Response to the House-Church Movement: Part Three

Does the Bible require that the Lord's Supper be celebrated only as part of a “full meal”?

Advocates of the House-Church Movement, as represented by Steve Atkerson, claim that it does. In an article entitled "The Lord's Supper - Feast or Famine?" he asks the question, “The Lord's Supper, sometimes called communion, the Table of the Lord, the agape or the Eucharist, is limited in most churches to a sip of wine and a piece of bread. Why then is it called a 'supper' in the NT?” He concludes that it must be celebrated as a larger meal and gives this explanation for what happened to lead the Church away from this practice:

Foreign though it may seem to the contemporary church, the first-century church enjoyed the Lord’s Supper as a banquet that foreshadowed the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. It was not until after the close of the New Testament era that the early church fathers altered the Lord’s Supper from its pristine form.

Recognizing the difficulty of advocating a view that has not been commonly accepted by Christians for the past two millennia, Atkerson has to give some explanation for how it arose and became so predominant. So he argues that the early church fathers moved away from Scriptural practice and led the church to do the same. And even after the Reformation, the Church has still failed to grasp the true Scriptural teaching for nearly 500 years. But, of course, those in the House-Church Movement (HCM) who advocate such a view are required first to demonstrate that their own understanding of the Lord' s Supper really is the teaching of Scripture in the first place. Beresford Job (in an article entitled “The Apostles' Traditions - The Heart of the Matter: Part 4 - What the Bible Says!”) and Steve Atkerson (in the aforementioned article) have attempted to do just that, and it is to these arguments that I will now respond. I will list and discuss the crucial passages cited by these two men in support of their understanding. Along the way I will focus my attention primarily upon the arguments of Steve Atkerson, since he has made the more thorough case for the HCM position. Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture quotations by me are from the New King James Version.

Exodus 12:1-14 “Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2 'This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3 Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: “On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. 4 And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons; according to each man's need you shall make your count for the lamb. 5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. 7 And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. 8 Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. 9 Do not eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted in fire -- its head with its legs and its entrails. 10 You shall let none of it remain until morning, and what remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire. 11 And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD's Passover. 12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. 13 Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. 14 So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance.”'” (Bold emphasis mine.)

This passage is the best place to start our discussion, since it provides the background for the celebration of the Passover meal, the meal at which Jesus first instituted the Lord's Supper. Observe that the Passover meal itself consisted of only three required things: 1) the lamb (vs.3), 2) unleavened bread (vs.8), and 3) bitter herbs (vs.8).

But these three essential elements of the Passover meal were not all that was required for a proper celebration of it. For example, there was also the requirement to place the blood of the lamb on the lintel and doorposts of the house where it was eaten (vs.7), the requirement to eat the entire lamb before morning or burn what was left (vs.10), the requirement to eat the meal standing with a belt on one's waist and sandals on one's feet (vs.11a), and the requirement to eat the whole meal in haste (vs.11b).

Observe also that there is no mention at all of the fruit of the vine, although we may imagine that they drank something with the meal. At any rate, Jesus later saw no problem with drinking the fruit of the vine with the Passover as a part of a proper celebration of it. In fact, as we shall see below, He made it a required part of the Lord's Supper.

As for why the specific elements (lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs) of the meal itself were required, Christians can answer with certainty based upon later revelation that the lamb was slain as a type of Christ, “our Passover” (1 Cor. 5:7). The reason for the unleavened bread is not altogether clear from Exodus 12, but Moses later gives a reason for it – which may hint at a reason for the bitter herbs as well – when he reviews the Passover requirement in Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 16:1-3 “Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover to the LORD your God, for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Therefore you shall sacrifice the Passover to the LORD your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where the LORD chooses to put His name. 3 You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, that is, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), that you may remember the day in which you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life.” (Bold emphasis mine.)

So, the unleavened bread – and apparently also the bitter herbs – was eaten primarily as a reminder of their affliction in Egypt. Perhaps this is the main reason Jesus also chose it to symbolize His body, given the great affliction He endured for our sins. We cannot be certain of this particular point, but we can be certain as to what Jesus taught were the required elements of the Lord's Supper, to which we will now turn our attention.

Matthew 26:26-30 “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body.' 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.' 30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.'”

Luke 22:14-20 “When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, 'With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' 17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, 'Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.' 19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.'” (Bold emphasis mine.)

First, notice that from among the required elements of the Passover meal Jesus selected only the unleavened bread as an essential element of the Lord's Supper. The lamb was no longer required for obvious reasons; it had found its fulfillment in Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. And as for the bitter herbs, they are not mentioned at all by Jesus.

Second, the fruit of the vine was not – as we have previously seen – a required element of the Passover. It appears that Jesus chose it not to replace one of the required elements of the Passover meal as such, but rather as a replacement for the blood of the Lamb that was to be put on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the house. That blood of the lamb had pointed to the blood of Christ that was to be shed for our sins, but now the fruit of the vine would symbolize His blood.

Thus, we can see that Jesus clearly dispensed with the Passover meal as previously required, and He required only two elements for future remembrance of Him, namely the bread and the fruit of the vine. Nowhere in these passages does He specify the need to eat or drink anything else.

Steve Atkerson nevertheless offers the following challenge based upon the connection of the Lord's Supper to the Passover:

[T]he bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper were introduced in the context of a full meal, specifically, the Passover meal.

Would the Twelve have somehow concluded that the newly instituted Lord’s Supper was not to be a true meal? Or would they naturally have assumed it to be a feast, just like the Passover? The answers are obvious.

Well, I do not think the answers to these questions are so obvious, at least not the answers given by Atkerson. In fact, I would ask a number of questions in response. For example, given that the Passover requirements had been so specific, why would the Apostles assume that Jesus' instructions were any less so? That is, why would they automatically assume that He intended them to eat a larger meal when His specific instructions did not say so? In addition, if they did assume that Jesus intended that they eat a larger meal in conjunction with the bread and the fruit of the vine, would they not have assumed it to be the Passover meal? After all, as Atkerson himself correctly observes, it is this meal that provides the background for the Lord's Supper, not just any meal. Would Atkerson require us to eat the Lord's Supper with bitter herbs, with staffs in our hands, and in haste, for example? Would he require us to eat lamb? I seriously doubt it! But if these requirements of the Passover have been set aside, on what basis does Atkerson say that a larger meal – beyond anything specified by Jesus himself – should be required of Christians? That is, if that which made the Passover a meal in the first place – according to Atkerson – is no longer required, then why should we think that any other meal is required?

Thus, the connection with the Passover simply does not provide an adequate basis for requiring that the Lord's Supper be eaten as part of a “full meal.” But Atkerson has other arguments for this, arguments that I think are better support for his view but which still do not prove his case. These arguments are based upon the future focus of the Lord's Supper.

Jesus keenly desired to eat that last Passover with His disciples, saying that He would “not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God ” (Lk 22:16 ). Note that Jesus looked forward to a time when He could eat the Passover again in the kingdom of God. Evidently, the “fulfillment” (Lk 22:16 ) of this was later written about by John in Revelation 19:7-9. There, John recorded an angel declaring, “Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” The Last Supper and the early church’s Lord’s Suppers all looked forward to a fulfillment in the wedding supper of the Lamb. What better way to typify a banquet than with a banquet?

His future wedding banquet was much on our Lord’s mind that particular Passover evening. He mentioned it first at the beginning of the Passover feast (Lk 22:16 ). He mentioned it again when passing the cup, saying, “I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Lk 22:18 ). Then, after the supper, He referred to it yet again, saying, “I confer on you a kingdom . . . so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom ” (Lk 22:29 -30).

Whereas modern Gentiles associate heaven with clouds and harps, first-century Jews thought of heaven as a time of feasting at Messiah’s table. This idea of eating and drinking at the Messiah’s table was common imagery in Jewish thought of the first century. For instance, a Jewish leader once said to Jesus, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God ” (Lk 14:15 ). Jesus Himself said that “many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 8:11 ).

