Hi Shane,

I’m enjoying reading Total Church at the moment and agree with a great deal in it.  However, I’d like to think through the issue of community and individualism in light of a passage on p45, which quotes from The Crowded House website - “(we) expect one another to make decisions with regard to the implications for the church and to make significant decisions in consultation with the church.” Certainly, the authors indicate that this is not a rule to be enforced; however a statement that is part of an organisation’s list of values will inevitably carry a degree of authority which goes beyond mere suggestion.

The authors justify the value on the basis that

(a) the NT describes the church as a family
(b) we would not expect people to make significant decisions without consulting their immediate family
(c) therefore we should expect members of the church to consult the church when making significant decisions

I wonder if there is an unacknowledged gap between steps (a) and (b), in that step (a) presupposes a first-century household where not all relationships (eg those between masters and slaves) were intimate and consultative whereas step (b) pre-supposes the intimacy of a modern nuclear family.  More generally, I think this is an instance of a valid NT metaphor being pushed beyond its original application in a way that may not be legitimate.

None of this is intended to justify the anaemic type of ‘fellowship’ that characterises far too many of our churches.  I just think more work needs to be done here in developing a theology of church life which appropriately balances the freedom and responsibility of the individual Christian with their place in the body.

Every blessing,
Mark.

good thoughts - I am on the way out to the Boxing - but can you think of any examples where decision making is exhorted or examplified - I’ll have a think and return tomorrow

Hi Shane,

I hope the boxing went well - are you a spectator or a participant?

On decision making, some passages which come to mind are:

Acts 15 - but this is really a church-wide doctrinal issue rather than an individual lifestyle decision

Romans 14 - where Paul allows for each person to be convinced in their own mind, taking into consideration the impact of their actions on the weaker brother or sister

1 Corinthians 7 - if Paul was going to say something about consulting the rest of the church in decision making you might expect him to do it here.  However, once they heed his authoritative apostolic directions he seems to think individual believers should be able to make decisions about marriage and singleness on their own

ISTM that the NT teaches that believers have a general responsibility to exhort each other to remain faithful to the gospel and spur one another on to love and good deeds.  However, beyond this believers are free to make decisions as they see fit.  They may certainly consult the wider church (and in many circumstances it may be very wise to do so) , but there is no expectation they must or should do so

So coming back to the quote from p45 I have no problems with the expectation that decisions be taken with regard for their implications for the church (which in some ways is what Romans 14 is about); its the expectation that decisions should be taken in consultation with the church which I find more problematic.

Mark

The boxing went really well ! Solomon Haumono TKO’d his American opponent in the third. Didn’t hang around for Mundine.

I am not sure if its a stretch but I have been thinking about the community life in Acts early on.

Acts 2:42 we know that were devoted to koinonia - sharing in fellowship or paticipation.  which included v.44 the sharing of possessions and belongings.
Acts 4:32 they were of one mind and heart and they sat loosely on their private possessions by holding everything in common. There is still private ownership because we see people who own stuff selling it in order to meet the needs of others.
Twice we are told they laid it at the aposltes feet.

now what does that mean? to take stuff which is yours and lay it at the apostles feet?
It could be the leadership deciding the money once the individual had made up in his mind what to give. It would be difficult to lay it at their feet today.

I wonder if it is related to the apostles teaching which they are also devoted to. That is to say - in response to the apostolic word of the cross and resurrection - the disciples were making discions -in koinonia- about property and houses together around the word. (something we can do as well).

It would seem that these decsions were made within the context of paticipation in Christ new people.

noitce also no one is compelled to do so. Barnabas is contrast with Annanias and Sapphira.

they own property and sell it but only lay part at the apostle feet.
This is not an issue of generousity but deception.
Both before and after the land sale it was theirs for their disposal. No compulsion.

Interetestingly it is not a sin against the beleiveing community but against the holy spirit. And the consqeunce is dramatic to say the least. Yet it is fair to say their sin had community ramifications. In decieving the apostles by not disclosing their decision to use some of the money otherwise ruptures relationships.

