Heritage Herald

Last time we saw that the foundation for the biblical family is love for God. Every aspect of the biblical family life flows from this fountain. The next point is addressed to the husband, the man, who in God’s plan is given the responsibility to lead and to be the primary example of godliness in the family. Men, this responsibility begins with the command to love your wife. The spiritual vitality of the family rests on your obedience to this command. Just as the reality of your relationship to God must be evident, so also will be the genuineness of your love for your wife. The true joy in your home will be parallel to the true love displayed there. Your wife’s contentment will reflect the quality of your sacrificial love for her. Your children’s perception of the husband/ wife relationship will be shaped by your example. When you lead by obedience to God’s design, there will be created an atmosphere of stability in which all members will be encouraged to grow in the demonstration of love, thus creating a wonderful atmosphere in which to live and grow.

So, what is the pattern for this type of love? “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her”. How did Christ show His love for the Church? He gave Himself for Her. There is no room for selfishness in your marriage men. You are the Spiritual leader and your first priority is to care for your wife, even to the point of giving up your life to protect her. Unfortunately, the current “me first” attitude has invaded the thinking of men in the church, and this command has gone mostly unheeded in our pursuit of self-fulfillment (which, by the way, is never achieved because apart from obedience to God’s way we are always left empty and unfulfilled). In order to set this right, it is essential that we understand what kind of love this is. While there is, and must be an “attraction” for our wives and a desire for intimacy with her, these feelings are not to dictate our “love” for her. This is not to say that we should be robotic and emotionally detached. This would dishonor our wives and weaken the bond we share with them. While we must strive to keep the passion alive, the foundational love for our wives is not merely based on fleeting emotion. Our love is a conscious choice that we make, regardless of our feelings and this type of love must be acknowledged as commitment sealed by the vows we took to honor and cherish her, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer. Regardless of the circumstances we encounter together, our love is to be unshakeable, as unshakeable as Christ’s love for the Church. This is not, as many have incorrectly surmised, a patriarchal, macho ego trip in which the husband is the king and the wife his slave. In loving his wife as Christ loves the church, he is looking out for her best interests and in so doing is submitting himself to her.

It is to be noted that just as we men are different, each of our wives are individuals with specific likes, dislikes and desires. It is our responsibility to be students of our wives, to learn what pleases them, and then give ourselves to loving them in this way.

We also must take the lead in guiding her spiritual growth and encouraging her in her walk with God. We are to be models and followers of Christ who are open with our wives, admit our failures, ask forgiveness and repent when we fail. This openness will be an example to her that we are earnestly seeking growth in our own lives as we come along side her.

Therefore, men, let us give ourselves to the most pleasant task of loving our wives and glorifying our great God by enjoying the best relationship that He has ordained for us in this life.

Q&A with Laura Thulesen, missionary to Vanuatu with Biblical Ministries Worldwide

The people of Vanuatu (Ni-Vanuatu) are mostly descendants of Papua New Guinea, with some Malaysian and Polynesian influence as well. There are about 220,000 Ni-Vanuatu spread over 83 islands, about 40,000 of which live in one of two fairly modern towns. The rest of the population is in the bush (tropical jungle), fairly secluded from modern influences of the world. In the bush, they live very primitively, with no power or plumbing, in one-room homes made of woven leaves. Although their tourism sites report them as being 80% Christian, they are mainly practicing animists (spirit worship and sorcery), often having witch doctors as the main religious leader of the village. There is a great deal of syncretism, or mixing of Christian beliefs with animistic beliefs. They have little to no knowledge of modern medicine and many die from malaria but also from things easily treated, such as infection. They are overall gentle, quiet people with great contentment in simple, slow living. They were at one time cannibalistic, warring among themselves, but these hostilities have mostly died out and cannibalism hasn't been practiced in at least the last 50 years or so. They were originally co-governed by England and France, but gained their independence in 1980 with Bislama (a Pidgin English) chosen as their national language. Some speak English, some speak French, and most all villages have their own heart language, all of which are very different (about 107, which is the highest density of languages per capita in the world!). They are a decidedly patriarchal society but women are allowed to vote and many women in the towns hold regular jobs. In the villages, most of their time is spent simply surviving so there is little variety as far as careers go.

