The Church With No Doctrine

rockytopva said:

I wanted to donate to a ministry that supports poor people. On a search once again the Dwelling Place in Christiansburg, VA came up. I have been there before, though the worship is good there is not a preacher and it is run by 'elders.' So the services are just about all worship. Though I like good worship I also enjoy sitting down and listening to a preacher preach a half hour or so.

I will probably end up helping them with their efforts for the poor. But I just cannot join a church where there is no preacher to lead the congregation. But... I cannot find in scripture where the early church was run by a single pastor. It looks like it was run by the elders. So....

1. Is having a single preacher over a church biblical?
2. Is church doctrine necessary for a church? Or is it something that just promotes ego?

Click to expand...

1. having a single preacher over a church is nowhere to be found in scripture. I did a two year study of the New Testament Church (NTC) and the pattern outside of the Jerusalem church was apostles who went to new territory to share the good news of Jesus with the assistance of prophets; bring new believers into the kingdom; establish a local church (only one in each town); then left to do the same elsewhere after appointing from within the congregation, local elders (plural) to watch over the assembly. The apostle' stay was usually two or three years.

The elders first qualification was to be older chronologically (no young men) and to be men (no women).

The basis of the NTC was the priesthood of all believers, not just a paid few, so everyone was "a preacher" as the Spirit gave them utterance.

2. Yes, it does promote egos and separates the church. It is used as means to identify those who you consider to be kosher and believe the right thing and it gives the impression that we have got it right and we are a cut above the rest. When doctrine is plastered all over a website, it usually means that you need not bother coming if you don't agree with what we believe.

A bit like when you are at a convention and someone asks you what church you go to. Most of the time all they want to know if you are from the same spiritual tribe as them so they can give you the tick of approval.

My doctrine is exalt Jesus and teach the word if that gives you any idea how simple it can and should be.

If they don't have doctrine, what do they believe? What do they do and why do they do it?

According to the book of Acts, when Paul established a congregation, he appointed a group of elders to govern that congregation.
A pastor can give sermons and officiate sacraments without being an autocrat.

By the way, according to the Old Testament, tithes are supposed to be used to support poor people. So, every congregation should be supporting poor people.

As for doctrine, how do you know that the worship is proper is you have no doctrine to guide you?

Dodo_David said:

According to the book of Acts, when Paul established a congregation, he appointed a group of elders to govern that congregation.
A pastor can give sermons and officiate sacraments without being an autocrat.

By the way, according to the Old Testament, tithes are supposed to be used to support poor people. So, every congregation should be supporting poor people.

As for doctrine, how do you know that the worship is proper is you have no doctrine to guide you?

Click to expand...

Doctrine is only good if it agrees with the bible. Because no one has all truth, the church doctrine will be in error.

So many times the pastor will not allow discussions on topics that do not agree with the doctrine, thereby taking man's word over God's.

Wrong doctrine gets started from statements like yours about tithes. The bible does not say to use tithes to support the poor.

As my Grandma would say in church, "scripture please".

The church today is very different than the first century church. Because of persecution there were no large assemblies or church buildings. A bishop (always male) was appointed in each city (Timothy and Titus for example) and elders (Aquila and Priscilla for example) were over small house churches with deacons and deaconesses (Stephen and Tabatha) helping them with the responsibilities for widows and orphans. The Apostles, and the bishop in his territory, visited the individual groups to strengthen them in the Gospel truths.

There were early creeds that were used at baptism and to identify false teachings which Paul and John warned about in their letters. Today we have the Nicene and Apostles Creeds which most churches accept. I think most churches today also have about 25-30 additional doctrinal statements that vary slightly between denominations. We have gotten to the point where "Right Thinking" is more important than "Love of Neighbor" as criteria for being Christian.

day said:

There were early creeds that were used at baptism and to identify false teachings which Paul and John warned about in their letters. Today we have the Nicene and Apostles Creeds which most churches accept. I think most churches today also have about 25-30 additional doctrinal statements that vary slightly between denominations. We have gotten to the point where "Right Thinking" is more important than "Love of Neighbor" as criteria for being Christian.

Click to expand...

I can give you a real example of that. I was a founding member of a church and all went well until I said that I wasn't sure about ONE doctrine as I was still working through what I believed. I was open to persuasion.

