2 or 3 gathered, number 2

House Church "Start-ups"

First, as you would lay the foundations for your own home church, remember that you are acting upon a Biblical and a historical precedent. You are acting upon the Word of God - not reacting or overreacting to something or someone else. You are building upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, the solid rock.

Do not, however, expect too much nor too little from your initial endeavors. Thunder and lightning won't occur. Christian meetings, although essential, are not and were not meant to be an end in themselves. Their purpose is to equip, edify, encourage, and excite the saints for something else - ministry or service. The popular view that spirituality is essentially measured by the number of "services" that one attends is quite erroneous. We are recreated in Christ for good works. Eph. 2:10, Titus 2:14, Hebr. 10:24. Too many Christians seem to be living for the sole purpose of attending another meeting. This is living to eat instead of eating to live. This is buying an automobile in order to drive back and forth to the filling station.

What about yourself, dear reader? How is your progress in this new direction? Have you yet decided what to call your own meetings as you consider what ministries you will undertake and whom you would invite? Simply call it a Christian meeting, gathering, home fellowship, home church, or small group. Is someone suggesting that you are being too seperatistic? Simply invite that someone to your meeting! Did someone say that you have insufficient accountability? Invite this person to enter into a personal accountability relationship with you. Do you feel that you're not qualified to initiate a meeting? Wrong. Do you feel uncomfortable to lead in prayer? Pray silently. Do you feel that it would be improper to eat the Lord's supper in your own home or even outdoors? Wrong, again. Have you succumbed to the "bigger is better" attitude and look upon two or three individuals that have met in Jesus name as something less than His Church? Read on and study the old masters that we're setting before you. They are not men of inferior learning. Study the Scriptures most of all.

We are offering nothing novel in 2 or 3 Gathered. What Milton said (and others) in the 17th century, the Haldane brothers said in the 18th, and our feature writer James Gall said in the 19th. Their words were as shots that should have been 'heard around the world'. Unfortunately, not.

Simply said, if you are a Christian, you are to be a minister-servant of Jesus Christ and a priest unto the Lord God. You are the 'highest' which God has ordained to do the 'lowest'. Mark 9:35, Mark 10:44. Act accordingly and enter into God's glorious liberty. And fail not to accept the accompanying responsibility to spread the mercy and truth of our Risen Savior, as you find, disciple, and join with like-minded friends.

So, begin by beginning. Like skating in order to learn to skate. Like riding a bike to learn to ride a bike. Yes, the hardest part of a task is getting started. That is why we must continue to encourage one another as we enter the future by returning to the past.

Gall, James

The endless analysis of dysfunctional Christianity echoes from within and without. Exactly what is wrong? Some blame the family breakup or public education. Some point to government liberalism, theological liberalism, humanism, materialism, hedonism, etc. Each of these points does have credible merits and their accompanying tragic consequences.

James Gall, more than a hundred years ago, took a different approach and boldly suggested that the Church had wrongly configured itself after the Temple pattern of the Old Testament. Dysfunction was the guaranteed result. He wrote:

The great apostasy which was predicted in Scripture, and which so disastrously hindered the spread of Christianity by corrupting the Church, commenced almost immediately (Acts 20:29) after the death of the Apostles and the elders that outlived them. Even during the lifetime of the Apostles, the mystery of iniquity (2 Thess.. 2:7) had already begun to work, and in the hands of the Judaising teachers, who sought to bring the Church under subjection to the weak and beggarly elements of the Levitical dispensation, an early indication of the channel in which it was to run became manifest.

We maintain that the temple service and the Levitical system generally were intended to accomplish two great purposes. The first was to give the Israelites healthy employment, until under the Pentecostal dispensation they should be set free to evangelize the nations; so that Abraham might be the heir of the world. The other was, that it might be a schoolmaster to teach the carnal Israelites, by means of shadows and parabolic illustrations, the great features of the person and work of the coming Messiah. Rom. 4:13, Gen. 26:4, Hebr. 11:12.

When the Messiah did come, and when the substance and the reality took the place of the types and shadows, the continuance of the temple system would have been not only unnecessary but injurious; because, instead of leading to a better acquaintance with Christ as our Savior, it would rather withdraw our attention from Him, and prevent us from rising to a more spiritual perception of His preciousness and glory. And in addition to that, it would have so monopolized our time and energies in the continual round of ordinances, that there would have been no time for the Church to devote itself to the great work of the evangelization of the world. Mark 16:15, Rom. 11:11-15, 1Cor. 15:34b.