Mostly our team's purpose in Vanuatu on this trip in March 07 was to survey the country, meet missionaries and native contacts, find out cost of living and overall living situation, find out what ministry opportunities exist and if we as a team are able to meet the needs (especially spiritual) of the people. There wasn't much outreach on this trip (mostly because of our lack of language ability in French, Bislama, and their native heart languages!) but we did meet people that we would like to continue to follow-up with when we return. We tried to have a ministry of encouragement to existing missionaries during our stay as well. The ministry when we return would involve church planting through evangelism, discipleship, and leadership training. Once people are raised up as leaders, they would be encouraged to plant their own church, rather than us being the leadership for their church. We'd like to assist them in planting reproducing churches that raise up their own missionaries to other villages. My role would be in evangelism, discipleship, and leadership training with women and children. I'm hoping to have initial contacts for evangelism through the schools, possibly through literacy or teaching English. Vanuatu is open to English being taught with the Bible as a textbook so there are a lot of opportunities. Some of the villages we were looking at ministering in when we return were asking for people to come teach in their schools so there is a definite need there. Also, my role is to support my team through help with logistics, such as paperwork, planning, budgeting, collection of supplies, etc.

There are a few missionary groups in Vanuatu, most of which are based out of the two towns. Very little is being done in the bush areas. Unfortunately, there is a strong Mormon and Jehovah's Witness presence that is beginning to go into the bush. We would like to return to do church planting ministry as mentioned in the previous question. There is a definite sense of disunity and competition among existing evangelical Christian missionaries who have had some conflict and disagreement about ministry style. Our prayer is to avoid this conflict and be an alternative to it by being an example of unity among our team and fellowship with each of the various missionary groups, if the Lord allows. This existing problem definitely has implications for us in ministry in Vanuatu though so we want to be sensitive to what is most culturally appropriate to the Ni-Vanuatu, as well as to the Lord's leading in our own ministry philosophy and style.

Yes! We had a cyclone that was supposed to hit while we were there, but it blew over. However, it still did quite a bit of damage, felling trees and branches. There was also an earthquake further away that caused a tsunami the day before we left. Fortunately for Vanuatu and us, that tsunami did little but raise the ocean levels a foot or so on the beaches. Vanuatu does have a lot of these types of storms from November to April yearly. We were told that about every 6 years a cyclone hits that completely destroys all the homes on some of the islands. There are also several active volanoes in Vanuatu so earthquakes especially can cause eruptions. The Lord was gracious and protected us so we were not in any kind of immediate danger in Vanuatu. Weather in Vanuatu is tropical, being typically between 70-85 degrees year-round with humidity being between 75-90%. It is very hot and one gets used to continually sweating while there. However, there is a very nice breeze that gently blows year-round!

Please add anything else that would help us get a better understanding of the ministry in Vanuatu.

Ministering as a single woman in Vanuatu will surely at times have it's challenges, with it being a male-dominated society. I was counseled not to go out alone or keep a predictable pattern in my day. However, it was encouraging to hear from the guys on my team (who went to Malakula island, where it is fully bush with no towns so the people are much more "kastom" or traditional) about two single girls about my age living alone in separate areas of the island. One girl was with Aussie Aid and the other with the Peace Corps. Both were excited to see other "white folks" who spoke English, but both reported feeling very safe, able to have an impact and be taken seriously, and to feel comfortable and to be enjoying their lives there. As a female, there will probably be times that I won't be allowed to eat with men or interact with some of the male leadership, but it seems to be a place that if I take caution, (as I must even living here in the States) I will be able to have a viable ministry.

Our team's strategy is still developing and our hope is to discuss and plan this out more at our training in Georgia this July. So far what we are thinking is that we would like to all head to Vanuatu at the same time so we can "hit the ground running" as a team. This may mean some delays as other members "catch up" in support raising. Our goal is still March 2008 to be in-country if the Lord allows and wills. However, there are currently some difficulties with that (one example being that one family had a baby prematurely this month who is having some respiratory issues) so we'll see how the Lord works it out. Originally the thought was for everyone to be on Santo island in the town of Luganville for the first year in order to learn culture and language and find out how to set up on Malakula island with supplies for building homes, etc. It could also be that we would do something like this from the capital city of Port Vila on Efate island. Another option is just heading straight for Malakula. We don't know now how the Lord is going to work out all of the specifics as of now. The hope is that whether it be right from the start or after a year, we would end up being on Malakula developing relationships. I personally would like to do that through a school context of either helping with literacy or teaching English. There is sort of a "hub" area on Malakula that may eventually develop into an actual town that is easily accessable from nearly 10 surrounding bush villages within a walk of about an hour or two. If we were based out of that town, it would allow our team to develop relationships with people from all the surrounding areas to begin to see where the Lord would lead for more in-depth ministry. Most likely I would stay in that hub area with at least one of the other families and 2 other families would like to then branch out to one or two specific bush villages doing evangelism, discipleship, and leadership training. So much is dependant on the leading of the Holy Spirit though, not to mention our further understanding of the culture. I hope to keep everyone updated on these kinds of developments and changes as the Lord reveals more to us as we step out in faith!