What happened? The so called pastor told the minister of the congregation he was in submission to and he said that I was to be removed from all ministry and not allowed to do any more until my doctrine was right.

The fact that the other 99% of what I believed was OK did not make any difference. The fact that I had showed I was no threat to the pastor or the church did not make any difference.

Because I was brave enough to admit I was not sure, not that I had rejected their doctrine, that was sufficient to cold shoulder me and label me a heretic.

rockytopva said:

The Apostle Paul attributed death and sickness because of the way the Corinthians were handling communion. If I do not like the way communion is served I will refuse to partake of it!

Click to expand...

Communion was unknown in the New Testament (NTC) as we know it today which was the product of the roman catholic church. The evangelical version is just a variation of it.

The passage in Corinthians was an instruction on how they were to eat A MEAL together. Everyone brings something for the meal. Don't start eating until everyone is there. If you are hungry eat at home first.

This last instruction very clearly points out it was a meal as no one would have their hunger satisfied with a sip of wine and a minute cracker.

And not discerning the body refers to the body of Christ, not some bit of cracker.

It is when we are eating together that we are communing with each other and with God, because every meal they ate together was evidence of the oneness they had in Christ bearing in mind that the Centurion and the slave sat down together and ate together.

In secular society, that would NEVER happen.

Communion is nothing more than a ritualised religious activity that has replaced what is in scripture, the agape meal. When I studied religion at University, I asked my tutor, who was a born again anglican priest, if the NTC has communion. He said no. It started as a breakfast meal and later was changed to an evening meal and eventually that was pushed out the door and replaced with communion when religion took over in the church.

Rocky Wiley said:

The bible does not say to use tithes to support the poor.

As my Grandma would say in church, "scripture please".

Click to expand...

In Deuteronomy 14:28-29, we read the following:
“At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.”

In Deuteronomy 26:12-13, we read the following:
“When you have finished paying all the tithe of your produce in the third year, which is the year of tithing, giving it to the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, so that they may eat within your towns and be filled, then you shall say before the Lord your God, ‘I have removed the sacred portion out of my house, and moreover, I have given it to the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, according to all your commandment that you have commanded me. ’”

Because all Levite men were dedicated at birth to performing sacred work, they could not on their own obtain an adequate supply of food for themselves and their families. So, the Levites had to receive a portion of the tithe, which consisted of food and beverages.

The other people mentioned in the above-quoted verses were the poorest people in the land. Due to circumstances beyond their control, they could not on their own obtain an adequate supply of food. So, they, too, had to receive a portion of the tithe.

The alien (a.k.a. sojourner), the fatherless and the widow are given favorable treatment in the Torah. Theologian David F. Payne discusses the reason why in his commentary on Deuteronomy:

“In a mainly agricultural society, the loss by death of the man in the family would deprive it of its chief breadwinner, and the widow and the fatherless (mentioned in several verses) were usually in great poverty. The sojourner is bracketed with them; many foreigners who came to reside in Israel must have done so because of debts, injustice or oppression elsewhere, so they too were poor.”*

In 1 Corinthians 16:1-3, the Apostle Paul writes the following:

“Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem.”

Theologian William Barclay comments on these instructions of Paul:

“Quite frequently Jews who had gone abroad and prospered sent their envoys to Jerusalem with contributions for the Temple and for the poor. Paul did not want the Christian Church to be behind the Jewish and heathen world in generosity. But to him this collection for the poor at Jerusalem meant more than that. It was a way of demonstrating the unity of the Church. It was a way of teaching the scattered Christians that they were not members of a congregation only, but members of a Church, each part of which had obligations to the rest. The narrowly congregational outlook was far from the Pauline concept of the Church.”**


Quote Sources

*David F. Payne, Deuteronomy (Westminster Press: 1985), p. 136.
**William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians (Westminster Press: 1975), pp. 162-163.

Dodo_David said:

In Deuteronomy 14:28-29, we read the following:
“At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.”

In Deuteronomy 26:12-13, we read the following:
“When you have finished paying all the tithe of your produce in the third year, which is the year of tithing, giving it to the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, so that they may eat within your towns and be filled, then you shall say before the Lord your God, ‘I have removed the sacred portion out of my house, and moreover, I have given it to the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, according to all your commandment that you have commanded me. ’”

Click to expand...

