New Page 1

"Christian" Holidays

I had the great pleasure of reading "Toward House Church Theology" and was very satisfied w/ the strong emphasis on apostolic tradition. I also appreciated your apparent earnestness in grappling with church practices w/ a balanced scriptural approach. One thing that has puzzled me since very early in my christian walk were the christian holidays (Christmas & Easter) in light of their absence in scripture and their inclusion of practices (tree, gifts, Santa, bunnies, eggs) that seem to obscure the occasions that they claim to celebrate. What do you believe?

--Louis Soto

The church of the post-Constantine era did much to make the Gospel attractive to her pagan counterparts. In an attempt to make the transition from pagan religions to Christianity a relatively painless one, the early church allowed pagan converts to continue to celebrate some of their "holidays"--under the stipulation that the holiday itself held a new "Christianized" significance. The birth of Christ almost certainly did not occur in winter, and so celebration of Christmas is not exactly a NT church practice. Instead, it is, apparently, the Christianized counterpart to two pagan celebrations: the winter solstice (a pagan Roman festival celebrating the birth of the "unconquered sun"), and the birth of Mithra, the Iranian "Sun of Righteousness." The Christian parallels were apparently too strong for the early church to resist. As an aside, the latter of the two celebrations
occurred specifically on Dec 25, houses were decorated with greenery, and gifts were exchanged.

While this is true of Christmas, the same cannot be said of Easter. There is early evidence that the church celebrated an annual observance of the Resurrection before anything like its pagan counterpart made its way into the Christian world. Biblically, the birth of Christ (and therefore, Christmas) is comparably no more significant than the rest of his life. It is the death and resurrection of Christ that is significant to the biblical writers. As one of my former professors once said, "Jesus was born to die." We are saved by his death and resurrection--not by his birth (although that is certainly a necessary antecedent). Indeed, the gathering together of the church on Sunday was in all likelihood to commemorate Christ's resurrection (which also occurred on Sunday). In other words, the early church came together to celebrate the resurrection. I do not have any objection, therefore, to celebrating the resurrection of the Lord on an annual basis--so long as that is not the only time the church celebrates it. As for Christmas, I do not think it is a "sin" to celebrate Christmas--but I also do not regard it as a day that is more significant than any other day.

--E.S.

Homosexuality

I was reading one of your articles and has a question or maybe need some clarity. In your article on The Women's Issue and Cultural Relativity you mention Paul being a pro-homosexual, can you give me some biblical basis upon where you reached this conclusion? And could you clarify where your stand is concerning homosexuality in the church of today? I cannot tell if you are condoning it to make a point here or if you are indeed saying that it is no longer and issue of "sin" in the church today. My understanding of this issue
supercedes it just being of the law, I believe it to be sexual immorality.

--Lynne Barnes

The excerpt from the article to which you refer follows:

"Moreover, cultural relativity is a slippery slope upon which it is difficult to maintain grounds for any biblical injunction. If on the basis of cultural relativity we choose to disregard commands of Scripture that limit the ministry of women, what is to stop us from limiting the ministry of, say, homosexuals? After all, when the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexual practices, isn't it because the writers are reflecting their own primitive cultural bias? We in the twentieth-century are better informed about homosexuals than were the first-century writers. Paul, of course, although pro-homosexual, knew that the surrounding culture frowned upon the practice and so disallowed it in the first-century church. Were he alive today, he clearly would take the position that since homosexuality is now considered an "alternative lifestyle," we as the church should adapt to societal norms and allow homosexuals to exercise their ministries--indeed, we should be at the very forefront of the cause to liberate them."

Are we pro-homosexual? Oh my, heavens no! The apparent support of a pro-homosexual agenda in the article was simply a spoof to show the inherent weakness of the cultural-relativity position. The point of including it was to show that those who dismiss the injunctions in the NT regarding the role of women in the church on the basis of cultural relativity cannot at the same time oppose the current push in the liberal wing of the institutional church to embrace homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. Why not? Because the liberals who support a pro-homosexual agenda in the church make use of the very same reasoning process and appeal to the very same cultural relativity as do those who support the egalitarian "equal roles for women in the church" agenda. Sorry about the confusion. I suppose I should have placed quotation marks around the text that represents the argument used by the pro-homosexual agenda.

--E.S.

Opposing View

I find your ideas to be unrealistic - at best. There is evidence that the first church, the one at Jerusalem was quite large. I seriously doubt that they all met in houses. 3000 were added unto the "church" on the day of
Pentecost, not unto the "churches". Are you suggesting that God's Holy Spirit made a mistake - that He could have made a better decision?

I Corinthians 9:7-14 clearly tells us that the Pastor is to be paid a salary. In fact, that is the reason for the choosing of deacons, so that the pastor could devote FULL time to the ministry. As far as 45 minute sermons being foreign to the word of God, read Acts 20:9

Also, the early church met in homes, caves and fields not out of spirituality, but out of necessity. To think there is something spriitual [sic] about meeting in a home is - well, to put it kindly, ridiculous.