There were various causes which conspired to favour the return of the Church to the carnality of the temple system; the first of which was no doubt the lingering affection which the Jewish Christians bore to the departed glories of the temple services. The destruction of Jerusalem put an end to the Levitical ordinances, and the Jewish Christians were at length relieved from the obligation to observe them. And yet we should judge very wrongly of the human heart, if we supposed that even the Christian Jews did not feel a pride in the gorgeous and Divinely instituted temple services, which they alone were privileged to engage in. Even though it entailed upon them a bondage which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear; yet when at length the destruction of the temple put an end to it, and when that which for thirty long years had been only ready to vanish away actually disappeared, they never till then knew how dearly they loved it. Even the Jews that were dwelling in foreign lands, although they could not be present at the morning and evening sacrifices, or any of the solemn feasts, had a pleasing consciousness that these were going on; and it would be not without a pang that they became aware that they had ceased forever. The destruction of Jerusalem, therefore, however necessary it might be for the full development of Christianity, must have given a shock to the Christian Church in the person of every one of its Jewish members, and that at a time when the Jewish element largely preponderated. A void would be created that could not but be felt; and it was not unnatural that there should be at least a tendency to make up for the blank by grafting upon Christianity itself something of the nature of the priesthood, and the ritual of the old dispensation.

In course of time also the Gentile converts would outnumber the Jewish, and their influence would tend in the same direction; so that when the spirituality of the Church declined, they too would long for something resembling their elegant temples and their own old and spectacular rites.

But the chief source from which the apostasy took its rise was the natural carnality of the human heart, which is common to both Jew and Gentile. The same dislike to retain God in their knowledge, which gave birth to the abominations of the heathen, was the real parent of the great apostasy. Acts 10:34-35, Eph. 2:3.

Man is naturally a religious being, and even the carnal heart must have a religion of some kind. The sense of moral nakedness is an instinct of our fallen nature, and in the absence of the righteousness of God it is felt to be intolerable. The guilty soul feels that it must have something to come between itself and God, and, like Adam and Eve in Paradise, seeks to manufacture for itself a covering or screen, behind which it may hide itself. The Levitical law had provided for that want, and every animal that was slain provided a temporary covering for sin, so that the shame of the worshipers nakedness did not appear. Thus, from the time of Abel downwards, to the last sacrifice that smoked upon the altar in Jerusalem, there was a blood-stained screen, behind which the guilty conscience felt as if there was a covering for his sin. There was even something in the way of doing in these Levitical ordinances, so that the Jew that did them rested in them, and made his boast of the law, because he lived by them.

But when the temple was destroyed and its carnal ordinances ceased, but more especially when God in Christ presented Himself as the sinner's portion without any intervening ceremonial, the carnal mind shrank from His presence, and eagerly sought some outward observances to come between him and God, and at the same time enable him to pay his homage to his Maker. Nor would this be difficult to find, because there is no veil that shuts out the felt presence of God so effectually as that which is woven of ceremonial rites and bodily observances

Moreover, if Christianity was to receive the patronage of the rich and great, it was felt that it must be made so that unconverted men could adopt it as their religion, giving an outward and bodily homage, without any spiritual devotion or a holy life. When the Church's love began to grow cold, therefore, and its fervor to abate, the outward forms and customs which had been once the natural clothing of a living Christianity, though not always the wisest or the best, became first stereotyped, then traditional, and at length sacred. Gradually, these grew into a rigid and embellished ritual, the performance of which became the substitute of spiritual worship, charity, and fellowship with God. As it departed more and more from the simplicity and spirituality of the synagogue or house church, it approached more and more to the type and character of a temple service, until it ended in the full blown Romish apostasy.

But there was another reason why the carnal mind preferred the temple service to the worship of the synagogue or home. A priest was needed. It was not only necessary that there should be an outward and bodily performance of some religious ritual, it was also necessary that they should have a professionally religious man to do it for them. Christ, in their opinion, was too holy and too heart-searching for them to approach as a mediator; they must have men more like themselves, who would approach God and transact with Him on their behalf. The temple with its priests was more to their taste, than arrangements which had none. The Lord's Supper was early seized upon as the foundation upon which the priestly edifice might be built, and although, in apostolic times, the breaking of bread was no more than a commemorative meal, which required no priestly hands to dispense, it was at length converted into a sacrifice possessed of propitiatory power, which none but priests could offer.

