Rethinking the Wineskin: The Practice of the New Testament
Jun 8, 2016 22:10:14 GMT -5
Alan Vandermyden and sheilamehaffey12 like this
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 8, 2016 22:10:14 GMT -5
Frank Viola.
Rethinking the Wineskin: The Practice of the New Testament Church.
In this book, Frank clearly articulates and passionately defends what he believes was the practice of the New Testament church, including meetings in homes, every member participating in the meeting in ministry to one another, and the church functioning as a loving family of people who take care of one another. He makes a solid case for why the meeting in the home is not just a primitive practice of the early Christians who hadn't gotten around to building dedicated buildings yet. It was fundamental and represented and upheld many aspects of Christian fellowship.
Peter wrote of the priesthood of all believers. Paul wrote that "every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation", encouraging them to edify one another. He wrote of the church as one body, with every member being different and having a distinct and valuable role, none less important than the others.
From chapter 1:
(ch. 1, p. 30-31)
There's a lot in this book that reminds me of the meetings I attend. The following is one of the strongest. I certainly can attest to the great value in regularly giving a testimony in meeting. Perhaps a confirmation that it is better to give than to receive. God has often used my own words to speak to me strongly. I hope they speak to the edification of others as well. Over time this practice has done a significant work in my life. I am convinced by my experience that a small meeting in which every member humbly shares something is of much greater value than a meeting centered around listening to a pastor preach. Probably there is a proper place for preachers as well. Preachers and teachers often talk about how the work of the pastor is not to do all the work himself but for the equipping of the saints to do the work of Christ. I appreciate that message when I hear it, and there is great value in listening to good, Biblical preaching. However, in terms of being equipped for service to Christ, I find that actually practicing that service in the context of a meeting is invaluable. Frank Viola speaks to that point.
(ch. 1, p. 35)
(ch. 1, p. 37)
On page 35, Viola speaks of not having a fixed "program". Our meetings generally follow an established pattern, but his perspective here is interesting. I can see value in our pattern, in that it encourages every member to actively take part and so to edify one another and to grow in the process. I can envision a more "open" setting actually devolving in a couple of possible ways. One would be that there would be little of spiritual value, but that the time would merely be one of sitting together and engaging in conversation about the concerns of life or other interests. Such an "open" meeting would not effectively serve the purpose of the edification of the members and the building up of the body.
My other concern would be that the "open" meeting would devolve into one in which only a self-selected small group took an active part and the others merely listened to the speaking and sung along with the hymns. If it is not expected that every member speak, then certain members, such as those who do not speak well, those who are humble, etc., would tend to remain silent and let a small minority do all the speaking. This may be what happened historically in the first centuries. By regularly speaking, all members can make a valuable contribution to the meeting. By giving their testimony regularly, they can become better equipped to give their testimony, whether in the meeting or before the world.
Certain Quaker groups present rare examples of this style of "open" meeting -- in which every member is welcome to speak but not every member is expected to speak -- that did not turn into a preacher-centered meeting. Instead, long periods of silence are accepted and welcomed as having spiritual value, rather than having to be being filled by one or two members giving long sermons.
Viola distinguishes between 'headship' and 'lordship', stating that headship is always in reference to Christ as the head of the body of Christ, while his Lordship is in reference to him being Lord of the individual.
(ch. 1, p. 41)
He closes the chapter:
Rethinking the Wineskin: The Practice of the New Testament Church.
In this book, Frank clearly articulates and passionately defends what he believes was the practice of the New Testament church, including meetings in homes, every member participating in the meeting in ministry to one another, and the church functioning as a loving family of people who take care of one another. He makes a solid case for why the meeting in the home is not just a primitive practice of the early Christians who hadn't gotten around to building dedicated buildings yet. It was fundamental and represented and upheld many aspects of Christian fellowship.
Peter wrote of the priesthood of all believers. Paul wrote that "every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation", encouraging them to edify one another. He wrote of the church as one body, with every member being different and having a distinct and valuable role, none less important than the others.
From chapter 1:
So why did the early church meet in this way? Was it just a passing cultural tradition? Did it, as some say, represent the early church's infancy, ignorance, and immaturity? Never! The early church meeting is deeply rooted in Biblical theology. It made real and practical the NT doctrine of the priesthood of all believers--a doctrine that all evangelicals affirm with their lips?
And what is this doctrine? In the words of Peter, it is the teaching that all believers are spiritual priests called to offer up "spiritual sacrifices" unto the Lord. In Paul's language, it is the idea that all Christians are functioning members of the Body of Christ.
