Elders Rule! But Congregations Decide

Ted,

You are misusing 1 Cor 1:10. First you are ripping it out of context to talk about something you alone have manufactured. Second, you have to also show on what basis, if the text actually did mean what you say it means, we are to stop the “divisions” at city borders. Several have asked you about defining the sphere of your single-church context. You have failed to even answer the questions regarding why you yourself are disobedient to this principle by pastoring a “divisive” church in a city with multiple other like-minded churches. But, I would take the question to its logical conclusion. Why wouldn’t it apply to all churches, simply eliminating the local church context altogether and pointing to a single, undivided, universal church?

interesting. I think Jay’s question is more like who has supported your view since the NT times. From my reading of Baptist history, no one.

[Ted Bigelow]

Jay -

Yet I’ve never heard of this position outside of your teaching. Why is that?

You have, Jay. Most every time you begin reading a letter in the NT, it reads, “to the church in __________” with the name of a city, and the word “church” in the singular. You just haven’t taken the time to think through the implications of those words, or cross references from the glorified Jesus Christ and how He defines churches.

We are weak and liable to misunderstanding in part because we’ve never seen one church in a city and so assume it isn’t prescriptive but only descriptive, but it was the context of the original recipients of those letters. Passages like 1 Cor. 1:10 tell us in no uncertain terms it is also prescriptive.

Why then do we exert unbelief at the theology? Perhaps because you, like I, live in the Age of Schism.

Rob wrote:

Interesting. I think Jay’s question is more like who has supported your view since the NT times. From my reading of Baptist history, no one.

I believe Ted’s problem is even worse than that. From my reading in ecclesiology, and a perusal of historical theology texts, I am not aware of anybody in history who has supported Ted’s position. If somebody has, I honestly want to know.

Chip - before I reply - in previous posts to you I’ve provided links to several articles that would answer some of your assertions and questions above.

Have you read the linked articles I provided?

Tyler, I believe Watchman Nee held that position which is not much of an endorsement.

So, Watchman Nee makes one. Are there any others?

[josh p]

Tyler, I believe Watchman Nee held that position which is not much of an endorsement.

[Rob Fall]

interesting. I think Jay’s question is more like who has supported your view since the NT times. From my reading of Baptist history, no one.

Yes, that is exactly my point. I’ve been through both Bible college and Seminary, and I’ve never heard of this position. Furthermore, the NT authors repeatedly refer “to the churches”:

Galatians 1:2 - and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:

1 Corinthians 16:1 - Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are todo.

1 Corinthians 7:17 - Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 - For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,

Galatians 1:22 - And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

2 Corinthians 8:1 - We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia,

1 Corinthians 11:16 - If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

2 Corinthians 8:24 - So give proof before the churches of your love and of our boasting about you to these men.

1 Corinthians 14:34 - the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

For me, there are two issues with this. First is that this is a new(er) position in the development of theology in over 2000 years. It’s so new, actually, that more than a few of us - all of which have theological training - have never heard of it, with the exception of Watchman Nee. Which is it’s own kettle of fish :).

Secondly, this issue is bringing far more dissention and confusion on SI than unity or peace. For whom does dissention and confusion flow?

I have only heard of him and I would not claim him either.

[Rob Fall]

So, Watchman Nee makes one. Are there any others?

josh p wrote:

Tyler, I believe Watchman Nee held that position which is not much of an endorsement.

Neither do I.

[josh p]

I have only heard of him and I would not claim him either.

Rob Fall wrote:

So, Watchman Nee makes one. Are there any others?

josh p wrote:

Tyler, I believe Watchman Nee held that position which is not much of an endorsement.

By the way. Ted is trying it out on Mark Snoeberger over on Detroit’s blog.

how that works out.

[josh p]

By the way. Ted is trying it out on Mark Snoeberger over on Detroit’s blog.

http://dbts.edu/blog/zero-sum-economics-and-church-planting/

[Rob Fall]

josh p wrote:

By the way. Ted is trying it out on Mark Snoeberger over on Detroit’s blog.

very Detroit. But not as bloody as the Purple Gang, so far.