Have you never heard the old adage, "Divide and conquer"? That is what you are suggesting we do to the church. We divide it so Satan can conquer it. There is already a shortage of God called, and annointed [sic] men and you would further thin out the ranks. To reduce the church to small home-based units would reduce Gods house to "every man doing that which is right in his own eyes" There were several million jews, but only one Moses. Instead of the Word of God being "taught" it would be "fought" with every person there wanting to express his or her own opinion.

If you have one church in a city running say, 5000, are you telling me that we should divide them up into say, churches of 25 people in a home? Where are you going to find 200 God called and anointed men of God to lead those churches? The mission program as we know it would cease. It would be utter chaos and confusion.

I could go on and on. I do not think it will do any good however, you are too far committed to ever admit error. But I will tell you this, you are working for the wrong side by doing this. It is one thing to be wrong, but a far different thing to "teach men so". You need to pull your litte [sic] home page off of the internet and get back in a church and get back to reaching souls for Jesus Christ.

--Bruce Allen

Since your letter is quite lengthy I will be responding to it in pieces below. First, however, a few general observations about your letter are in order.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that you could have read any of our articles regarding the issues about which you write. If you had, you would have been asking different questions, because all of your objections are addressed within the articles themselves. I have to assume that you simply
skimmed our "Beliefs" page and left it at that. Obviously we do not deal with these issues in depth there. Let me suggest that you read the articles before commenting on their content.

Second, your comments betray a misinformed ecclesiology that is based in popular ideas about the church. The ideas we are advancing are not new; they have long been promoted by scholars. All we have done is brought those ideas down from the ivory towers and presented them to the church.

Because most of the issues you raise have already been addressed in our articles, there is little need for me to give a lengthy response. Instead, I will comment briefly on each point, and then refer the reader to the article that addresses that point.

I find your ideas to be unrealistic - at best. There is evidence that the first church, the one at Jerusalem was quite large. I seriously doubt that they all met in houses. 3000 were added unto the "church" on the day of Pentecost, not unto the "churches". Are you suggesting that God's Holy Spirit made a mistake - that He could have made a better decision?

When the word "church" is used in the singular it sometimes refers to a local body and other times to the universal body of Christ. The context must decide in each case. It is clear in the passage cited above that the issue is one of salvation. God added 3000 to the "church" universal. There is no thought here about how the church met together. As for "seriously doubting that they all met in houses," perhaps you should read a little beyond Acts 2:41. Just six verses later we are expressly told that they did indeed meet in houses. For more information on this, see the articles titled "Toward a House-Church Theology" (parts 1-3).

I Corinthians 9:7-14 clearly tells us that the Pastor is to be paid a salary. In fact, that is the reason for the choosing of deacons, so that the pastor could devote FULL time to the ministry. As far as 45 minute sermons being foreign to the word of God, read Acts 20:9

1 Corinthians 9 does not refer to a pastor, but rather an apostle (see article titled "Professional Pastors?"). Acts 6 does not refer to full-time ministry, but rather that the time allotted to ministry would be fully devoted to the ministry of the gospel rather than waiting tables. The "sermon" in Acts 20:7-9 is a discussion (the Greek word is dialogizomia, and means "to lead a discussion"--see chap 6 of our book "Toward a House Church Theology," accessible online from the "Publications" page).

Also, the early church met in homes, caves and fields not out of spirituality, but out of necessity. To think there is something spiritual about meeting in a home is - well, to put it kindly, ridiculous..

The "fields and caves" did not happen until 250 A.D. when the church experienced mass persecution. The normative pattern laid out in the NT is house-church meetings (see the article titled "Toward a House-Church Theology," part 1). The "living room" meeting is entrenched in the theology of the body as the family of God. No one here has suggested that living rooms are "spiritual"--rather, what is to occur in the meeting is best conducted in the living room.

Have you never heard the old adage, "Divide and conquer"? That is what you are suggesting we do to the church. We divide it so Satan can conquer it. There is already a shortage of God called, and anointed men and you would further thin out the ranks.

I think what you really mean is that there is a shortage of men who go to seminary to get a degree in ministry and then are ordained by an ordination board--a system conspicuously absent in the NT. There is, however, no shortage of qualified men in a setting--such as the NT house church--that fosters mutual participation.

To reduce the church to small home-based units would reduce Gods house to "every man doing that which is right in his own eyes" There were several million jews, but only one Moses. Instead of the Word of God being "taught" it would be "fought" with every person there wanting to express his or her own opinion.

And how have you solved this problem in the institutional church? Are you suggesting that there is one man over all of the denominations in the world, and that all institutional denominations are in agreement on every issue of doctrine? The only person I know of who claims this is the pope.

If you have one church in a city running say, 5000, are you telling me that we should divide them up into say, churches of 25 people in a home? Where are you going to find 200 God called and anointed men of God to lead those churches? The mission program as we know it would cease. It would be utter chaos and confusion.

The first-century house-church Christians did not have any "mission program," and yet they "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6). Paul tells us that God "has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him" (1 Cor 1:27-29). I'll assume his design for the church is just fine the way it is.