From a pragmatic standpoint, the early church meeting is the Biblical dynamic that produces spiritual growth--both corporately and individually (Eph. 4:11-16). We grow into God's fullness when the different parts of His Body minister Christ to us (Eph. 3:16-19). We also grow when we function (Mark 4:24-25).
Granted, believers can and should function outside the church meetings. But the gatherings of the church are especially designed for every Christian to express Christ through his or her gift (1 Cor. 11-14; Heb. 10:24-25). The institutional church commonly pushes "one anothering" outside of the church service. But this retarts the growth of the believing community.
For this reason, the institutional church is essentially a nursery for overgrown spiritual babes. It habituates God's people into being passive receivers. It stunts their spiritual development and keeps them in spiritual infancy. (The incessant need for predigested, dished out spiritual food is a mark of spiritual immaturity--1 Cor. 3:1-2; Heb. 5:12-14.)
The Reformation recovered the truth of the priesthood of all believers. But it failed to restore the necessary practices that embody this teaching. The church has claimed the ground of a believing priesthood. But it failed to occupy that ground!
...
The truth of the believing priesthood in modern evangelicalism continues to beg for practical application and implementation in the life of the Lord's people. God has established open participatory meetings to incarnate the glorious reality of expressing Christ through a fully-employed priesthood.
And what is this doctrine? In the words of Peter, it is the teaching that all believers are spiritual priests called to offer up "spiritual sacrifices" unto the Lord. In Paul's language, it is the idea that all Christians are functioning members of the Body of Christ.
From a pragmatic standpoint, the early church meeting is the Biblical dynamic that produces spiritual growth--both corporately and individually (Eph. 4:11-16). We grow into God's fullness when the different parts of His Body minister Christ to us (Eph. 3:16-19). We also grow when we function (Mark 4:24-25).
Granted, believers can and should function outside the church meetings. But the gatherings of the church are especially designed for every Christian to express Christ through his or her gift (1 Cor. 11-14; Heb. 10:24-25). The institutional church commonly pushes "one anothering" outside of the church service. But this retarts the growth of the believing community.
For this reason, the institutional church is essentially a nursery for overgrown spiritual babes. It habituates God's people into being passive receivers. It stunts their spiritual development and keeps them in spiritual infancy. (The incessant need for predigested, dished out spiritual food is a mark of spiritual immaturity--1 Cor. 3:1-2; Heb. 5:12-14.)
The Reformation recovered the truth of the priesthood of all believers. But it failed to restore the necessary practices that embody this teaching. The church has claimed the ground of a believing priesthood. But it failed to occupy that ground!
...
The truth of the believing priesthood in modern evangelicalism continues to beg for practical application and implementation in the life of the Lord's people. God has established open participatory meetings to incarnate the glorious reality of expressing Christ through a fully-employed priesthood.
(ch. 1, p. 30-31)
There's a lot in this book that reminds me of the meetings I attend. The following is one of the strongest. I certainly can attest to the great value in regularly giving a testimony in meeting. Perhaps a confirmation that it is better to give than to receive. God has often used my own words to speak to me strongly. I hope they speak to the edification of others as well. Over time this practice has done a significant work in my life. I am convinced by my experience that a small meeting in which every member humbly shares something is of much greater value than a meeting centered around listening to a pastor preach. Probably there is a proper place for preachers as well. Preachers and teachers often talk about how the work of the pastor is not to do all the work himself but for the equipping of the saints to do the work of Christ. I appreciate that message when I hear it, and there is great value in listening to good, Biblical preaching. However, in terms of being equipped for service to Christ, I find that actually practicing that service in the context of a meeting is invaluable. Frank Viola speaks to that point.
In essence, going to church in the first century meant giving more than receiving. You certainly did not attend the meeting to receive from a class of religious specialists called "the clergy!" You met to serve your brethren by ministering Christ. You sought to edify the church (Rom. 12:1-9; 1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:24-25). And the Body was built up as a result.
(ch. 1, p. 35)
While the NT envisions the early church meetings as open, participatory, and spontaneous, many modern clergymen refuse to approve of such meetings today. Modern clerical thinking on the subject goes something like this: "If I allowed my congregation to exercise its gifts in an open meetings, there would be sheer chaos. I have no choice but to control the services--lest the people spin out of control!"