Ted,

Sorry I didn’t respond in a timely fashion on Dr. Sno’s blog, but I was busy warming my feet as you held them to the fire. Here are the objections I raised to your argument:

“I don’t recall Scriptures which state the presence of only one local church in every city in the Roman empire in which the gospel was preached…The example of one city and one church does not make a case for a binding doctrine on all future cities and churches. So what if there was only one church in Corinth when Paul wrote his letters? Your point that there ought only be one local church in every city (a term which requires some definition if your position is to be understood, btw) does not follow.”

“With respect to Titus 1, Paul speaks of disruption within the households of the churches on Crete because of greedy false teachers, but what does that have to do with your assertion concerning a Biblical requirement of one church per city?”

You responded by listing several verses which reference a dozen or so NT churches identified by city, but that still does not prove what you assert, namely, that the NT writings limit the number of churches in any given “locale” to one. You seem to confuse throwing out a list of verses with making an argument in favor of a binding principle from Scripture. And rather than asking me for my Scriptural documentation when I question the logical consistency of your assertions, why don’t you respond to the questions I and others have asked? Listing verses and demanding that we explain how they fit or don’t fit into your theory is like asking us to do your work for you.

Now, at the end of your last response, you said, “Since the body of Christ only tangibly exists in locales (1 Cor. 12:27) a church planter entering that locale could only be someone seeking to schism the body (1 Cor. 12:25; 1:10).” Finally, we are getting somewhere! Your argument, if I may try to summarize it is as follows:

• The body of Christ exists tangibly in singular locales.
• Any additional body of believers in close proximity is a threat to the unity of the original body. (This is an unstated assumption in your theory.)
• Therefore, a church planter who enters a locale which already contains a local church must be intending to plant schism within the body.

On the first statement, I believe we are agreed. Every local church, made up of immersed believers who have joined together in covenant fellowship, is a tangible expression of the body of Christ in that locale. Of course, this does not include those Christians who have not joined themselves to that local body, nor ones who have joined another body of believers, which my also be rightly described as a tangible expression of the body of Christ in that locale (presumably those two local churches do not exist in the same space at the same time).

Now your second assertion does not follow from 1 Cor. 12, which is not speaking of church planting but of the exercise of spiritual gifts within the (singular) local body of Christ. Nor does 1 Cor. 1 apply since Paul is referring to the unity of the fellowship of one local body. Nothing in these verses says anything about the presence or impact of other local churches on the body to which Paul wrote.

If we grant for sake of argument that the first two statements are true, the conclusion does not follow anyway, because there is nothing in them about the motivation of the person who may or may not be planting a church in the same locale as another local body. To presume that a person is intending to plant schism in an existing church by doing ministry independently of said local church is a huge leap, and cannot be sustained by any of the verses you mentioned or by the process of logical evaluation.

As far as Paul’s admonition to the church in Rome is concerned, if you are correct and there was always only one local church per city in the NT, then why would Paul have to warn them to watch out for those who would plant other churches with the intent of causing schism? Unless, of course, Paul is not speaking of rival church planters, but of those who were bringing division within the local church body of Rome? Of course, the verse I believe you were referring to speaks of those who refuse to obey the doctrine they have been taught, not those who are planting rival churches in the city of Rome.

And while I have you, Ted, why don’t you offer justification for your own local church’s existence. According to one website I found (churchangel.com), there are nearly 120 churches in Hartford, Connecticut. Why haven’t you merged with one of them, since your church is necessarily causing schism to all of the churches that were before yours? Have you ever tried to apply your teaching in a city-wide church merging campaign?

Any additional body of believers in close proximity is a threat to the unity of the original body. (This is an unstated assumption in your theory.)

I don’t see this espoused anywhere in Scripture.

Jesus clearly desires that all of our believers be and act as one (John 17). Paul argues against unnecessary schisms in I Corinthians 1-3. Yet the presence of believers in close to proximity to another church is somehow a threat? Doesn’t that violate the teaching of Ephesians 4:1-5?

That makes no sense whatsoever.