I agree with Atkerson that the Lord's Supper looks forward to a fulfillment in the kingdom of God as Jesus said. I also agree that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is most likely a reference to this fulfillment. However, the fact still remains that Jesus did not specify eating and drinking anything other than bread and the fruit of the vine in remembrance of Him and in anticipation of the future kingdom. It is not that I have a problem with HCM advocates observing the Lord's supper in the context of a larger meal in anticipation of the future kingdom. I actually think it could be a beautiful thing to do so long as the kinds of errors to which this may lead are avoided (errors that will be discussed below with reference to the church at Corinth). My problem with the HCM position is that it makes a requirement of something Jesus nowhere required. Where, I ask, in any of the Gospel passages cited by Atkerson do we find such a statement of Jesus? Also, since Jesus said He would not eat of the Passover meal again until the future consummation (Luke 22:16), why should we think that we must eat of such a meal? As a matter of fact, why should we not instead think that we ought to eat and drink only of the bread and the fruit of the vine that He specifically told us to eat and drink. Couldn't someone argue from this evidence that we should wait for Jesus to show up for that meal before we start eating it?

Now, I of course am not going to argue in such a manner, because the text doesn't say we must not eat the Lord's Supper as a part of a larger meal any more than it says that we must. And that is my point. We should not make a requirement of something without clear Scriptural warrant.

But what about the fact that at least one church in the New Testament era – the church at Corinth – did apparently observe the Lord's Supper in conjunction with the eating of a larger meal? Does this demonstrate that such a practice should be required of other churches? Let's take a look at the evidence in 1 Corinthians to find out.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.”

Beresford Job cites these verses and laments the practice of having separate special “communion services”:

...Paul indicates that the food and drink represents, among other things, the unity we have because of what Jesus accomplished for us in His death. The truly awful, and perfectly misleading, phrase 'Holy Communion' comes from the fact that in the Greek the word translated participation is koinonia, and means fellowship. Hence we have such associated words as communication, communique and communion. As stated earlier, the New Testament knows nothing of 'communion services', and the early churches shared bread and wine as part of a communal church meal - as simple as that!

Without getting into the relative merits of the term communion, I would challenge what Job has said at at least two points. First, although the context of 1 Corinthians later indicates that the church at Corinth did apparently partake of the Lord's Supper in conjunction with a meal, it goes beyond the evidence to speak in general of “the early churches” as following this practice. Second, Paul does not make reference in these verses to any kind of meal as Job thinks of it. He refers only to the cup and the bread which symbolize the blood and body of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:20-22 “Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper [deípnon]. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.”

Steve Atkerson makes the following argument:

From the nature of their abuse, it is evident that the Corinthian church regularly partook of the Lord’s Supper as a full meal. In contrast, very few people in modern churches would ever come to a typical Lord’s Supper service expecting to have physical hunger satisfied. Nor could they possibly get drunk from drinking a thimble-sized cup of wine (or much less, grape juice).

The inspired solution for the Corinthian’s abuse of the Supper was not that the church cease eating it as a full meal. Instead, Paul wrote, “when you come together to eat, wait for each other.” Only those so famished or undisciplined or selfish that they could not wait for the others are instructed to “eat at home” (1Co 11:34 ).

I would not say that the Corinthian church “regularly partook of the Lord's Supper as a full meal” (italics mine). Instead, I would say that they were partaking of the Lord's Supper in conjunction with a larger meal. There is a difference. Atkerson's way of stating it goes beyond what the text communicates by assuming that the Lord's Supper isn't the Lord's Supper at all if not partaken of as a part of a larger meal. But, as we shall see, the text does not demand this. I am also not sure I would agree with his characterization of the nature of Paul's solution to the problem. But I will respond to this later when I discuss verses 33-34.

All that can be said with certainty from this passage is that the Corinthians were treating the Lord's Supper as if it were no different than any other meal, and that they were doing so in a selfish manner to boot. However, Paul tells them that if their goal is simply eating and drinking in order to satisfy their own physical hunger and thirst, then they should do that at home.

But this brings up the fact that many were coming to eat their “own supper” (vs.21) rather than the “Lord's Supper” (vs.20). Atkerson argues that the meaning of the Greek word translated supper requires the notion of a "full meal":

Additionally, the word behind “supper” (1Co 11:20 ) is deipnon, which means "dinner, the main meal toward evening, banquet.” It never refers to anything less than a full meal, such as an appetizer, snack or hors d’oeuvres. What is the possibility that the authors of the New Testament would use deipnon to refer to the Lord’s “Supper” if it were not supposed to be a full meal?

I would say that it is the strongest of possibilities that Paul would use the Greek word deípnon to refer to the Lord's Supper as something less than the kind of large meal that Atkerson supposes. Indeed, I would say it is a certainty that he would do so, since that is exactly what he did.

The fact is that words mean what they mean in the contexts in which they are used, and here Paul uses deípnon in a context which indicates that it refers simply to the bread and cup as the only required elements of the Lord's Supper. This will become more apparent as we examine the larger context more fully, but for now I would only ask why a significant piece of bread and a glass of wine could not very well have been viewed as a meal by many first century believers? On what basis do HCM advocates import modern notions of what constitutes a meal back into the first century anyway?

But then there is also the fact that a word can be put to a special use that doesn't necessarily convey its typical meaning, which seems to be the case with deípnon. For example, the Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, by Timothy and Barbara Friberg, says that deípnon can be used “figuratively, as a sacred meal with symbolic meaning attached ” and lists 1 Corinthians 11:20 as an example (BibleWorks #5939). Of course, I agree with HCM advocates that deípnon usually refers to an ordinary meal and can refer to the main meal of the day eaten toward evening, but Paul clearly was not using this word in the usual way. In fact, he contrasted his use of the word with the apparent understanding of the Corinthians. They were obviously thinking of just some ordinary supper, but Paul explicitly tells them that this is not the Lord's Supper (vs.20).

Now, I suppose that HCM advocates could say that this doesn't mean that Paul does not see the Lord's Supper as including and requiring the eating of a larger meal. It only means that he sees it as something more than just an ordinary meal. Such an objection would carry significant weight if it wasn't for the context. For, as we shall see, in the context Paul clearly specifies what he sees as essential to the proper observance of the Lord's Supper, and he includes only the correct eating of the bread and drinking of the cup as such.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.'”

If proper observance of the Lord's Supper did, in fact, require the eating of a "full meal" (such as HCM advocates suppose), then why does Paul not say that he received this from the Lord and handed it on to them? Why does he not say that Jesus taught – and he handed down to them – that we must eat a larger meal, beyond the bread and the cup, in remembrance of Christ? Instead, Paul just repeats exactly the teaching of Jesus. He stresses that it is the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup alone that are to be done in remembrance of Christ. Thus it is the bread and cup that are the essence of the Lord's Supper, and there is no further requirement.

Now, Paul does say that Jesus originally took the cup “after supper” (vs.25) and gave it its significance. And this fact may lead some HCM advocates to conclude that this assumes that a larger meal should be eaten between the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup. But the supper being referred to by Paul in verse 25 is the original supper at which Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, i.e. the last Passover that He shared with the disciples. Paul isn't necessarily implying with this historical reference that the the proper observance of the Lord's Supper will be to eat the bread in remembrance of Christ, have a supper, and then drink the cup in remembrance of Him as well, since the Passover is a supper in which Christian's are no longer required to participate.

1 Corinthians 11:26 “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.”

Here again we have the future aspect of the Lord's Supper coming into view. But we also have the emphasis once again upon eating the bread and drinking the cup. Paul has consistently identified as crucial to a proper observance of the Lord's Supper these two things, and nothing more.

1 Corinthians 11:27-32 “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.”

Notice that it is only eating of the bread and drinking of the cup in an unworthy manner that constitutes the sin Paul is specifically confronting here. There are not many weak, sick, or even dead among them because they did not eat in a worthy manner of anything else that they may have had with the meal they were eating. But if Paul saw this larger meal as itself a necessary part of the Lord's Supper, wouldn't he have spoken more generally and told them that whatever they were eating or drinking together should be eaten and drunk in a worthy manner? However, if Paul saw only the bread and the fruit of the vine as the essential elements of the Lord's Supper, what he says makes perfect sense, since it is only these two things that he demands that they rightly observe.

1 Corinthians 11:33-34 “Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.”

As we saw earlier, Atkerson placed real importance upon these commands as supporting his position. But let's take another look at what he says:

The inspired solution for the Corinthian’s abuse of the Supper was not that the church cease eating it as a full meal. Instead, Paul wrote, “when you come together to eat, wait for each other.” Only those so famished or undisciplined or selfish that they could not wait for the others are instructed to “eat at home” (1Co 11:34 ).

