The Early Ekklesia’s Anatomy vs. The Modern-Day Church

[Buff Scott Jr.]

The Early Ekklesia’s Anatomy vs. The
Modern-Day Church

[Is the Modern-Day Church akin
to what Jesus set in order?]

Let’s Find Out​

When we reflect upon the early ekklesia and compare it to the contemporary church, we can easily see how widely separated they are. A great gulf lies between them. The early ekklesia was not composed of sects, denominations, churches, or religious parties. Except for the “petite” factions at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12-13), religious parties were non-existent within the universal body of believers. God’s colony of redeemed sinners functioned as a humane and evangelistic community. Their meetings were informal but orderly, serious and alive, responsive, and mutually managed. Ours are “services,” as at a funeral, largely non-responsive and non-stimulating.

Pew-warmers have little or no recourse except to sit silently and be indoctrinated by an elitist. As a result of inactivity and lack of mutual participation, commoners experience little or no spiritual growth. As growth is stifled, most remain spiritual adolescents. Elitists who run the show have been hired for a salary and can be fired by “stepping over the line” and speaking things “contrary to the Word of God,” which, when translated, means to turn a little to the right or to the left of the party’s doctrinal platform. The doctrinal platform is the various conceptions of the “Word of God” held by those who keep the Corporation running smoothly, such as dictatorial Elders, Pastors, Priests, or Church Boards.

It is strikingly clear that the early meetings were bereft of pulpits, collections to buy and maintain flashy edifices and to keep an elite orator vocationally afloat, ritualistic nonsense, and pew-sitters. Their environment was family-like. Our gatherings resemble formal business meetings, where business or “worship” doesn’t begin until the hands on the clock are at a certain crossroads. Our overall anatomy mirrors a Corporation, an Institution, not a compassionate community of concerned ones.

What dissimilarity! We have retrogressed, not progressed. We have traded the holy for the common, the celestial for the terrestrial, the spiritual for the materialistic, the sacred for the plain. Yet there are many receptive and seeking hearts within the corridors of the modern church. God will deliver them, if they are willing to remove their soiled garments and replace them with garments of reconciliation. His children no longer need wallow in the partisan litter of the Religious Establishment, for God will raise up reformers to rescue His elect. He always has. He always will.

But it isn’t likely He will penetrate the divisive armor of those whose hearts are solidly enslaved by the Institutional church, and whose deep-seated infirmity is “Mad Church Disease.” The divisive spirit is a work of our carnal nature. It is reflected thusly, “We are right and others are wrong. We are the only church Jesus founded.”

As long as this separatist spirit lingers within the contemporary church, she will never be able to apply a healing balm to “Mad Church Disease.” Freedom in Jesus will always escape those who parrot this mindset and exhibit a cliquish spirit. It is indeed a rarity to find freedom in the contemporary church. The reason is that the party line must be parroted, her precepts supported, her traditions preserved, and the “church system” idolized. If we veer a little to the right or lean a little to the left, we will soon be verbally disciplined and told to shape up or ship out—or worse.

This is not freedom. It is bondage. To find a man who is truly free to speak his mind and heart while employed by a church is like looking for shelter in a hailstorm. Even pew-sitting peasants are not allowed the freedom to speak their heart and mind without ecclesiastical reprisal. There are, however, many receptive and loving hearts who are caught up in the web of partisan religion. They need to be freed.

But to be truly free in Jesus we need to cast off our partisan shackles and disavow all sectarian systems—that is, all religious parties that have subjugated us. This I have personally done. This I will not undo. No church or religious party upon the face of planet Earth has one bit of control over my life, my mind, or my beliefs any longer. I will no longer be a bondservant to any of them. My only Master is Jesus—and He alone. I will forever be His slave. I refuse to bow to any other. “Give me freedom or give me death” will always be my cry. For without freedom to think, to dissent, to investigate, and to question, our walk with the Lord and voyage to Heaven might be difficult to negotiate.​

In 1973, I composed a poem which contains this verse:

“Come, now, my fellow believers,
Consider the divisive infirmities of each other;
And how they can be reversed and set asunder,
By offering our love and helping one another.”​

 

[Josheb]

Would you agree that Dispensational Premillennialism is the chief culprit for modern iterations of the problems you've described in this op?