The post-millennial view is held by many believers and seems to be growing in favor in some sections of the Christian community. Excellent teachers such as R.C. Sproul believe in the post-millennial view. In spite of its popularity, however, the post-millennial view has a variety of flaws when Scripture is interpreted correctly. Many pastors and teachers have pointed out these flaws. In addition to the Scriptural flaws in the post-millennial view, there is also a major structural flaw in the post-millennial view that is quite dangerous to those who hold this view. This structural danger needs to be closely examined.

One of the primary tenants of the post-millennial view is that the preaching of the gospel to the nations will eventually make men (in general) better, ushering in an age of halcyon days where men will greet the returning Lord with glad hearts. According to the proponents of this viewpoint, things will eventually get better and better, including (according to some in the post-mil camp) even economic prosperity.

Why is such a viewpoint dangerous? Doesn’t it sound wonderful? It indeed does sound wonderful, but that is not what the Bible says will be prevalent in the latter days. Instead, the love of many will grow cold (Matthew 24:12). And that trend has been underway for quite some time, and is gaining momentum. This is easily observable. Simply look at a newspaper movie page from 1960 and compare it with a newspaper movie page in any large city today. Or compare a television show from the 50’s with the trash that is commonplace today. Morals have dropped and murders have multiplied both onscreen and in real life. Drugs and gangs are taking over sections of the large cities across the nation. Look at any sector of life and it holds true across the board – man is becoming colder and more heartless, just as Jesus said would happen. Mankind is not becoming better, despite having had more access to the gospel than ever before.

The post-millennial view is flawed on this point – and it gets worse. Those who are looking for a better world are susceptible to the problem of becoming part of the great apostasy or at least the precursor to the great apostasy (see II Thessalonians 2:1-12). Why? Because this belief lends itself to the idea that man can make things better. In essence, it is a contribution belief, a belief that man will contribute to helping God work out the end times. And in doing so it goes totally astray. God says in Daniel, II Thessalonians and Revelation that things will get progressively worse, not better. And man won’t make things better – only God will do that, after a cataclysmic end to man’s aspirations.

House Churches: The original church?

We are perhaps seeing resurgence in so-called “house” churches. These are churches that meet in people’s homes or other non-traditional locations and usually have no affiliation with any larger group other than perhaps a very loose one. Some house churches are completely independent while others are part of a loose affiliation that helps facilitate growth and provides some consulting.

What you always hear from the proponents of house churches is that they are “getting back to Acts” (i.e. the early church met in homes thus house churches are modeled after the “original” churches).

As is always the case you must be careful to examine their arguments and especially their interpretations of key Scripture passages. For example, a group called “House Church Central[1]” claims Matt 18:20 as “the source of the house church doctrine of church.” They quote Matt. 18:20 out of context to make the point that wherever “two of three gathered” there was the church. The first problem is that in context, Matthew 18:20 is addressing church discipline. It is acknowledging the authority of church discipline that whenever “two of three gathered” (lawfully) for the purposes of church discipline then their decisions carried the weight of the church. The context says absolutely nothing about the form of gathering of the church should take. That passage, by the way, is probably quoted out of context more than any other NT passage I can think of. The other problem is that even if the passage could be used as they suggest, it hardly builds a case for house churches. When our church family meets as Heritage Bible Church “two or three [are] gathered.” From this out-of-context quotation this particular group goes on to make the claim “the house church is the biblical church.”

At this point one must remember that the Jews met in Synagogues and before long many early Christian fellowships likewise met in the Synagogues. Paul in particular often taught in the Synagogues and the early believers joined him there. To suggest the early church only met in homes is to ignore the plain record of Scripture and one must suspect their motives in this are self-serving.

A common criticism of house churches is that they lack any accountability. To this the usual response is that Christ is the head of the church and the only One we are to be accountable to. In so answering though they side step the Scriptural offices of pastor/teacher, elders, and deacons. Many house churches lack such offices though they are clearly prescribed in Scripture.

Another common criticism is that most house churches are led by untrained men. When groups are forced to be so small it is naturally a challenge to find enough trained men to lead each church. House church advocates counter that a degree does not make a preacher (true) but their own dismal history of Biblical interpretation hurts their cause.

The claim that house churches emulate “the early Christian church” is misleading and misses the point. As I’ve already noted, in some cities the early church met in the Synagogues and not exclusively in homes. As we know today, it takes time and money to obtain facilities and many churches begin their lives in rented quarters. In our day we have many such facilities from schools to public buildings. In those days far fewer such facilities existed. Transportation was also much different in those days. Churches had to be spread around as you did not have cars or public transportation in those days to get to central locations.