When Paul says “when you come together to eat, wait for one another,” is he referring to the larger meal they were apparently having in conjunction with the Lord's Supper? Or is he referring only to the immediately preceding verses in which he has specified the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup in a worthy manner? It is possible that he has the larger meal in mind, in which case Atkerson is correct to conclude that Paul did not mind their continuing to eat this larger meal. But I think that the immediately preceding verses indicate that he is referring here more specifically to the bread and the cup. I also think that his command in the next verse makes this more probable. For the next thing that Paul says it that, “if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home.” This means that Paul did not see the satisfaction of physical hunger as the point of the Lord's Supper, but isn't this at least a part of the reason people come together to eat a “full meal”? However, the point of the Lord's Supper for Paul is clearly not the satisfaction of physical hunger, but rather that bread is eaten and the fruit of the vine is drunk in remembrance of Christ and looking forward to the future kingdom.

But even if Paul had no problem with their eating a larger meal in conjunction with the Lord's Supper, this does not indicate that he viewed this larger meal as necessary to it, which he clearly did not. That Paul allowed a practice does not mean that he required it. This is why I would see no problem at all with churches who may partake of the Lord's Supper in conjunction with a larger meal. I would simply caution them to avoid the excesses and abuses of the Corinthian church, abuses that apparently arose – at least in part – precisely because they chose to partake of the Lord's Supper in this manner. And I would also warn them against making a requirement of something not clearly required in Scripture.

Jude 1:12 “These are spots in your love feasts [agápai], while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots....”

Beresford Job is adamant about the import of this verse:

Love feasts! What love feasts? Churches don't have love feasts at which some people might be blemishes, do they? Well, any Bible scholar will tell you that the churches in the New Testament did have love feasts when they met; and here we have another of the names they used for the Lord's Supper! What about your church then?

Where is there any clear reference in this verse to the Lord's Supper? It may be that later Christian writings used the term agápai to refer to the Lord's Supper, as seems to be implied here by Job. But where is the evidence of this in Jude? I conclude that this verse has no clear bearing on the subject.

Well, that covers the Biblical case made by HCM advocates as represented by Beresford Job and Steve Atkerson. We have seen why it is that the Church for so many centuries has not held as necessary the eating of a larger meal with the Lord's Supper. It is not because so many Christians have been so blinded to the correct reading of Scripture at this point. Rather it is simply because there is no such requirement in Scripture. In conclusion I would just say that, while I see no real problem with the practice of HCM churches regarding the Lord's Supper, I am once again troubled by their tendency to make requirements of things not clearly commanded in Scripture. This is a dangerous trend which I will address again in a later post.

Stay tuned for the next post in this series, in which I will respond to the House-Church Movement's treatment of elder leadership.

"The Secret" is No Secret! It is Just the Same Old Lie

The book The Secret and the movie by the same name have recently been gaining a lot of attention, especially due to the coverage received on the Oprah Winfrey Show. On the page devoted to The Secret at Oprah.com, a caption under a promotional video reads, "It's making headlines around the world—and buzz just keeps building. Some say it's the secret to creating the life you truly want—losing weight, making money, finding love. See why people everywhere are talking about The Secret." And in the promotional video itself, one can hear Oprah say, "For years on this show this is what I've been trying to do." And at another web page at the site entitled, "The Secret is Out: a Huge Reaction," the following description of The Secret and the reaction to it on the Oprah Winfrey Show may be found:

On February 8, 2007, millions tuned in to The Oprah Winfrey Show to learn the mystery of The Secret. Since the show aired, our message boards have been buzzing with people who want to know more. The Secret is defined as the law of attraction, which states that like attracts like. The concept says that the energy you put into the world—both good and bad—is exactly what comes back to you. This means you create the circumstances of your life with the choices you make every day.

To help answer your burning questions, two teachers of The Secret, James Arthur Ray and the Rev. Dr. Michael Beckwith, are back. Michael says he thinks The Secret is alluring because it helps people stop feeling like victims. "I think us talking about the law of attraction, talking about these universal spiritual principles, allows them to see that they can begin to govern their thoughts and their way of life," he says.

In addition to this description, there are a number of segments devoted to The Secret at Oprah.com. But one can also go to the website of The Secret, click on "Learn About The Secret," and watch about 25 minutes of the movie. After having done so, what I discovered is that The Secret is really no secret at all; it is just another rehashed version of the old "power of positive thinking" nonsense. It is designed to teach "the secret" to getting whatever you want, which they call the "law of attraction." This law is that you attract—and thus cause to happen in your life— whatever you can consistently think, whether good or bad. It teaches that a person's life is a physical manifestation of what they think. The movie acknowledges that it is very hard to control our thoughts, however, but it offers as a solution our feelings as the best monitor of our thinking. Basically, if we feel good, we are thinking the right way, and if we feel bad we are thinking wrongly. It also tries to tie the law of attraction into quantum physics and to make it sound scientific. But, of course, there is nothing new or scientific about it. It is just another warmed-over version of the same old lie.

Actually, it looks like the latest New Age fad to me, and it appears to be focused entirely upon how best to make ourselves feel good by giving us our most selfish desires. It appeals to the lust of the flesh and directs us to look inward for the source of happiness. But as Christians we know the danger of looking inward to ourselves for happiness. We remember and believe the warning of Jeremiah that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (17:9). We know the danger of self-deception that lurks within us and leads us away from the true source of happiness, which is found in a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ. It is found not by seeking the answer from within, but by looking outside ourselves to God.

The Supposed “Tomb of Jesus”

Recently the story that Jesus' “family tomb” has been found has been making some waves. This is mostly due to a so-called “documentary” produced by James Cameron and aired on The Discovery Channel. The program is called The Lost Tomb of Jesus, and it presents the ides of an orthodox Jew named Simcha Jacobovici, who makes the claim that the tomb includes the bones of Jesus and His supposed wife and son (among other family members). Without getting into all of the claims made or attempting to refute them myself, I wanted to let Reformed Baptist Blog readers know about three solid responses already available:

1) Andreas Kostenberger's blog article entitled The Jesus Tomb.

2) Darrell Bock's blog article entitled Hollywood Hype: The Oscars and Jesus’ Family Tomb, What Do They Share?

3) Ben Witherington's blog article entitled Problems Multiply for Jesus Tomb Theory.

It is really a sad thing that some are so willing to believe even the most obvious nonsense. It reminds me of something G.K. Chesterton once said, “When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything.”

Response to the House-Church Movement: Part Two

Does the Bible require that church gatherings be “completely open and participatory with no one leading”?

Many in the House-Church Movement (HCM) believe that this is the case. For example, Beresford Job argues in favor of this view in his article entitled The Apostles' Traditions - The Heart of the Matter: Part 4 - What the Bible Says, in which he seeks to make the case that “New Testament church gatherings were completely open and participatory with no one leading from the front”:

In 1 Corinthians Paul's context from chapter 11 through to the end of chapter 14 is how the believers there ought to conduct themselves when they come together as a church (this is not something that any Bible commentator would challenge and is self-evidently the case). He is particularly concerned, in the light of their obsession with the verbal gifts of the Spirit such as tongues and prophecy, that they understand the rules he had previously given them concerning their use. Further, he couches his teaching in terms of each person in the church being a different part of a body, and that the key to a healthy body is that each part functions properly and according to its design. Against this background it becomes clear that what Paul writes only makes any sense at all when understood as instructions and rules laid down for a corporate gathering at which all present are free to take part without the controlling presence of anyone 'leading' the proceedings.

Steve Atkerson agrees with Job and writes a more comprehensive defense in an article entitled Interactive Meetings, which contains a section devoted to “Scriptural Arguments for Interactive Meetings.” Given that these arguments are more detailed and comprehensive that Job's, I have chosen to restrict my response primarily to Atkerson. In what follows I will cite and respond bit by bit to a significant portion of the article in which he attempts to set forth his Biblical case. Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture quotations by me are from the New King James Version.

Interactive meetings are indeed Scriptural. For example, Paul asked the Corinthians, “What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church” (1Co 14:26 ).

Had Scripture used the words “only one” instead of “everyone,” the verse would be more descriptive of most modern church services. It is clear from the text, however, that those original church meetings were much different. There was interaction, spontaneity and participation. In a sense there really wasn’t an audience because all the brothers were potential cast members!

Atkerson goes beyond what the text he has cited clearly indicates when he says that “there was interaction, spontaneity, and participation” in the sense that “all the brothers were potential cast members.” There are at least a couple of reasons why I say this.