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Would you agree that Dispensational Premillennialism is the chief culprit for modern iterations of the problems you've described in this op?

It depends on your interpretation of "Dispensational Premillennialism." Give me a sample.

 

[Josheb]

It depends on your interpretation of "Dispensational Premillennialism." Give me a sample.

Dispensational Premillennialism is a theology that arose in the early 1800s that elevated ecclesiology and eschatology above previously held emphasis of Christology and soteriology. Among its basic precepts were the beliefs,

1. the Church is corrupt and in need of restoration,
2. the apocalypse is soon coming,
3. there is a distinction between Israel and the Church,
4. the imminent removal of Christians from the earth in a pre-tribulational rapture and the subsequent physical return of Jesus to establish a literal 1000-year long reign on earth,
5. scripture is to be read literally, and
6. the use of dispensations as a means of parsing the Bible to understand the various ways God has dealt with or otherwise engaged humans in different ways at different times.

Dispensational Premillennialism was invented (largely) by John Darby but the points I just listed were shared by other sects during the 1800s and, when combined, the birth of these sects is what is now called the Restoration Movement = the movement within the Church to restore the Church to its New Testament precedents (as defined by the respective sects). It is, therefore, appropriate to generically describe the ecclesiological and eschatological aspects of these sects as modern futurist. You may, therefore, amend my original inquiry to ask,


Would you agree that Dispensational Premillennialism and the other modern futurisms are the chief culprit for modern iterations of the problems you've described in this op?



.

 

[Josheb]

bump for @Buff Scott Jr.

Would you agree that Dispensational Premillennialism
and the other modern futurisms
are the chief culprit(s)
for modern iterations of the problems described in this op?​

.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

bump for @Buff Scott Jr.

Would you agree that Dispensational Premillennialism
and the other modern futurisms
are the chief culprit(s)
for modern iterations of the problems described in this op?​

.

There are many culprits, and this is one among a diversity. There is little resemblance between today's "church" and the early ekklesia.

 

[Josheb]

There are many culprits, and this is one among a diversity. There is little resemblance between today's "church" and the early ekklesia.

Perhaps, but the salient points are that 1) the Church has always been a messy place, 2) the house Church model has inherent problems that do not solve those problems and may, instead, foment them, 3) the arguments asserted by folks like Viola and Barna are faulty in multiple ways, and 4) the assumptions the early structure of Christians organizing their expression of faith is the only true or valid structure and any other alternatives are wrong is incorrect.

Care to discuss any of these points?

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Perhaps, but the salient points are that 1) the Church has always been a messy place, 2) the house Church model has inherent problems that do not solve those problems and may, instead, foment them, 3) the arguments asserted by folks like Viola and Barna are faulty in multiple ways, and 4) the assumptions the early structure of Christians organizing their expression of faith is the only true or valid structure and any other alternatives are wrong is incorrect.

Care to discuss any of these points?

Josheb, 1) Because it is composed of humans, but not always a messy place. 2) I disagree. In phoenix, we have dozens of home assemblies, and others are getting started. 4) I don't make that claim.​

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, 1) Because it is composed of humans, but not always a messy place.​

Come on. That's completely disingenuous.

1. Show me the perfect congregation. Anywhere. Show it to me in scripture or cite the place in history where the perfect congregation (objectively) exists.
2. Do I need to walk through the mess found in the epistolary and ask you on record to verify that fact..... and then ask you if that is what you want replicated in the modern house churches?

.

