Jo 3:17, Matt. 25:40 make no such exclusionary distinction. This idea is purely a product of the false teaching of exclusive and sequestered churches which is patently condemned by Paul in 1 Cor. It smacks of a trite justification for niggardliness. The Scripture stands. "1Jo 3:17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?"
The church was so much different in Paul's time than today. Imagine the Macedonians giving out of their extreme poverty to raise funds for the starving Judean church (2 Cor. 8:2). These were Romans and Gentiles that had never met these Christian Jews who lived many days travel away. The Macedonians did not see a separation between them and the Jerusalem church. They saw them as brothers of the same family of God.
Previous Relationships Lost Because of E-membership
There is another lamentable product of this exclusive and divisive teaching. There are many relationships with other Christians that are formed in Christ from the first day that we call upon the name of the Lord. God in His providence has brought us into these relationships for a purpose in ours and the lives of those with whom those relationships were painstakingly formed and nurtured over the years of our pilgrimage. Any jealous effort by the leadership or saints of a particular gathering to hinder the continuing nurturing of those previously existing relationships as though those relationships were a threat to the function of that gathering is egregious. On what basis do we require the exclusive commitment of saints in a particular assembly that would essentially discourage the on going vitality of previous relationships in Christ? This is where the divisiveness of e-membership becomes more apparent. This practice denies the unity of the one body of Christ and sets the organization's monolithic goals over against what God may want to accomplish in the lives of those knit together in relationships outside of the exclusive membership. When leaders recognize that these previously forged relationships are actually beneficial to the assembly rather than a threat, they will begin to see the power and wonder of the unity of the body of Christ.
Any support given and received from any saint outside an assembly cannot hinder but rather augments the vital strength of the assembly. These do's and don'ts teachings that discourage existing relationships cause us to lose "connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. 20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Col. 2:19-22" I realize that this passage is speaking of returning to the law, but it does express so well the problem of making up traditions that bind the brethren and divide them from the body who's sole head is Christ.
Brothers, we should actively encourage the ongoing nurturing of existing relationships. In fact, it is my practice to inquire of new saints who wish to gather with our fellowship if all is well with previous relationships that they have. If they are leaving behind broken relationships, I want assurance that they will do all they can to make them right. If they need help in doing so, I will gladly assist.
Persecution - Institutional or House Church
It is frustrating to know these truths and continue to see Christians go on practicing in the institutional church. While many of us quixotically cry out to those who will not listen, I can assure you that these vital truths of house church theology will not lie dormant for long. In my work I meet many pastors with whom I discuss these things. Often they listen with concealed contempt knowing that I will be moving on to other door customers soon. I usually leave them with this thought. The institutional church, with all of its grand facades, opulent edifices, unbiblical liturgies, and one man superstar ministries, could never exist in countries like China, Cuba, Muslim countries, and the former Soviet Union. In those countries the church is persecuted. Christians there must keep a low profile, go to prison or be killed. They must gather in small conventicles by necessity. Jesus said, "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also." John 15:20. Paul says, "In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." 2Ti3:12.
If the church is structured in such a way that its form cannot survive persecution, then it cannot be biblical. God has designed the church so that the saints can minister to one another in the most austere circumstances. The traditional institutional church has enjoyed government protection throughout the last 1700 years for those particular Christian sects that were authorized. In America, because of Christian influence, the church has enjoyed government protected religious freedom for 200 years. As a result, the traditional church has grown and thrived. Everywhere I look on the political horizon I see the signs of that liberty coming to an end. Christianity no longer holds sway over the culture, language, and laws. The new religion of America is atheistic humanism, which is virulently intolerant of Christianity. It won't be long before true gospel teaching will be deemed hate speech as it is in Canada and France. The vice of persecution is closing.
I ask these pastors if they will look back on their ministries with regret while they sit in prison. Will they worry that the saints are scattered as sheep without a shepherd? Will they regret not having prepared the saints to do the work of ministry? Will they regret teaching them to be dependent on one man ministry rather than equipping them to mutually teach and to counsel one another? Will they regret not teaching them to imitate the New Testament house churches that were small, intimate and active in spite of the persecution the early church suffered? Will the saints be able to trust leaders without degrees in theology and that haven't been ordained by a seminary? Will the Baptist have fellowship with the Pentecostals? Will the Arminians break bread with the Calvinists? Will Presbyterians risk imprisonment to hide a fugitive Lutheran brother?
Brethren, the New Testament house church will return by default because no other form of church government will stand up to persecution, unless it capitulates to the control of the state. What is vital is that God's appointed elders equip the saints for the work of ministry and stop monopolizing the teaching ministry for the sake of justifying their salaries. The time of persecution is closing in upon the church. Will you be ready?
Conclusion
The patterns of fellowship in the New Testament are not optional when we see how the mutual ministry of mature sons in Christ works together in one unified body as we live in times of peace or persecution. We must develop, in our faith and practice, a love of all of the brethren-seeing them together with us as one body. While loving them, we must avoid thinking and practices that are divisive and we must deny those government structures that hinder mutual ministry by preeminently exalting some men above the others. We are all brothers. While it is difficult to find Christian fellowship that is not an institutional church, we must not withdraw from Christian fellowship; we must not give up trying. It may be that the only fellowship we will find for awhile is meeting with those in an institutional church. Like living in the world, we must continue to be loving and yet resolute not to succumb to unbiblical practices. This may mean that we visit churches in order to cultivate friendships that will grow into on going fellowship that better conforms to New Testament patterns. In such a process you well know that you may be mistreated and regarded as a threat by some. I find that the practice of going out to eat with brethren at a restaurant, or inviting brethren we meet to eat at our homes after the traditional service is a way in which to build those friendships.
We cannot love one another, if we do not know one another. Relationships are the foundation of all other fellowship practice. Out of committed, self-sacrificing and loving relationships comes the expression of supernatural gifts of oversight, teaching, exhortation, mercy, giving, and all things mutually edifying to the saints with whom we gather. The Holy Spirit is able to make us stand and to lead us as a body without party spirit or divisions. All those who are loved and redeemed by the Lord are our brothers whether or not they are committed to the errors of institutional church or not. We must love them and as God grants them ears to hear, we, in a spirit of gentleness, can begin to persuade them of a better way.