First, although the version cited by Atkerson says that “everyone” has a hymn, word of instruction, revelation, tongue, or interpretation, the Greek word Paul used was hékastos, which may perhaps better be translated here as “each one” (ESV, NASB) or “each of you” (NKJV). Regardless of how it is translated, however, it is patently obvious that Paul cannot be referring to every single brother present as a potential contributor, since four of the five actions mentioned are discussed in the context as gifts of the Spirit which not all possess. For example:

1) Although the version of 1 Corinthians 14:26 cited by Atkerson refers to “a word of instruction,” the Greek word used is didachē, which in this context would better be translated teaching, thus properly alluding to those who have the corresponding spiritual gift and who are mentioned earlier in 12:28 as “teachers” (didáskalos). But not all possess this gift of teaching (12:29), so Paul cannot mean that each one in the church has a teaching to offer. He must rather mean that each one so gifted may have a teaching to offer.

2) When Paul refers to “a revelation” (apokálupsis) in 14:26, he is clearly referring in the context to the gift of “prophecy” (prophēteía,12:10; 13:2,8; 14:6,22) and to those thus referred to as “prophets” (prophētēs,12:28-29; 14:29,32,37), since it is the prophets to whom things are said to be “revealed” in this passage (apokalúptō, 14:30). But not all posses this gift of prophecy (12:29), so Paul cannot mean that each one in the church has a revelation to offer. He must rather mean that each one so gifted may have a revelation or prophecy to offer.

3) Likewise when Paul refers to a “tongue” or “an interpretation” in 14:26, he is clearly referring to the gifts of speaking in tongues and the interpretation of tongues previously mentioned (12:10, 28). But not all posses the gift of tongues or the interpretation of tongues (12:30), so again Paul cannot mean that each one in the church has a tongue or an interpretation to offer. He must rather mean that each one so gifted has a tongue or an interpretation to offer. And, as matter of fact, even each one gifted with tongues is only allowed to share it if there is an interpreter (14:28).

4) As for Paul's reference to each one having a “hymn” (psalmós), we have no clear connection to a specific gift mentioned earlier. However, given that Paul's earlier list of gifts does not appear to have been exhaustive, I think it best to see it as a spiritual gift here since it is clearly mentioned among four other gifts. At any rate, we can hardly avoid reaching the same conclusion as we have regarding the other gifts mentioned. When Paul states that “each one” has a hymn, he cannot mean that each one in the church has a hymn to offer. He must rather mean here something like each one so gifted has a hymn.

Now, given the context of Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 14:26, can we really assert with confidence that Paul thought that “all the brothers” would possess at least one of these gifts? If so, on what basis, since Paul had already made it abundantly clear that only some would have each of these gifts and that there are more gifts besides? In other words, if Paul couldn't have been referring to everyone in the church when he used the word hékastos in this verse, then on what basis do HCM advocates read it as though He does? The most that can be said is that Paul is referring to each one of those who have these particular gifts.

Second, there is nothing in 1 Corinthians 14:26 about these gifts being “spontaneous” in nature. To be sure, later in the context the gift of prophecy is described as functioning this way (as we shall see below when discussing 14:29-32), but there is no reason at all for Atkerson and other HCM advocates to assume this about the other gifts Paul mentions here. They are simply reading into the text something that is not there. I agree that each and every brother will have some gift for the building up of the body, but Paul only seems to mention here such gifts as may typically be shared in a common gathering for worship, edification, and instruction. Or, more likely, he is mentioning the particular gifts that were being abused by the Corinthians in their public gatherings, as this is the focus of his instruction to them in the context.

The spontaneous and interactive nature of early church meetings is also evident in the regulations concerning those who spoke in tongues: “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two - or at the most three, should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God” (1 Co 14: 27 -28).

Were these speakers in unknown tongues scheduled in advance to speak? Not likely, given the supernatural nature of the gift. That the meetings were interactive is evident from the fact that up to three people could speak in tongues and that there was the need for an interpreter to be present.

Where, I ask, do these verses clearly indicate that the gift of tongues is “spontaneous”? Why would the “supernatural nature” of the gift make this more likely? Now, it may be the case that one or more of those so gifted could spontaneously be led to speak in tongues, but this would only mean that the gift itself may function in a spontaneous manner, not that the sharing of that gift was necessarily a spontaneous thing. After all, the second one to speak in a tongue had to wait at least for the first to finish and for there to be an interpretation. In addition, even if this gift did function in a spontaneous way, it certainly wouldn't mean that every other gift or the involvement of anyone or everyone else in the rest of the meeting should be characterized as “spontaneous.” But isn't this the position of the HCM advocates?

I also wonder in what way these verses clearly indicate that the church meeting involved the interaction of any other than those gifted with tongues and the interpretation of tongues. In fact, I am not sure that one speaking in a tongue, followed by one interpreting what is said, can itself properly be characterized as “interaction.” After all, they are not necessarily engaging in a conversation with one another, let alone with the rest of the congregation. The most that can be said is that, when there are those present with the gift of tongues, there may be at least three or four more people who speak in the meeting.

Further indication of the participatory nature of their gatherings is seen in the guidelines given for prophets in 1 Corinthians 14:29-32. We are informed that “Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said” ( 14:29 ). The spontaneous nature of their participation also comes out in 14:30 -31a, “If a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn.” Clearly, some of the prophets came to church not planning to say anything, but then received a revelation while sitting there and listening.

I agree that these verses describe the gift of prophecy as functioning in the meeting in a spontaneous manner. I also agree that this means that the meeting was participatory in the sense that it involved the participation of up to two or three prophets in addition to the two or three tongues speakers (and at least one interpreter) already mentioned. But how does this translate to saying that the entire meeting was participatory in the sense that anyone could participate? All that can be said from the passage thus far is that some may participate who have particular gifts to share in such a meeting for worship and instruction. But it can also be said that there would be some who could not participate. For example, the fourth guy to receive a prophecy will have to sit silently by. Perhaps he can share it at another time, but Paul would not allow him to do so on this occasion.

Perhaps one of the most controversial paragraphs in the New Testament occurs in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35, regarding the silence of women in the meeting. However one interprets this passage, there would have been no need for Paul to have written it unless first century church meetings were participatory. It is implied in 14:35 that people were asking questions of the speakers during the church meetings: “If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home.” Even if Paul only meant that women were not to be the ones doing the questioning, it still remained that the men were free to quiz a speaker. The point to be gleaned is that a church meeting is not supposed to be a one-way communication. There is to be dialog and interaction among those who gather.

I agree that these verses have been difficult for many, but I think that the context gives us some help as to what Paul is referring to, and I do not think it necessitates that the men would all take part in questioning anyone who spoke in the meeting. After all, the context has to do with weighing what is said by the two or three prophets who were allowed to speak. Wayne Grudem agrees and has offered an interpretation of the passage which I think does the best job of understanding these verses in their context. Grudem argues the following with respect to 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36:

In this section Paul cannot be prohibiting all public speech by women in the church, for he clearly allows them to pray and prophesy in church in 1 Corinthians 11:5. Therefore, it is best to understand this passage as referring to speech that is in the category being discussed in the immediate context, namely, the spoken evaluation and judging of prophecies in the congregation (see v. 29: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said”). While Paul allows women to speak and give prophecies in the church meeting, he does not allow them to speak up and give evaluations or critiques of the prophecies that have been given, for this would be a ruling or governing function with respect to the whole church. This understanding of the passage depends on our view of the gift of prophecy in the New Testament age, namely, that prophecy involves not authoritative Bible teaching, and not speaking words of God which are equal to Scripture, but rather reporting something which God spontaneously brings to mind. In this way, Paul’s teachings are quite consistent in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2: in both cases he is concerned to preserve male leadership in the teaching and governing of the church. (Systematic Theology, p.939)

If this understanding of the passage is correct – and I believe it is – then the only interaction going on here is the weighing of the prophecies given by the two or three prophets who have spoken. And this hardly amounts to questioning anyone who speaks. Rather it is a cautious approach to the use of a gift in which one says that he/she has been given revelation of some kind from God. It does not necessarily address, for example, the response of the men in the congregation to the gift of teaching, which Paul clearly differentiates from the gift of prophecy earlier in the context and which is not under discussion in the immediately preceding verses.

Almost every New Testament letter is an “occasional document,” so-called because it was written in response to some local problem. Evidently some in Corinth wanted to conduct their meetings differently than this passage requires. Clearly, some aspect of the church meetings in Corinth was amiss. This much is obvious from the nature of the two questions asked of them: “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” (1 Co 14:36).