It is a parallel account with Achan in Joshua 7. Achan’s deception brings trouble on the whole of Israel. He compromises their holiness so he is judged and removed from the camp and destroyed by ALL ISRAEL.

decisions that effect the whole of Israel are judged by the whole of Israel.

then in Acts 6 the pressing needs of the hungry hellenists arises.
interesting that the 12 summon all the disciples, present the problem, their priority and a solution - and what they said pleased the whole ecclesia.

3 examples where
1. decision about property and its distribution are made in fellowship
2. a deceitful decision in private and its impact on fellowship
3. a community decision about the priority of proclamtion and care for the needy.

I have no problems with the expectation that decisions be taken with regard for their implications for the church (which in some ways is what Romans 14 is about); its the expectation that decisions should be taken in consultation with the church which I find more problematic.

I am not sure that making decision in consultation with...means they are making decisions for you. It is accountable decision making. Sharing burdens kinda stuff, not alone.

hows my exegesis going?
enjoy

Shane, you interested in checking out some Mixed Martial Arts with me sometime? Much more interesting than boxing, IMO!

[off topic] I’m a pugilist at heart though also a fan of Rich Franklin and UFC . I reckon Solomon would open a can in UFC but I am yet to convince him. His next fight will hopefully be for a title.

[on topic]
In a congregation I was with today, one couple are deciding whether to buy an $800 000 home. The real estate was on the phone as we sat around the table with bible open. We discussed the why and why nots. We asked questions of motivation and stewardship. We talked through the effects this might have on their service of the Lord and his people. WE juggled together.
And we spoke words of grace and freedom. Then we prayed for wisdom.X cried and said it was overwhelming good that he was not making this decision in isolation. His burden was lifted and holiness promoted. Ultimately its their decision and we pray a better one because it has been made in community. There was no guilt, no manipulation, but it did feel totally weird because it is so counter cultural. Life together stuff.

I reckon Solomon would open a can in UFC but I am yet to convince him.

Well, he’d need to develop a ground game. It’s been a long time since just being a basher was enough in the UFC…

Mark Short - 27 February 2008 06:44 PM

......
The authors justify the value on the basis that

(a) the NT describes the church as a family
(b) we would not expect people to make significant decisions without consulting their immediate family
(c) therefore we should expect members of the church to consult the church when making significant decisions

I wonder if there is an unacknowledged gap between steps (a) and (b), in that step (a) presupposes a first-century household where not all relationships (eg those between masters and slaves) were intimate and consultative whereas step (b) pre-supposes the intimacy of a modern nuclear family. More generally, I think this is an instance of a valid NT metaphor being pushed beyond its original application in a way that may not be legitimate.
[My bold]

Hi Mark,
Good observation on an “unacknowledged gap” in the logic there.
Well spotted.
Grace & peace,
Terry

Craig and Shane,

What is it with inner-city males and displays of conspicuous masculinity? Out here in the bush we just know we’re real men:)

Shane,

Thanks for your thoughts on Acts. As you note the sin of Ananias and Sapphira is deception, not a failure to consult. Indeed, Peter’s words in Acts 5:4 seem to grant them a fair degree of freedom and responsibility in the disposal of their property.  Re laying the proceeds of sales at the Apostles’ feet. This is not really all that different to the process in most churches whereby people give the church the right to determine how their offerings will be used.  However, this is not the same as expecting the church must be consulted in deciding the amount of such offerings.

Your account of discussing the house purchase with your friends is wonderful, and all the more wonderful because it is a story of Spirit-prompted freedom rather than conforming to a stated community norm (I think that Galatians has something to say about this).

If I had my way (!) i’d re-write TCH value along the following lines “we expect one another to make decisions with regard to their implications for the church and to be available to support one another in making decisions through prayer and Godly counsel”.  Notice, that this shifts the onus from an expectation of consultation to an expectation of support should such consultation be freely requested. I may seem to be splitting hairs here, but I believe that the closer the degree of fellowship in a group the more important it is to think carefully about the relationship between the individual and the community.

Cheers,

Mark.

If I had my way (!) i’d re-write TCH value along the following lines “we expect one another to make decisions with regard to their implications for the church and to be available to support one another in making decisions through prayer and Godly counsel”.  Notice, that this shifts the onus from an expectation of consultation to an expectation of support should such consultation be freely requested. I may seem to be splitting hairs here, but I believe that the closer the degree of fellowship in a group the more important it is to think carefully about the relationship between the individual and the community.