2) I disagree. In phoenix, we have dozens of home assemblies, and others are getting started.​

I live outside DC. There are scores of house congregations here, too. So what? Their existence does not speak to point #2 of Post #7. Are all those house congregations perfect? Are there adulterers in any of those congregations? Any of those congregants using pornography? Using recreational drugs (or prescription drugs irresponsibly)? How about congregants that are divisive? Any rivalries in any of those house congregations? Are the teachings of all those Phoenix congregations uniform (and how do you know that?)? Are the Phoenix house congregations' teachings the same as the DC, Austin, or Topeka? How about their uniformity with the congregations in Asia, African and South America? How many of those congregations are populated with Dispensationalist Premillennialists (do you know why the answer to that question is relevant and important?)?

4) I don't make that claim.​

Why was point #3 ignored? Why is there no response to point #3? You stated you read the book. The apologetic they asserted is similar to this op's content. My inquiry about "Pagan Christianity," provides an opportunity to discuss a source document for the house church model. Would you prefer that I simply list all the problems in the house church model and all the irrational arguments made by Viola and Barna in a single post? Was is this being avoided? You and I could discuss all of it, do so in a mutually edifying manner, do so in a manner that better informs the lurkers, AND you could still attend all the house congregations you desire. I am not trying to get you to stop attending a house church. I am trying to engage you in an honest and forthcoming conversation about the house church model, one that examines as much of the topic as we can, not just a one-sided apologetic.

I reiterate: You and I can discuss all the plusses and minuses and each of us can still stay where we are congregationally.

4) I don't make that claim.​

Good. Even though not making the claim is not the same as plainly stating the house church does not solve all the Church's problems and has problems of its own. I am, however, encouraged by that response. It is a place of agreement from which you and I can build. Since the house church model is not the only true or valid structure and any other alternative may not be wrong an examination of those facts might be of benefit to both you and I and the lurkers. With me you have the opportunity to discuss the plusses and minuses with someone who is informed on the topic and who not antagonistic to the model (or you).


The fact remains, Viola and Barna (and many house church model advocates) do argue the house church model is the one authentic, scriptural model, all others have been (aberrantly and maybe abhorrently) influenced by various paganisms and, therefore, all other models are wrong to the degree they have incorporated pagan practices. The fact remains Viola's and Barna's arguments are both scripturally faulty and logically flawed and it would benefit everyone with an interest in the house church model to know as much about the model as you and I can put into the posts in fellowship and good conscience. The fact is the ecclesiology of the Restoration Movement era sects (of which DPism is just one of many) have had an enormous effect on the house church model and very few know that fact (or understand how that is true).


According to a leading website advocating house churches....

These personal congregations introduce a distinctive method to practicing faith, nurturing tight-knit communities and deep relationships. Ranging from communal dining to sincere talks, home churches transform conventional worship ways through providing pastoral care within a familial atmosphere. Explore how these compact yet impactful gatherings are altering the contemporary spiritual scene.

Key Takeaways​

• Start Small: Begin by gathering a few like-minded individuals to form a home church based on shared beliefs and values.
• Stay True to Core Values: Focus on the fundamental principles of faith and community that unite members in a home church setting.
• Create a Welcoming Environment: Ensure that practical aspects like meeting space, schedules, and activities, offerings, leadership, group, and people are conducive to fostering a sense of belonging and connection.
• Experience Community: Embrace the benefits of joining a home church, such as deepening relationships, spiritual growth, and mutual support offerings, meeting, leadership, and affiliate.
• Address Concerns Openly: Be proactive in addressing any doubts or worries within the home church community to promote transparency and trust.
• Seek Like-Minded Groups: When looking for a house church to join, explore various options and choose one that aligns with your beliefs and preferences.

You and I could do that right here in this thread! I am willing to do that here or in the other thread you've recently posted on house churches. Personally, I find several factual errors exist in this op so perhaps the other thread would be better for us to discuss the house church model. I'll repost a slightly altered version of Post #7 there to prompt the effort.