Such an objection is severely flawed on several points. And it betrays a gross misunderstanding of God's ecclesiology. First, the notion that a clergyman has the authority to "allow" or "forbid" his fellow brethren to function in a meeting is built upon a skewed understanding of authority (see my book Who is your Covering? for details). No human has the right to permit or prohibit the believing priesthood in the exercise of its Spirit-endowed gifts!
Second, the assumption that chaos would ensure if clerical control were removed betrays a lack of confidence in the Holy Spirit. It also reveals a lack of trust in God's people, something that violates the NT outlook (Rom. 15:14; 2 Cor. 2:3; 7:6; 8:22; Gal. 5:10; 2 Thess. 3:4; Phlm. 21; see also Heb. 6:9).
Third, the idea that the church meeting would turn into a tumultuous free-for-all is simply not true. If the saints are properly equipped on how to function under Christ's Headship, an open participatory meeting is a glorious event.
By the way, Christians do not become equipped by listening to sermons week after week while sitting muted in a pew. According to the first-century record, the saints are equipped by itinerant workers who teach them how to function. Such workers equip the saints, then they leave them on their own.
Such an objection is severely flawed on several points. And it betrays a gross misunderstanding of God's ecclesiology. First, the notion that a clergyman has the authority to "allow" or "forbid" his fellow brethren to function in a meeting is built upon a skewed understanding of authority (see my book Who is your Covering? for details). No human has the right to permit or prohibit the believing priesthood in the exercise of its Spirit-endowed gifts!
Second, the assumption that chaos would ensure if clerical control were removed betrays a lack of confidence in the Holy Spirit. It also reveals a lack of trust in God's people, something that violates the NT outlook (Rom. 15:14; 2 Cor. 2:3; 7:6; 8:22; Gal. 5:10; 2 Thess. 3:4; Phlm. 21; see also Heb. 6:9).
Third, the idea that the church meeting would turn into a tumultuous free-for-all is simply not true. If the saints are properly equipped on how to function under Christ's Headship, an open participatory meeting is a glorious event.
By the way, Christians do not become equipped by listening to sermons week after week while sitting muted in a pew. According to the first-century record, the saints are equipped by itinerant workers who teach them how to function. Such workers equip the saints, then they leave them on their own.
(ch. 1, p. 37)
On page 35, Viola speaks of not having a fixed "program". Our meetings generally follow an established pattern, but his perspective here is interesting. I can see value in our pattern, in that it encourages every member to actively take part and so to edify one another and to grow in the process. I can envision a more "open" setting actually devolving in a couple of possible ways. One would be that there would be little of spiritual value, but that the time would merely be one of sitting together and engaging in conversation about the concerns of life or other interests. Such an "open" meeting would not effectively serve the purpose of the edification of the members and the building up of the body.
My other concern would be that the "open" meeting would devolve into one in which only a self-selected small group took an active part and the others merely listened to the speaking and sung along with the hymns. If it is not expected that every member speak, then certain members, such as those who do not speak well, those who are humble, etc., would tend to remain silent and let a small minority do all the speaking. This may be what happened historically in the first centuries. By regularly speaking, all members can make a valuable contribution to the meeting. By giving their testimony regularly, they can become better equipped to give their testimony, whether in the meeting or before the world.
Certain Quaker groups present rare examples of this style of "open" meeting -- in which every member is welcome to speak but not every member is expected to speak -- that did not turn into a preacher-centered meeting. Instead, long periods of silence are accepted and welcomed as having spiritual value, rather than having to be being filled by one or two members giving long sermons.
Viola distinguishes between 'headship' and 'lordship', stating that headship is always in reference to Christ as the head of the body of Christ, while his Lordship is in reference to him being Lord of the individual.
A believer may truly submit to the Lordship of Jesus in his own personal life. He may obey what he understands in the Bible. He may pray fervently. He may live self-sacrificially. Yet at the same time, he may know nothing about shared ministry, mutual submission, or corporate testimony.
(ch. 1, p. 41)
He closes the chapter:
Is it possible that modern evangelicalism has held the doctrine of the believing priesthood only intellectually, but has failed to practically apply it due to the subtle entrapment of deeply entrenched traditions? Do our modern church services, largely built around the sermon of one man and the worship program of an established team, reflect the normative gatherings that we find in our Bibles? Or are they at odds with it? Why would open participatory meetings be good for the early Christians, but somehow be unworkable for us today? Finally, is our practice of the church an expression of the complete Headship of Jesus Christ or the headship of man?