It misses the point because all that should matter is whether or not the local church is Biblical in its worship. Scripture does not prescribe whether churches should meet in homes or other buildings. It also does not prescribe what size a church must be (or not exceed). John MacArthur has long commented that he did not set out to create a mega-church but he is also not going to turn away people if the Lord keeps sending them. He could keep splitting his church into sister churches but if the Lord has gifted him and keeps sending people then why oppose that? There are many ways even large churches can promote fellowship and interaction in smaller groups.

What I sense in all this (and these touches upon some broader issues) is a desire by men, through human wisdom, to try and force through structure the type of atmosphere they believe the church should have. Proponents of house churches and cell churches[2] claim that so-called institutional churches are too big and make it too easy for members to “sit on the sidelines and not get involved.” If you force the church to remain small then everyone has to pitch in and there is no “back row” to hide in and no way to slip out the door unnoticed.

Clearly we should all be involved as we are led and gifted. It has been said the church resembles a football game. You have a small group down on the field doing all the work while thousands sit in the stands and watch. Paul makes it clear that we are all parts of one body and each part needs to fulfill its function. None of us should be sitting on the sideline watching. On the other hand, the model I see in Scripture is people being moved by the Holy Spirit as they read and meditate upon Scripture and see others leading by example. Leaders can gently do some pushing but unless one’s heart has been moved their service is likely to be empty and unfruitful. The idea of forcing participation by structure also begs an important question. Will those who want to fade into the pews even attend a house church to begin with? I suspect not!

Making things too arbitrarily small can also force people into areas of service they are not gifted for. The plurality of gifts in a body works well but if the body is too small it is not reasonable to expect all the gifts to be present. If 2 or 3 families gather and call it a church is their any guarantee one of the men will be gifted in teaching and properly trained in God’s Word? The Word itself says that teachers of it will be held to a high standard of accountability. We should not lightly put a man into a teaching position although in the typical house church that is exactly what happens. Usually the teaching responsibilities rotate among all the men. While you might argue that will inspire the men to study and learn I must ask though what damage might be done while they are learning?

I also have not seen a justification for how house churches can ignore the Biblical offices of elder and deacon nor can I believe that all the men in such churches are Biblically qualified. They might claim the men fulfill those offices but who is examining their qualifications?

One must question a movement that so much bad doctrine and horrible hermeneutics comes out of. Good hermeneutics practices exogesis (literally “out of”) where doctrine flows out of the proper interpretation of the text. By contrast, bad hermeneutics often practices isogesis in which the interpretation is read into the text. In isogesis you start with a conclusion and then work backwards to try and find texts that seem (at least out of context) to support your conclusion. Here is a good example.

There is a home church publication called 2 or 3 gathered (are we still misusing Matt 18:20?) which in its 4^th edition has this to say about the office of elder:

One reason - one great reason why the church of today is not what it should be, is because the simple concept of Christian eldership has been misunderstood and misapplied.

Behind much of this misunderstanding was the unintentional failure of the King James translators to faithfully bring this theme across their own language, cultural, and ecclesiastical barriers. Rather than perceiving eldership as something personal, pertaining first to ones age, they recast it into something positional, pertaining to a church office. Thus, the "office of bishop" in 1 Tim. 3:1.

Eldership appears repeatedly in the Old Testament, where it consistently applies to seniority.

At what point in time, one wonders, did eldership cease to denote the older heads of families and become an office to which even young men were elected?[3]

This article starts out by making the unbiblical claim that term “elder” is a statement about seniority and not any other form of qualification. They further add that this simple test of age has been turned into “something positional, pertaining to a church office.” They imply this is just a poor translation leading us to this conclusion. This flies in the face of the clear nature of the office as outlined in Scripture and to Paul’s words to Timothy not to let his age or comments about it inhibit his service as an elder (1Tim 4:12).

From there the author makes an even greater leap of logic and summaries by equating eldership with being “the older heads of families.” That certainly does serve the house church movement well and thus I believe a prime example of isogesis.

Good hermeneutics shows that eldership is an office based on Scriptural requirements. It is a man’s qualifications and demonstrated ministry that makes him fit for being an elder; not his age. A careful look at the qualifications though and you can see why not many young men qualify. It takes time walking faithfully in the Lord to demonstrate those qualifications. Years do bring wisdom. However, seniority alone does not an elder make and there are some young men who have walked longer with the Lord then some old men. Furthermore, not all men are called to be elders. You can be a godly older man and still not be called to the office of elder.