The word of God certainly had not originated with the Corinthians, and they most certainly were not the only people it had reached. These questions were thus designed to convince the Corinthian believers that they had neither right nor authorization to conduct their meetings in any other way than what is prescribed in 1 Corinthians 14. The inspired correction served to regulate orderly interaction at church gatherings, not prohibit it. Paul wrote, “Be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (14:39 -40).

I agree with Atkerson that Paul was correcting the Corinthian church. I also agree that he was regulating some interaction that was going on at their church gatherings, not prohibiting such interaction. But the issue is what kind of interaction was actually happening there and whether or not Paul required that all such interaction take place at any and every gathering of the Church. For reasons already given, I do not see the same kind of interaction that HCM advocates see here. I think they have overstated their case. But even if one does assume that the passage describes the church gatherings at Corinth as interactive and spontaneous in the sense that HCM advocates seem to mean it, this does not mean that Paul would command that all churches have such meetings. After all, to regulate the abuses in what one church does is not the same thing as requiring all churches to do the same things in the first place. It would only require that all churches that do the same things follow the regulations set down by Paul. But Atkerson anticipates where I am heading:

Holding church meetings in this spontaneous, interactive manner is in fact declared to be imperative according to 1 Corinthians 14:37, “If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.” Thus, 1 Corinthians 14 is not merely descriptive of primitive church meetings. Rather, it is prescriptive of the way our Lord expects meetings of the whole church to be conducted.

Here is where Atkerson once again goes beyond what the text explicitly says. He misses the fact that much of the passage is, in fact, descriptive and not prescriptive and that the only commands Paul gives do not say that a church must have spontaneous, interactive meetings. In fact, I have questioned based upon my own exegesis of the passage whether or not such meetings – as HCM advocates appear to understand them – ever took place at Corinth at all. But, even if such meetings are described in the passage as actually having taken place at Corinth, the fact would still remain that Paul nowhere in the passage commands other churches to do the same. For example, where does Paul command in this passage that all participation must be spontaneous? That is, that all gifts must operate in the same spontaneous way as the gift of prophecy? And where does he command that anyone be allowed to participate? And where does he command that no one should exercise any leadership over what takes place? In fact, doesn't Paul himself exercise leadership from afar in this very epistle? And doesn't he exercise leadership even over the spontaneous use of the gift of prophecy?

When we understand the historical context of the early church, it is not surprising that the meetings of the first-century church would have been interactive. The first believers in most areas of the Roman Empire were Jewish. They were accustomed to gathering in the typical synagogue format, which was open to participation from those in attendance. An examination of Acts 13:14-15, 14:1, 17:1-2, 17:10 , 18:4 and 19:8 will reveal that the apostles could never have evangelized the way they did unless the synagogues allowed input from those in the audience. The apostles were always permitted to speak in the open meetings of the synagogue. In fact, if those first century synagogue meetings were anything like most typical twenty-first century church worship services, Paul and his companions would have had to find another way to reach the Jews with the gospel!

After having examined the passages in Acts that Atkerson has cited, I see no clear evidence that the synagogue services were the kind of interactive meetings he envisions. In one passage, the leaders of the synagogue are said to have invited Paul to speak (Acts 13:15). Why can't we assume that this wasn't unusual, or that Paul may simply have asked if he could speak? After all, he was obviously a well known scholar who was advocating something new to them that they clearly wanted to know more about. There is no reason to think that Paul's ability to speak in these synagogues is necessarily evidence of spontaneous or interactive meetings there. Now, it may be that these services were the kind of interactive affairs that HCM advocates imagine them to be, but the texts cited do not prove this, and they certainly do not prove that the church necessarily followed their example.

There are other biblical indicators as well. In Acts 20:7, we discover that Paul “kept on talking” (“preached,” KJV) to the church at Troas until midnight . The Greek word translated “talking” is dialegomia which literally means “consider and discuss, argue.” Our English word “dialogue” is derived from it today. That meeting in Troas was interactive.

Besides the fact that the meaning of the modern English word dialogue has nothing to do with what Luke wrote in the first century, I would point out that Atkerson has been selective in his use of lexical information here. In fact, Beresford Job does the same thing in his article entitled “Paul Preached to Them” (found at house-church.org under “general articles”):

The original Greek doesn't say here quite what the translators would have you believe, and Luke doesn't use any of the various Greek words for preach at all, but rather describes what Paul was doing here until midnight with the word dialogemai [sic]. And dialogemai [sic], as any Greek scholar will tell, means to converse, to discuss, to reason or dispute with. It denotes a two-way discussion between different parties and is actually the Greek word from which we get the English word dialogue.

Notice that both Atkerson and Job argue that the lexical meaning of the Greek word dialégomai excludes the meaning commonly found in translations – and thus agreed upon by the Greek scholars responsible for these translations – such as the KJV (“preached”), NKJV (“spoke”), NASB (“began talking”), NIV (“spoke”), or ESV (“talked,” which may or may not agree with HCM advocates). But despite their confidence in this regard, both Atkerson and Job are wrong in their contention about the lexical meaning. Here is what a few of the most notable Greek lexicons actually have to say about the matter:

... (1) of a reasoned discussion discuss, discourse with, conduct a discussion (AC 18.4); (2) of disputations contend, argue, dispute (MK 9.34); (3) of speaking to someone in order to convince address, speak, reason with (HE 12.5). (Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, by Timothy and Barbara Friberg, BibleWorks #6308)

... 1. to engage in speech interchange, converse, discuss, argue [where it cites Acts 20:7 as probably having the meaning discuss, confer]... 2. to instruct about someth., inform, instruct [where it admits that passages cited with reference to the first meaning – which would include Acts 20:7 – may in fact have this meaning and also cites Hebrews 12:5]). (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, BibleWorks #1868)

... a) argue 33.446... to argue about differences of opinion - 'to argue, to dispute, argument'... (b) make a speech 33.26... to speak in a somewhat formal setting and probably implying a more formal use of language - 'to address, to make a speech' [where it cites Acts 12:21 and 20:7] (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, by J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, BibleWorks #1565)

Observe that all three of these reputable Greek lexicons agree that dialégomai may also have the kind of meaning so commonly expressed by English translations, i.e. to address, speak (in the sense of a formal speech, such as when preaching), or even instruct. And they cite at least two other passages which they believe clearly do have this meaning: Acts 12:21, which refers to a speech given by Herod, and especially Hebrews 12:5, which reads, “And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks [dialégomai] to you as to sons: 'My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him.'” There is definitely not an interactive discussion being thought of here!

Thus, Job's contention that “any Greek scholar” would tell you the same thing he has said about the meaning of dialégomai is just plain wrong. None of the Greek scholars responsible for any of the translations or lexicons I have cited would agree with him. Yes, they would certainly agree that the word can mean – or even may usually mean – what Atkerson and Job contend, but they would not agree that it can only mean what they and other HCM advocates have argued that it must mean in Acts 20:7.

But this begs the question, What is the correct meaning of dialégomai in Acts 20:7? And why do so many translations appear to disagree with the meaning supposed by HCM advocates? The answer to both of these questions is to be found in the context in which Luke uses the word:

Acts 20:7-10 “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke [dialégomai] to them and continued his message [lógos] until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together. 9 And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking [dialégomai+prepositional phrase meaning Paul spoke even more], he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10 But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, 'Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him.'" (Bold emphasis mine.)

Observe that the emphasis of the passage is upon Paul speaking. In fact, the passage does not say that any other people were speaking there, but that Paul himself was speaking. He had a message he was delivering (vs.7), so we are not surprised that the emphasis is upon him being the speaker. Now, I suppose it is possible that there were some questions directed at Paul throughout the course of the evening, but 1) the text does not say this, 2) the word dialégomai does not necessitate this, and 3) the context appears to indicate otherwise with the emphasis placed solely upon Paul as the speaker. But even if this passage did indicate that discussion was going on, we have here again a descriptive rather than a prescriptive text. And we have no clear command by Paul or any other New Testament writer that requires that delivering a message include an interactive time of “quizzing” the speaker.
HCM advocates have been selective and misleading – whether intentionally so or not – in their use of lexical evidence in interpreting Acts 20:7, and in my opinion they have also failed to take the context fully into account when assessing the meaning of dialégomai. But the translators they believe to have gotten it wrong apparently have done their homework a bit better.