Dodo,

I made an error in my statement when I said the bible does not say to give some of the tithes to the poor. You have indeed proved that statement of mine wrong.

I stand by my belief that we are not required to give tithes today. The law has passed away and no church should even require tithes of it members. When anything pertaining to tithes in the New Testament is mentioned it is always to those under the law or about those that were under the law.

So my statement to you should have been, "Where is the scripture telling the church to tithe?" We are to "give" not tithe. There is a difference.

There were reasons for tithing in the age of law that do not apply today.

Dodo_David said:

A pastor can give sermons and officiate sacraments without being an autocrat.

Click to expand...

Where does it say that in the New Testament?

Dodo_David said:

A pastor can give sermons and officiate sacraments without being an autocrat.

Click to expand...

marksman said:

Where does it say that in the New Testament?

Click to expand...

Where does the New Testament give a pastor the authority to be an autocrat?

Rocky Wiley said:

Dodo,

I made an error in my statement when I said the bible does not say to give some of the tithes to the poor. You have indeed proved that statement of mine wrong.

I stand by my belief that we are not required to give tithes today. The law has passed away and no church should even require tithes of it members. When anything pertaining to tithes in the New Testament is mentioned it is always to those under the law or about those that were under the law.

So my statement to you should have been, "Where is the scripture telling the church to tithe?" We are to "give" not tithe. There is a difference.

There were reasons for tithing in the age of law that do not apply today.

Click to expand...

Rocky, I am not one who says that it is mandatory for non-Jews to tithe.

In my commentary "Hard Questions About Christianity", I state the following:

So, are Christians required to tithe?

Answer: If they are required to do so, then churches are required to use tithes in the ways dictated by the Bible, including using tithes to help people trapped in physical poverty.

Click to expand...

Notice that I answer the tithing question with "If ____, then ____."

I answer that way for this reason:

I want those who insist on mandatory tithing to have a complete picture of what the Bible says about tithes.

* * *

Side Note: On more than one occasion, I have changed my opinion about something because someone in a debate forum revealed something that I was not aware of. I am as fallible as any mere mortal.

rockytopva said:

I expect three things out of a church...

1. Worship - A good worship service
2. Word - A time in the word of God by someone who has prepared a sermon
3. Ritual - I like for rituals like the Eucharist to be done honarably.
4. Doctrine - I like a well defined doctrinal position.

Click to expand...

Looks like four things to me but you still missed one. The most important one - prayer! What good is talking about God without talking to God?

Dodo_David said:

Where does the New Testament give a pastor the authority to be an autocrat?

Click to expand...

That wasn't the question. The question was "Where does it say in the New Testament that a pastor can give sermons and officiate sacraments without being an autocrat" with the emphasis on the sermons and the sacraments.

marksman said:

That wasn't the question. The question was "Where does it say in the New Testament that a pastor can give sermons and officiate sacraments without being an autocrat" with the emphasis on the sermons and the sacraments.

Click to expand...

If you had left out "without being an autocrat", then I would have understood your question.

In Presbyterian-style congregations, the pastor is one of many elders (Greek: presbyters), and the elders as a group officiate sacraments.
The pastor is appointed "teaching elder" by the other elders. The pastor gets his authority from the ruling elders.

In an episcopal-style congregation, the pastor answers to an overseer (Greek: episcopal) who may be the overseer of several congregations.
So, the pastor gets his authority from the overseer.

In Acts 20:28, the Apostle Paul tells the Presbyters of the church in Ephesus that the Holy Spirit had made them Episcopals.
In verse 29 (NIV), he also tells them, "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."
The word pastor means shepherd.
So, we can see how the words pastor, elder and overseer came to be synonymous with each other.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic, can a church actually be a church if it has absolutely no doctrine?
Isn't it the existence of doctrine that forms the basis of a church?

Also, in response to the OP, I find no evident in the New Testament that an individual pastor has the authority to override decisions made by the body of elders.

Indeed, when Paul established a church, he appointed elders (plural) to govern that church.

I see no biblical justification for a senior pastor not being under the authority of a body of elders, which is exactly what you find in some churches.