I could go on and on. I do not think it will do any good however, you are too far committed to ever admit error. But I will tell you this, you are working for the wrong side by doing this. It is one thing to be wrong, but a far different thing to "teach men so". You need to pull your litte home page off of the internet and get back in a church and get back to reaching souls for Jesus Christ.

Prov 18:2 says this: "A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." It is incumbent upon each of us to understand someone else's position fully before railing a judgment against it. I don't believe you have done that.

--E.S.

Reader Response to "Opposing View"

Dear friends in Christ:

I hope all is well with you and the saints at NTRF. I would like to comment on Bruce Allen's opposing view: "Where are you going to find 200 God called and anointed men of God to lead those churches?" I would have to say that the reason there might be a problem finding men equipped to lead churches today is because they are in a system that does not properly equip them to become leaders, rather followers. A lot of the equipping I've received has been outside of the local church which should not be the case, if the local church leaders would not try to be the all-in-all for the believers and let them interact and teach each other a few things. When I was just a new believer I noticed my pastor (who had been in the ministry for 30 years) wore a mason's ring and was inviting the local masons to church for recognition. So I decided to read up on masonry and found out that they are not of God. I brought this to the attention of the pastor but from that point on I had no peace about being under his leadership so I soon left the church, only to find that other churches were not in much better shape. After being in Christ for over 12 years and being a member of several churches, I finally realized that there were some basic flaws with how the local churches 'do' church.

Your ministry has helped me to fit all the pieces of the 'how-to-do-church' puzzle together and I am now meeting with others to put into practice, that which I have learned. And I am finally confident that, based on scripture, there is a proper and edifying way to 'do' church. Thank the Lord! I think that one reason why it took me so long to put the pieces together is that I was never taught *how* to properly study the Bible by the churches I have been in. I was just taught *from* the Bible by various church elders/leaders but often without those people explaining to me how they reached their conclusions. Also, I was never taught 'ecclesiology' and did not realize that many practices in conventional churches cannot be found in scripture. I very much appreciate your ministry. Take care and may the Good Lord richly bless you as you seek first His kingdom and His righteousness.

--Ray Kane

Well said!

--E.S.

Roman Catholicism

At what point in its history can we say that the Roman Catholic Church had officially pronounced dogmas that are unscriptural that it may be considered to have essentially stopped being THE church of Jesus Christ, or THE New Testament church? (In our church -- an evangelical Protestant church-- we pray the Apostles' Creed, including the phrase "I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, etc." (i.e., the Nicene Creed)to express our link to the apostolic church. This makes many of our Roman Catholic attenders comfortable. However, very seldom is it explained in our pulpit the essential differences between the Roman Catholic and the evangelical Christian faith.)

--Tom Matic

I am uncomfortable attempting to pinpoint a date when the Roman Catholic church apostatized, since that apostasy was so gradual. The post-apostolic church began incorporating unbiblical beliefs and practices almost immediately after the apostles passed away. Heretical teaching about the
ransom-to-Satan theory of redemption, the institution of New Covenant priests and city-wide bishops, erroneous practices of church discipline, etc., all made their way into the church early on. However, the central truth of the gospel remained intact for quite some time after all this.

As for your question about just when the Roman church ceased to be THE church of Jesus Christ; well, it never was. The church is not something that is defined by geography or denominational affiliation. Members of the body of Christ could (and still can) be found within the Roman Catholic church--but there was never a time when the Roman Catholic church WAS the church of Jesus Christ. As for official dogmas that separated Roman Catholicism from the truth of the gospel, I would have to point to the Council of Trent during the Counter-Reformation of the sixteenth century. Until Trent, Roman Catholic believers could, with a good conscience, believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ apart from works. Trent officially condemned the biblical concept of salvation. There are still many Roman Catholics who do not understand the official teaching of Rome and do not hesitate to express their faith in Christ alone for their salvation.

As for the Apostles' Creed--there is nothing inherently objectionable in the creed itself, although Roman Catholic interpretation of the creed is certainly objectionable ("one holy catholic church" is interpreted to mean "Roman Catholic church," and "the communion of saints" is interpreted to mean that we may pray to the saints). The Roman Catholic attendees of your church would probably not feel uncomfortable if you simply omitted the creed altogether, since these attendees are not likely staunch Roman Catholics. Staunch Roman Catholics who understand the teaching of Rome would never attend a Protestant church because it is strictly forbidden by Rome to do so.

--E.S.

The Charismatic Movement

What is your position in regard of the Charismatic Movement in general? I noted there is no article covering that subject. I don't expect an extensive or detailed answer since my question is not very specific.

--Saulo Cepeda

We don't "officially" have a position on Charismaticism, but both Steve and I are leery of the movement. When compared with Scripture, the Charismatic meetings I have attended violate almost every command related to tongues in 1 Corinthians 12--14. I personally am convinced that the Scriptures portray the gift of tongues as a judgment sign to unbelieving Israel, and that they would
cease after the judgment (the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70). Prophecy and knowledge, on the other hand, are said to continue until the eternal state. It would take more space than I have to develop my thesis; and since you did not specify a detailed answer, I will pass on it for now.

--E.S.