But I would also include yet another bit of evidence ignored by HCM advocates regarding the meaning of dialégomai as used by Paul and Luke, namely that dialégomai can apparently be used interchangeably with didáskō to describe the same ministry activity. For example, in Acts 19:9-10 Luke tells us that in Ephesus Paul was “reasoning” [dialégomai] daily with the “disciples” in the school of Tyrannus and that he continued in this ministry for two years. But when Paul later described this same ministry in his recollection to the Ephesian elders, he said, “I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed [anaggéllō] it to you, and taught [didáskō] you publicly and from house to house” (20:20). So, apparently Paul could use didáskō or anaggéllō to describe what Luke called dialégomai, and vice versa. But there is no evidence that either didáskō or anaggéllō require any notion of interaction or dialog.

There is still more. The author of Hebrews urged his readers to “not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another” (10:25). Early believers encouraged one another when they gathered. That encouragement, of course, required interaction. Additionally, believers are nstructed in Hebrews 10:24 to meeting in order to stimulate each other to love and good deeds. This too required interaction.

I agree with Atkerson that we should encourage one another when we gather together. I also agree that this may often best happen in smaller groups where there is room for interaction. The issue is whether or not this requires that we forgo the kind of worship services typically engaged in by most congregations on a Sunday morning. At Immanuel Baptist Church (where I serve as an elder), for example, we usually have quite a bit of interaction and mutual exhortation during Sunday school and the Sunday evening teaching time, and the people spend a good bit of time visiting before and after the primary worship services as well. This does not take into account the many times people may meet together outside of the regular church meeting(s). I would also point out that many churches have begun having small group ministries in addition to their typical Sunday meetings just for this purpose. So, I fail to see how Hebrews 10:25 argues for having only spontaneous, interactive meetings such as HCM advocates think of them, since it is clearly possible to gather for mutual encouragement without resorting to such meetings, and especially since they can offer no clear evidence that the early church would only have engaged in such meetings in the first place.

Well, I have attempted to respond to the primary Biblical arguments of HCM advocates. I believe I have demonstrated in the process that there really is no clear case for their contention that the Bible requires that church gatherings be “completely open and participatory with no one leading.” To be sure, the meetings at Corinth did contain the spontaneous use of the gift of prophecy, along with the interactive weighing of the prophecies given, but this does not mean that every part of the meeting was characterized by either such spontaneity or such interaction. HCM advocates have merely assumed this and required it with no clear Scriptural warrant.

Having said all this, however, I must say that I don't necessarily have a problem with a church's conducting meetings in this manner, so long as things are done, as Paul does command, “decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). But this brings up the role of the leaders of the church, the elders. It is their role to to ensure that the church is properly taught and to oversee its ministry, and this would certainly also be true of the gatherings of the church for worship, instruction, and edification. I will address the role of the elders in a later post.

Stay tuned for the next post in this series, in which I will respond to the argument that the Lord's Supper may only be rightly observed if in the context of a "full meal."

The Doctrine of Perspicuity and a Plethora of Translations

As a pastor I have often been asked about the plethora of translations and how a believer can be certain that he has the Word of God, especially if he doesn't know Hebrew or Greek. I am often asked basically, "Have I really missed something important if I don't know Hebrew or Greek?"

Well, after warning the person about the dangers of some versions – such as gender neutral or dynamic equivalence translations – I take them next to the doctrine of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture as stated in the Baptist Confession of 1689, chapter 1.7:

7. All things in Scripture are not alike (m) plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for Salvation, are so (n) clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.

m 2 Pet. 3. 16.
n Ps. 19. 7. and 119. 130.

I agree with this doctrine, of course, and I think a similar thing could be said about the use of several good, formal equivalence translations. Perhaps I can adapt the wording of the 1689 Confession in order to make my point more clearly:

"All things in a good English translation are not necessarily translated as well as they could be, and thus do not necessarily give the full sense of the underlying Hebrew or Greek texts in many instances; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for Salvation, are so clearly propounded and properly translated, and opened in some place of the English translation of Scripture or other, that not only the learned in Hebrew and Greek, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means – including the use of commentaries, dictionaries, concordances, and Bible encyclopedias, may normally attain to a sufficient understanding of them."

I have often found such a use of this passage of the Confession to be helpful to believers who are struggling with these questions, and I submit it for your consideration as a way to help encourage the brethren.

Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith More Proud to Win as Christians Than as Black Men

The thing I appreciated most about this year's Super Bowl was not just that my two favorite teams were in the contest, but that these two teams both have Christian head coaches – Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith – who are known for the way they coach without using profanity or tearing players down and humiliating them. Instead they are known for the moral example they set and for building their players up through encouragement to get the best from them. They seek to demonstrate their commitment to Christ through the way they coach and how they treat their players and those they play against. That this was the most important thing to the first two black coaches to make it to a Super Bowl was very apparent in their comments leading up to and following the game. I would like to share their comments as reported in a recent WordNetDaily article. First, from an interview with Tony Dungy after the game:

Jim Nantz of CBS Sports: This is one of those moments, Tony, where there is also social significance in this victory, and to have your hands on the Vince Lombardi Trophy. Tell me what this means to you right now.

Tony Dungy: I'll tell you what. I'm proud to be representing African-American coaches, to be the first African-American to win this. It means an awful lot to our country. But again, more than anything, I've said it before, Lovie Smith and I, not only the first two African-Americans, but Christian coaches showing that you can win doing it the Lord's way. And we're more proud of that.

And earlier in the week from an interview with Lovie Smith:

"My relationship, first, is with Jesus Christ, and he is the center of my life," said Smith when asked about his faith earlier this week. "I try to live a Christian life. I would like for players to know my faith based on what they see on a day-to-day basis."

It is refreshing to see such a witness these days, but it is also a lesson in the way that race relations will ultimately change for the better more than ever among Christians. For when we care more about who we are – and who others are – in Christ than for the color of our skin, we will truly see healing take place. And what a witness this can be to the unbelievers who surround us! Thanks Tony and Lovie for this important reminder.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Response to the House-Church Movement: Part One

Does the Bible require that churches meet strictly in houses rather than in other kinds of buildings?

Many advocates of the House-Church Movement answer this question in the affirmative. For example, a paper posted at the House-Church.org website states the following after discussing a number of Biblical passages that indicate where Christians met in the first century:

There you have just about all the verses in the New Testament which relate to where churches were located when believers met together; and it's patently obvious that they met in houses. Neither is it the case that there are other verses to which I haven't referred which might indicate that churches sometimes didn't meet in homes. Any such verses, as any biblical scholar will tell you (and we will see them doing just that in the next section), are completely absent from the text of the New Testament. No-one who knows their biblical stuff would challenge the simple fact that the apostles established churches to meet in the homes of those believers who were part of them, and there is not one word or hint in the New Testament that it was in any way envisaged that it would ever be any different.

Let us test these claims by examining the passages commonly cited by the House-Church Movement (HCM). I have gathered a list of such passages from two sources: 1) an article by Beresford Job entitled “The Apostles' Traditions - The Heart of the Matter: Part 4 - What the Bible Says!” and 2) an article by Steve Atkerson entitled, "Were Persecution, Poverty, and Progression the Real Reasons for First Century House Churches?." In addition, I will introduce a few passages that indicate – contra the claims of HCM advocates – that churches at times met in public buildings rather than in homes. All the texts I have cited are from the New King James Version.

Acts 2:46-47 “So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.”

In commenting on this passage, Beresford Job has this to say:

Here we see that in the very beginning they gathered in each others homes and the temple courts.... From this point the temple gatherings fade from view completely as the church spread outside of Jerusalem and eventually to the Gentiles. The temple was then a complete irrelevance (being eventually destroyed, of course, in AD 70), and we are left with the simple fact that whenever churches are located in scripture they are always, without exception, in people's homes.

Job obviously agrees that in the earliest days the church did not see meeting in homes as a requirement, since he agrees that they “gathered in the temple courts” as well. He would no doubt also agree that this was the case a bit later, when we are told that “daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ” (Acts 5:42). But if this point is admitted, I fail to see how it can be argued that the Apostles saw meeting in homes as somehow essential to proper church order. After all, if it was regarded as so essential by the Apostles, wouldn't it have been essential in the beginning days of the church as well? And if not, why not?

At any rate, Job's real argument appears to be that – although not so at the beginning – the churches are thereafter “always, without exception, in people's homes.” This is his whole argument in a nutshell, and I will respond to it in what follows in a couple of ways.