Do not suppose that this is a technical matter reserved for theologians. God's word is unambiguous. The older, mature, and seasoned Christians - the elders - are to fulfill the shepherding or pastoring role. No election, internal call, external call, seminary training, salary, or religious title is required to begin fulfilling this domestic and civic, life-changing and world-changing assignment.[4]

I find it noteworthy that this author is quick to dismiss training or calling and Biblical qualification does not make his list.

This is just one author and you will find some who give mention to the Scriptural requirements of the office. Still in the end though they seem to feel that being an older head of household makes you an elder unless you are very young in the Lord. They believe the understood context of Scripture is that men were elders by virtue of their age and that the qualifications listed in Scripture describe what these men already were rather than establishing requirements men are to meet. Thus a younger man could never be an elder no matter how qualified precisely because he was a younger man.

I see here some points in common with other movements like the Emerging Church and the Seeker-sensitive movement. What they all have in common is an effort to redefine the church into what they think the “un-churched” want or what they feel will provide the best results. It is a pragmatism that trumps theology. Much as 7UP cleverly marketed itself as the un-cola these movements fancy themselves as the un-church. It is fashionable these days to attack brick and mortar churches. The quickest way to try and legitimatize a new movement is to claim you are “getting back to the Book of Acts and the early church.” Such claims not only wrongly imply a straying by established churches (to be fair some have strayed) and misunderstands what was unique about the early church. Just as the sign gifts ceased with the establishment of the church we cannot read too much into how the very early church met and operated beyond what Scripture commands. Saying that many early churches met in private homes is not equivalent to saying that is what the Scriptures prescribe.

Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are places in the world where house churches are vital such as in China. As I argued earlier, the Bible doesn’t prescribe where we meet or what size a church must be. The Lord has used and is using house churches. However, to claim house churches are the Scriptural model and to redefine the offices of elder and deacon to fit that model is nothing short of grand isogesis.

In early 2007 The Barna Group did a survey of house churches. The first thing that jumps out of the report is how young the movement is and how fast it is growing. According to the Barna Group, 54% of house church participants have been participating for less than three months. 75% have participated for less than a year.[5] Only 42% attend a house church as their only church. The other 58% still attend some kind of traditional church and are perhaps investigating a house church.

“the intimacy and shared responsibility found in most house churches requires each participant to be more serious about their faith development”

This goes back to the premise that “there’s no place to hide” in a house church. By its very nature house churches require involvement. They are simply too small for some to sit and watch while others contribute.

The catchword these days in certain Christian circles is experience. People want a customized experience and choose a church based on the type of experience they desire. If their desired experience includes a small, intimate group without much formality then a house church might interest them. What is concerning is that the experience often becomes the sole criteria. Correct doctrine may be an afterthought as might Biblical leadership.

Some of the people I have personally met who left conventional churches for house churches cite things like “not wanting a pastor tell me how to live.” The implication is that they prefer to be in the company of peers who have no authority over them. That way they are free to accept or reject whatever they wish. Clearly that is not the Biblical church.

The Bible does not dictate where churches should meet. A home, a school, a park, or a traditional church building; it does not matter. The Bible does describe the church and lists very specific qualifications for elders and deacons that do not include age.

Many Christians today have a consumer mentality when it comes to church. We “shop around” for the church that offers all the ministries and creates the experience we want. We need to be more like the good citizens John F. Kennedy had in mind in his famous quote, “Ask not what your country [church] can do for you; ask what you can do for your country [church].” The church is a body and all the parts must participate for the body to function. If we come looking only to take or be served then the body will not function fully.

Some may choose house churches because they offer the experience they desire but experience is not the sum measure of a church. We need to look beyond experience and look for worship that is “in spirit and in truth” and then seek to serve with our gift.

There are things traditional churches can learn from what is driving the house church movement but mostly it is lessons we each need to apply individually (get involved in the church and in each other’s lives) and not look for the structure of the church to force upon us. We must also stick to the clear teachings of Scripture and not compromise on them to get the experience we desire.

[1] See www.hccentral.com.

[2] Cell churches are similar to house churches but with some differing characteristics.

[3] See http://housechurch.org/2or3gathered/2or3gathered_4.html.

[4] Ibid

[5] http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=255

House Churches: The original church?

Send mail to webservant@hbc-boise.org with questions or comments about this web site. Copyright © 2008 Heritage Bible Church Last modified: 07/17/2008

Send mail to webservant@hbc-boise.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2008 Heritage Bible Church
Last modified: 07/17/2008