Thanks for raising this issue Mark. I think it comes some way to addressing my concerns arising from observing current and historic examples of tight-knit evangelical fellowships which have slid into cultism over issues of group control.

Hi Jeremy I understand your concern but I am not sure it would be fair to associate TCH with the type of abuses that concern you.

its interesting to note

Article XXXVIII
Of Christian men’s Goods, which are not common
The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

part of our own historic formularies were deeply concerned as you and I would be. (I would like to hear my anabaptist friends take on this.)

David Cook in his preaching commentary on Acts describes the believing community practicing ‘spirit led voluntary socialism’. Not sure I would put it like that but I wonder whether we have a deep fear in relationship to possessions because materialistic individualism is in our mothers miilk.

clearly the early beleivers not only gave generously but even sacrficed capital! heaven forbid!
koinonia - or fellowship or participation was selfless, sacrificial , voluntary and communitarian.

Tight knit evangelical fellowships could slide one of two ways and both are diabolical.  There is not only the slide into what you fear Jeremy, but equally the slide into disconnected self focussed indiviualism. Either way it is a slide into the ditch. I don’t think we would disagree that geunine fellowship needs to tangibly express the ‘bonds of love’ (including helping each other be godly in decision making)?

I may seem to be splitting hairs here, but I believe that the closer the degree of fellowship in a group the more important it is to think carefully about the relationship between the individual and the community.

I couldn’t agree more. it is so important that the gospel word is central in shaping the individual’s conscience. Yet we need to hold in balance that the usual way that God teaches rebukes corrects trains is throug his word (2 tim 3:16) and through the preachers of the word (2 tim 4:1-2).

the attempt to make decisions in community is a healthy expression of what it means to belong ala Romans 12:5and of the process Colossians 3 exhorts where we work together in love as one body - letting the word of Christ dwell in you (plural) teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom etc

enjoy

I understand your concern but I am not sure it would be fair to associate TCH with the type of abuses that concern you.

yeah. fair call.

I must add that I share the excitement for the pioneering work of TCH.

It’s the calvinist side of me that is wary of being overly naive about human nature. There just needs to be appropriate transparency, oversight and balances in the system that Mark has hinted at.

A relevant quote from the Total Church book

“In our experience, people are often enthusiastic about community until it impinges on their decision-making. For all their rhetoric, they still expect to make decisions by themselves and for themselves. We assume we are masters of our own lives. ‘It’s my money, it’s my life, it’s my future,’ we say, ’so it’s my decision.’ In contrast, in The Crowded House we ‘expect one another to make decisions with regard to the implications for the church and to make significant decisions in consultation with the church.’ A married man must take into account his wife and family, consulting with them over significant decisions. It should be the same in the family of God…In the Christian community we belong to one another and so we are responsible for one another and make decisions together. This is not a process of ‘heavy shepherding’ where the leader tells people what to do. Our statement does not say decisions are made for people. It says they are made with regard to the community to which they belong” (p45).

the book talks a lot about seeing church as identity in community. yet often when we talk about church we talk about it as a gathering of God’s people around the word -a congregation. This usually leads to thinking of church as an event.

Has anyone done much thinking about this - what do you think of the idea of seeing church primarily as an identity in relation to a beleiving community ?

The story on the church plant in Pyrmont certainly emphasises the importance of the issues raied by Total Church. If being able to pay a full-time minister is a prerequisite for starting and maintaining a church plant it seems that we are left with three options

1.  Plant where an existing congregation is able to send out a significant number of people (at least 60 adults assuming giving of around $20 per adult attender)

2. Plant where substantial funds are available from an external source eg a parent congregation or a denominational agency

3.  Plant in areas where there is a pool of disaffected Christians who will leave their existing churches and support the new venture

All three models have their place (although I suspect 3 will make it very difficult to encourage a mission mindset in the new church).  But by themselves they will make only a small contribution to the evangelisation of Australia. Hence the need to seriously explore more low-cost models of church planting such as those advocated by TC. 

Mark.