First, I will continue discussing the passages cited by the House Church Movement in order to show that some of them do, in fact, describe the churches as meeting in homes. But we will also find that none of these passages either expressly commands or necessarily implies that churches must meet in homes. In short, we will find that these passages are descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Second, in the process of assessing the HCM proof-texts I will challenge the notion that the rest of the New Testament demonstrates that churches “always, without exception” met in people's homes.

Acts 8:3 “As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.”

I have to admit being a bit surprised at the use of this passage by HCM advocates, since it doesn't say that the churches were meeting in the homes when Paul dragged the people out. It just says that in his attack on the church he went into every house dragging off men and women and putting them into prison. But this may have been for no other reason than that these men and women lived in these houses. Of course, it is also possible that Paul found out about some churches that met in homes and that he went into these homes when they were meeting. The passage just doesn't say that, nor does it necessarily imply that the churches wherever Paul went were meeting only in homes.

Acts 16:40 “So they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they encouraged them and departed.”

Atkerson cites this verse as one that shows that “the original church held its meetings primarily in private homes.” Of course Lydia's home also happened to be where Paul and his companions had been staying (16:15), so it isn't surprising that they would return there to rest before leaving the city. But the primary problem with Atkerson's use of this verse is that it doesn't say the church was meeting there. Supposing that this house is where Paul and Silas saw the brethren and encouraged them, it may be that they were meeting there as a church for worship, but it may also be that the brethren were stopping by and visiting them before they left town. Let us assume, however, that Atkerson is correct in seeing this text as describing a church meeting at Lydia's house. The fact still remains that there is no indication from Luke that they did so because it was a requirement of some kind.

Acts 20:17-21 “From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. 18 And when they had come to him, he said to them: 'You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, 19 serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; 20 how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.'”

Atkerson cites this passage as another that shows that the early church met primarily in houses, but I can't help but notice that Paul says in verse 20 that he taught the Ephesians both publicly and from house to house. So, he indicates that his ministry was not restricted to private teaching in homes, but was also public. But what might he be referring to when he contrasts his public teaching with teaching from house to house? A look at the earlier account of Paul's ministry at Ephesus – in Acts 19:8-10 – may provide an answer:

8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning

and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were

hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he

departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of

Tyrannus. 10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia

heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.

It is obvious that Paul's ministry was conducted in Ephesus primarily not from any house(s) but from the school of Tyrannus, even though he later reminded them that he taught them from house to house as well. The text says that Paul was reasoning (dialégomai) daily at the school of Tyrannus, using a term that is used elsewhere to describe his evangelistic ministry in the synagogues (e.g. Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8) but also to describe his teaching ministry when the church met together (Acts 20:7, 9). Given that the ministry at the school of Tyrannus was directed to “the disciples,” we may conclude that it was a part of the public teaching to which Paul later referred in Acts 20:20. But this leads me to question how Atkerson can see this passage as indicating that the early church met primarily in houses without at the same time acknowledging that they sometimes met primarily in a public building such as the school of Tyrannus. After all, Paul's and Luke's description of his ministry in each case is the same. In other words, I do not see how one can argue from the example of Paul's ministry in Ephesus that churches should meet in houses while ignoring equally strong evidence that they met “daily” in a public building as well. Now, I suppose that such a person could try to argue that the term daily (hēméra) here does not include Sunday gatherings, but that would be a truly incredible argument and would amount to nothing more than begging the question.

So, thus far we have not seen much in the way of clear evidence that the early church met exclusively in houses, let alone any indication that this was seen as some kind of requirement. However, there are some clearer passages that expressly refer to churches that met in homes, and I will list them here as a group:

Romans 16:3-5 “Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ.”

1 Corinthians 16:19 “The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.”

Colossians 4:15 “Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the church that is in his house.”

Philemon 1:1-2 “Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer, 2 to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house....”

We have in these passages some clear evidence that there were churches that met in houses, specifically in the house of Philemon, in the house of Nymphas, and in the house of Aquila and Priscilla. But what we still do not have is a clear indication that they met only in houses or that they saw meeting in houses as a requirement set forth by the Apostles. Again we have descriptive but not prescriptive passages. Steve Atkerson anticipates this objection, though, and responds to it in an article entitled "Interactive Meetings":

In short, we believe that the patterns for church life evident in the New Testament are not merely descriptive, but are actually prescriptive (2Th 2:15 , 1Co 11:2). Thus, we believe in home-based and sized fellowships....

Lets take a look at the two texts Atkerson cites to support his thesis that the passages we have been examining are actually not just descriptive but are, in fact, prescriptive as well.

1 Corinthians 11:2 “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all

things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the

traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

Apparently Atkerson sees Paul's reference to the “traditions” as including the practice of churches meeting in houses. In order to assess this argument, it behooves us first to understand what is meant by the term traditions. The Greek term in both cases is parádosis, which lexicons consistently define as does the Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament by Timothy and Barbara Friberg:

as an action handing down or over; in the NT in a passive sense, as teachings about ways of doing things that are handed down from generation to generation tradition (MT 15.2); as Christian doctrine handed down teaching, instruction, tradition (2 TH 2.15). (# 20561, BibleWorks)

Thus Paul clearly refers to the teaching of the Apostles that was to be handed down and followed. So, Atkerson must believe that the Apostles actually taught that the church should meet only in homes. The only way we could know that the Apostles taught such a thing, however, is if the Scriptures tell us that they did. But when we look at the various passages cited by HCM advocates we do not find any evidence at all that they did teach this. We only find evidence that there were some churches that met in homes, along with evidence that they initially also met in the temple courts and that later they also utilized a public building in Ephesus. So, when Atkerson cites these verses to defend the assertion that the Biblical passages that refer to churches meeting in houses are not “merely descriptive, but are actually prescriptive,” he is begging the question. He is assuming the very thing that needs to be proved, namely that the Apostles did, in fact, teach that churches should meet in houses and that this teaching was thus a part of the tradition. But enough of this; the point is made. Lets take a look at another passage cited by Beresford Job:

James 2:1-4 “My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. 2 For if there should come into your assembly [sunagōgē] a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, 3 and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, 'You sit here in a good place,' and say to the poor man, 'You stand there,' or, 'Sit here at my footstool,' 4 have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?”

Job argues that this passage refers clearly to a church that met in a house:

James is quite clearly referring here to when they met as a church, and what he says only makes sense if they were doing so in a home as opposed to a public building. What is at a premium here is space, or otherwise why would the poor brother be required either to sit on the floor or to stand? He could have just been shuffled out of the way to a seat somewhere in the back row!

Actually, the term James uses to describe the assembly is sunagōgē, a word which can refer either to a gathering of people or to the building in which this gathering takes place. Commentators are divided as to the exact meaning of the term in this context. It is possible that it refers to a church that met in a synagogue, in which case we have here more evidence of a church meeting in a public building. On the other hand, it probably simply refers to the gathering of the people themselves. But in this case is Job right when he asserts that what James says only makes sense if they were meeting in a home as opposed to a public building? I don't think so. Even if one agrees that the passage assumes that there was limited room to sit, there is no reason to conclude that they must have been meeting in a house. It could just be that they were using a smaller public building or perhaps that they were using a large building but that the church had grown so large as to make space limited. Haven't many of us seen a church service in which there was “standing room only”?

Well, that covers the passages commonly cited by various advocates of the House-Church Movement. Along the way, I have addressed the problem of citing descriptive passages as though they are prescriptive when the Scriptures do not justify this. I have also highlighted the fact that the early church must not have seen meeting in homes as an essential thing, since there is also evidence that they met in the temple courts (at least for a while) and even made use of a public building such as the school of Tyrannus. But I would like to discuss just a bit more Scriptural evidence from 1 Corinthians before ending:

1 Corinthians 11:20-22, 34 “Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. .... 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

1 Corinthians 14:23 “Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?”

1 Corinthians 14:35 “And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.”

Notice that the the members of the church at Corinth all came together to one place for their Sunday gathering (11:20; 14:23; see also 16:2) and that they were gathering to partake of the Lord's Supper and to worship God and edify one another, so this was clearly the regular Sunday gathering. This one place was apparently not one of their homes, however, because Paul assumes that he can address all of them as not being at home. Notice that he doesn't ask the Corinthians, “Don't you have your own houses [as opposed to the house where they were meeting] to eat and drink in?” Rather he simply asks them, “Do you not have houses [as opposed to where you are when meeting together] to eat and drink in?” Likewise he assumes that the women who need to ask their husbands questions are not at home, and he contrasts their being at home with being “in church.” He assumes throughout the passage that he can address them all as though they are not in their houses. This is a very strange way to speak if they were all meeting in one of their homes. Also, since the whole church at Corinth came together to this one place, and this was a place where unbelievers might easily come in (14:24), it is more likely that it would have been a fairly large, public building.

