Excellent points!
May I even expand the question to include the "House Church movement"?
They are the group that will meet in houses and divide when they become too
big as church buildings are so unbiblical because "this is the way the Christians
did it in the New Testament any way."
I guess this would lead to the objection some would have to the plurality of elders
as they argue that there was a plurality of elders only because there was a
plurality of "cell churches" which required more elders and so Paul's letters were
addressed to the elders because they were meant to be passed around and shared.
Some good information for discussion. Excellent way to learn.
Thanks,
Harry
"James W. Allen" <jallen@...> wrote:
I have 2 problems with how "small group ministries" are promoted and
endorsed. The first is that the argument ignores an important reality.
In all the "small group" language, there is a refrain about how this is "how
it was" in the NT and how this is "real community" or "real fellowship." The
suggestion is that the thing itself (the "small groups") are inherently more
spiritual and are "God's way" of doing church.
I agree that the NT churches were probably what we call "small groups,"
meaning not large in number, but this was not a technique, but a physical
reality. Nowhere does Paul suggest that he wanted them to be small groups.
They were small groups because, well, because they did not have many people
or a large place to meet. They did not "choose" to be "small groups," they
simply were (as many of our churches are). (and I would note that the
Jerusalem church was huge and met together daily).
Thus, their "small group" status was like their status as Greek speakers:
it was not a "plan" but a reality. One might as well argue that the church
would be "more real" and "more Biblical" by requiring everyone to speak
Greek or wear robes as to argue that we should require everyone to be in a
small group.
Thus, there is a fundamental difference between modern "small group
ministries" and the NT example. The small groups in the NT (assuming they
were small groups) were not the result of artificial planning nor the result
of theories about group dynamics or "optimum ministry," they just were.
Further, they certainly were not dependent on modern theories about small
group dynamics and fellowship, because those theories did not exist. They
were naturally developed groups based on God's electing grace in an area.
Nothing in scripture directs churches to be "small groups" nor to "have
small groups" nor to adopt the "small group techniques" of the Apostles.
Whether they are a good idea in a particular setting is one thing, but they
cannot be defended or promoted as being more biblical than larger groups,
because they aren't.
Unless meeting in Corinth is considered more spiritual (as being biblically
modeled) than is meeting in Toledo. :)
James W. Allen
jallen@...
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace