CHAPTER 1
THE PURPOSE OF THE CHURCH MEETING
The great Bible expositor Martyn Lloyd-Jones once said, “We are living in an age hopelessly below the New Testament pattern–content with a neat little religion.” With this thought in view, I would like to begin our discussion on the practice of the New Testament church by examining why the early church gathered together. What was the purpose of the New Testament church meeting?…
(I’ve removed this post to honor Frank’s request– which can be viewed in the comments. As time permits I’ll share from his more recent writings relative to this subject. V )
.
Advertisement
Excellent instruction. Thanks.
You said, “While the Reformation recovered the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, it failed to restore the necessary practices that embody this teaching.”
Here’s another way of looking at this “failure”: Instead of the “Reformers” recognizing and rejecting the cultus of the Roman Church, they only modified it — slightly — but stubbornly maintained and violently defended those aspects of that cultus they chose to perpetuate. (Probably without even knowing they were doing so.)
A true “reformation” would have involved a conscious rejection of the cultus of the Roman Church as a whole, and instead, establishing the external forms and practices and observances simply from what the Bible shows to us. (Which is precisely what you and many others today are attempting to do, in an attempt to finish the Reformation that Luther “started”!)
A further note on developing a cultus: Actually, any persistent, continual local gathering of people will develop an incipient cultus of their own — it’s an irresistible social drive within humans to build relational frameworks such as these. But, IMO, your exhortation is not directed to preventing these inter-relational, social frameworks, but advising that as they develop, its participants to never lose sight of the true nature of the ekklesia and thereby hinder or make impossible God’s purposes in the Gathering of Believers.
Again, thanks for so many perceptive observations.
Emil,
Excellent comments and observations!
Just so we’re straight–that was not written by me, but rather copy/pasted from an out of print book by Frank Viola titled Rethinking the Wineskin. In that and subsequent books Viola addresses the concerns you’ve expressed.
Your last paragraph, based on my experience and reading, is certainly true. The “social framework” (or “scaffolding”, as Merton put it) is inevitable and actually necessary for the group. As you say, the important aspect is to recognize that reality and to not sacralize the scaffolding but rather allow it to organically develop as a servant of the people, rather than the people serving the scaffolding.
Again, your comments are spot-on and graciously accepted.
V
Just a note that this is from an old manuscript I wrote 15 years ago. the new version which is far better, much more sophisticated, clearer, better written, and anticipates and answers common objections is called REIMAGINING CHURCH.
Tom, send your mailing address to PTMIN@aol.com and I’ll have some free copies sent to you.
I don’t endorse the old version any longer as it’s outdated and immature in many respects. Plus it has quite a few errors in it.
People can read free samples of the new version (REIMAGINING CHURCH) at http://www.ptmin.org/mediography
Keep up the good work.
Blessings this new year,
Frank
Frank,
Thanks for your generous offer of free copies of Reimagining Church. I do have a copy of my own which I purchased soon after you published. However, I wouldn’t mind having a few copies to give away. Haven’t bought bulk because our finances are tight and I’ve always thought that if someone was really interested they’s spend the $12 to get a copy. Anyway…
I understand what you’re saying about Rethinking the Wineskin being dated. I wouldn’t say that you made much in the way of “mistakes” in your writing of it, rather that you’ve continued to grow in understanding and perspective since.
My reason for continuing to use Rethinking the Wineskin is that at that point in your life you sounded more “Church of Christ-ish” in the way you thought and expressed yourself. That means that when my CofC accquaintences who are about my same age read RTW they are able to “hear” as it were in their own lingo (for the most part).
I certainly agree that Reimagining the Church is a much superior work than RTW. BUT, it was RTW that confirmed my “derailment” and I think it still contains a lot of punch for some.
Finished The Jesus Manifesto several weeks ago. You and Leonard Sweet have done a great service in helping to redirect the focus at the Person of Jesus Who deserves ALL THE HONOR AND PRAISE!!
V
You’re right, V… I was responding to the post as though you had written it, even though I knew better! Correction taken!
Love your phrasing (yours, this time I believe!) to “not sacralize the scaffolding but rather allow it to organically develop as a servant of the people”.
That scaffolding IS to be a servant of the people instead of otherwise, but it’s also a servant of the Holy Spirit (communicating Jesus, the Head.) And the true servant never supplants the Master.
Bless you! Thanks for the interchange! (I like the way you think…)
Em