Well, that is about all I have time for now. I will finish by saying that I am not at all bothered if there are churches that prefer to meet in houses. But neither am I bothered in the slightest if they should choose to meet in some other kind of building. I am only troubled by the tendency of some among the House-Church Movement who try to say that meeting in houses was what the Apostles taught and therefore is essential to proper church order today. In my opinion, there is no credible case to be made for such a position.

Stay tuned for the next post in this series, in which I will respond to the argument for fully participatory worship, in which no one leads but each contributes in a spontaneous manner.

Back From a Winter Break

Some of you who visit the Reformed Baptist Blog regularly may have noticed the inactivity over the past month. This was due to my taking off some time for a much needed rest.

I am back now and will be posting again consistently. For those who have been awaiting my reaction to the arguments of the House-Church movement, I should be able to find time to post something later today or perhaps tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience!

Keith

The Journey Series of Theological Novels

For any Reformed Baptist Blog readers who have not yet discovered Dr. Richard Belcher's Journey Series of theological novels, I highly recommend checking them out here:

Journey Books - Part 1

Journey Books - Part 2

This series is a good one for all of you pastors to recommend to folks in your congregations. You may even want to consider getting them for your church library and encouraging the youth to read them. They do a great job of presenting solid doctrine -- from a Reformed Baptist perspective -- in an enjoyable, understandable, and practical way. And the continuing saga of the series' primary character, Ira Pointer, is very engaging!

Dr. Belcher has informed me via email that he hopes to have his latest offering, A Journey in Evangelism and Missions, available by April 1 or perhaps a little earlier. It will address the false argument that "Calvinism kills evangelism and missions." It should be a great weapon to add to your arsenal to help folks correctly understand that the Doctrines of Grace not only do not destroy zeal for evangelism and missions but that, properly understood, they provide a tremendous motivation to take the Gospel to the whole world. I am looking forward to reading it and will announce it here on the blog when it is available.

P.S. I have invited Dr. Belcher to contribute to the blog if he can. I know he is a very busy man, still traveling and writing a lot, so he may not be able to post here, but the invitation is always open!

Ten Percent of SBC Pastors Call Themselves 5-point Calvinists

Ten percent of SBC pastors call themselves 5-point Calvinists
Published September 28, 2006

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) — While LifeWay Research found the number of Southern Baptist pastors embracing five-point Calvinism to be relatively small,
it is undeniable that the conversations on Calvinism within the Southern Baptist
Convention have brought renewed interest to the theological system. Surveying
413 pastors, the study found that 10 percent of Southern Baptist pastors consider themselves five-point Calvinists. That number, while still relatively small compared to the 85 percent who do not consider themselves five-point Calvinists, still is a large enough group to deserve attention. The survey also showed that 4 percent of respondents “don’t know” if they are five-point Calvinist. Another 1 percent refused to answer one way or another. LifeWay Research also found that a slight majority (51 percent) of Southern Baptist pastors address Calvinism from the pulpit once
a year or less, while 45 percent of SBC pastors address Calvinism several times a year or more from the pulpit.

I wonder how many of the 4 percent who said they "don't know" if they are five-point Calvinists responded this way because they are four-point Calvinists and are thus still essentially Calvinistic in their theology? Or, for that matter, how many of the 85 percent who do not consider themselves five-point Calvinists might fall into the four-point category? At any rate, it is an interesting survey.

See the Baptist Press story.

See more on the LifeWay Research findings.

Reformed Blacks of America

I have been both intrigued and pleased to discover Reformed Blacks of America. Encountering their website and beginning to read some of the material there has been an enriching, learning experience. Here is the ministry's stated purpose:

Reformed Blacks of America, Inc. (RBA) is a center that seeks to build and maintain an infrastructure and network among African-Americans in a Reformed theological context for indigenous leadership, church growth and theological research for today's world.

RBA was led to its existence due to the lack of an intentional multifaceted structure through which the Reformed Black community in all its diversity can reach its fullest potential in America. The cultivation of this infrastructure will be fulfilled through these three aspects of the mission of RBA: (1) the advancement of indigenous Black Reformed leadership, (2) growth of Reformed Black churches and (3) theological research that addresses the pathologies of Black America and the challenges of this complex world.

Michael Marlowe's Review of the NET Bible

Perhaps many of you have already heard about or made use of the NET Bible made available by the folks at Bible.org. If you have had opportunity to use this free resource, you will no doubt have also discovered its many useful footnotes (60,932 translators’ notes). But you will no doubt also have observed its tendency toward dynamic equivalence translation and to embrace the occasional odd reading. However, Michael Marlowe, in his August 2006 review of the NET Bible, shows that the problems with the version run considerably deeper. Here is the conclusion to Marlowe's review:

The NET Bible has some good features. The primary strength of the version is its value as a free internet resource for fledgling scholars who would otherwise have no convenient access to the kind of grammatical and text-critical information presented in the notes. But the "tn" and "sn" notes cannot be relied upon to inform the reader where scholars differ on important points of interpretation. When they do notice other interpretations, they tend to be dismissive, defensive, and sometimes misleading. These notes are in need of some careful revision. Students who are studying the notes of the NET Bible should realize that many of them barely scratch the surface of the interpretive issues, and they are no substitute for a comprehensive exegetical commentary.

It would be to their advantage if the editors were to get a clearer sense of the purpose of the version. Apparently it was originally conceived as a Bible for students who required a fairly literal translation for close study, with detailed exegetical notes; but revisions moved the text in a paraphrastic direction, as if it had to be understandable to uneducated and casual readers, to those who are offended at "sexist" language, and even to such dull readers as those who cannot understand obvious metaphors (e.g. "under his feet"). The result is, the translation itself is not very useful for close study. And there are already several versions which present a more idiomatic translation for readers who need one. What is needed is a version that will be useful to the same readers who will benefit from the scholarly marginal apparatus. It does not make sense to attach such an apparatus to a version intended for uneducated readers. The translation should be much more literal than it is now.

We also would like to see the un-Christian treatment of the Old Testament repaired, but it seems that the editors have committed themselves to this approach. The explanation for it in the preface is facile and theologically inadequate. We cannot overlook the rationalistic presuppositions of their approach, which practically excludes the apostolic interpretations of the Old Testament. Although the editors seem to hope that their version will be "acceptable to Bible readers everywhere," they must know that it will not be acceptable to conservatives as long as they persist in this treatment of the Old Testament. The editors should not imagine that they have been "responsible to the universal body of Christ" when they merely invite people to send email to their website. The body of Christ has been around for nearly two thousand years, and it is no small thing to be responsible to it. When modern scholars cherish novelties, show contempt for the universal Church's heritage of interpretation, and boast of their independence from all "ecclesiastical" bodies, they minimize their responsibility to the Church.

I think Marlowe does a good job of demonstrating the validity of the issues he raises and would recommend reading the entire review. I will continue to personally make good use of the resources available at Bible.org, including the NET Bible with its generally helpful and informative notes, and I would recommend these resources as well. But I would recommend using them with a critical eye and great care, and I am thankful for Michael Marlowe's help in being more properly discerning.

Response to the House-Church Movement: Introduction

Recently I have encountered a growing number of my fellow believers who have become enamored with the House-Church Movement. These believers are Baptistic and hold to the Doctrines of Grace, but they have become disillusioned with the current state of the church and have become convinced that the work of reformation begun in the sixteenth century has not been taken far enough. These believers have pointed me to a couple of websites that have been influential in their new thinking: House-Church.org and the New Testament Reformation Foundation.

Today I want to introduce a series of posts in which I will interact with and respond to some of the primary emphases of the House-Church Movement. First, I will take up the requirement to meet in houses for worship. Second, I will respond to the argument for fully participatory worship, in which no one leads but each contributes in a spontaneous manner. Third, I will respond to the argument that the Lord's Supper may only be rightly observed if the the context of a "full meal." And, fourth, I will discuss the matter of elder leadership and authority.

I will only be dealing briefly in the weeks ahead with each of the subjects I have listed, but I hope to at least outline a preliminary response to what appear to be the major emphases of the movement. I will restrict my interaction to writings available at the two aforementioned websites, given that these are the sites that have been most influential to those with whom I have dealt. Please check back in the coming weeks for the rest of this series.