If the priesthood was welcome to those who desired a mediator between them and Christ, it was still more welcome to those who desired to be the mediators. It was pleasing to the carnal mind of the people, because it materialized their worship, and enabled them to satisfy their consciences with a bodily service, and yet, in their hearts, keep at a distance from God. So far from resenting the pretensions of the priests to a sanctity superior to their own, they cordially acquiesced in it as a most desirable arrangement, as it did not require them to be holy too. It was comforting to them to know that there was a class of men who were professionally religious, and that they themselves were not required to be so too, further than giving reverent attention to the outward ordinances, and giving due honor and submission to the priests.

The priests, also, were most willing that it should be so; for although a regard for their profession often prevented them from indulging in the license and profanity of the laity, that was more than compensated by the power which they wielded, and the reverence in which their ghostly office was held.

But in all this there was a double iniquity, because it ignored not only the priestly character and mediatorship of Christ, but also the priestly character of the Church, which Peter calls a royal priesthood (1Pet. 2:9), but which the Romish apostasy degraded to the level of the world under the name of the laity. Having thus assumed to themselves the standing of priests, there was thus a spurious sanctity ascribed to them, independent of their moral character. Being professionally sacred men, they claimed for themselves the reverence and submission of the laity, even though in their private lives they might be the most profligate of men.

Christianity thus became sheathed in an outer crust of gaudy ceremonials and ritualistic performances, which took the place of loving service and a holy life. It was exactly the kind of religion that worldly and ungodly men wanted, because it enabled them to be very religious and very wicked at the same time. By the outward observance of certain forms and ceremonies, and by showing a becoming reverence for the clergy, they satisfied their consciences, while they devoted themselves without stint or scruple to worldly pleasures and sensual gratifications. Their homage to the clergy, and their donations to what they called the Church, were regarded as loyalty to Christ; and in this they were encouraged by an ambitious and ungodly priesthood.

The Levitical system differed from the Abrahamic chiefly in this, that while the Abrahamic was a purely spiritual worship, the Levitical consisted in the performance of certain rites and ceremonies, which in themselves had no moral or spiritual value; and for that purpose it invested certain persons, certain places, certain things, certain times, and certain actions with a canonicity and sacredness, which they would not otherwise have possessed. All this we are told was added to the Abrahamic covenant without superseding it (Gal. 3), till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made, and was intended to shadow forth to a carnal people the Person and the work of a coming Messiah. When the Messiah appeared, therefore, the Levitical covenant was fulfilled and became obsolete.

The Abrahamic covenant, on the contrary, having been confirmed with an oath, and declared to be everlasting, when the temple system disappeared, it left the Abrahamic covenant unchanged in all its integrity. The time had come when neither in Mount Gerizim nor yet in Jerusalem were men to worship the Father, but when the true worshipers would worship Him in spirit and in truth, for it was only such that He sought to worship Him. John 4:23

We must next observe that the worship of the synagogues formed no part of the Levitical system that was done away. This worship was purely Abrahamic both in its character and purpose. There was nothing symbolic and nothing ritualistic in it. There were no sacred men connected with it, for the priests had no standing there. The synagogue itself was not a sacred building; and its worship was purely spiritual and spontaneous. It was the glory of the temple that everything that was done in it was according to a prescribed law; it was the glory of the synagogue that there was no prescribed ritual, but only the spontaneous worship of the heart.

We have already shown that the Christian Church was molded on the synagogue, or rather it was its continuation, and not on the temple system. The elders of the Church were the analog of the elders of the synagogue, their duties being the same. The worship of the Apostolic Church was the analog of the worship of the synagogue, for we look in vain throughout the New Testament for the slightest trace of temple worship in the synagogues or house churches. There were no priests in the Christian Church because the Church itself was a royal priesthood, and their High Priest was Christ.

The adoption of the temple theory produced a complete revolution in the Christian Church, which changed its character, because it necessitated the introduction of the canonical element, in order to imitate the temple service.

Sacred Men

In the first place the great apostasy required that there should be sacred men, to imitate the Jewish priesthood. The Levitical priest was a type of Christ in his Mediatorial character, as the only medium through whom the sinner could communicate with God. The people had no direct access to God, but the priest had access to God, and the people had access to the priest; the priest, therefore, represented Christ as our Mediator, and was therefore a sacred man. But neither in the Edenic nor in the Abrahamic covenant were there any sacred men. The animal sacrifices instituted in Eden were the appointed form of Old Testament worship, and might be offered by any one without the intervention of a priest. It was in the temple system alone that priests were to be found.

In the Apostolic Church therefore, when the temple system was abolished and the Abrahamic covenant alone remained, there were no priests. At the death of Christ the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the holy of holies, which the high priest alone was allowed to enter once a year, was exposed to view; indicating that access to God was open to all without a priest. That being the case, it would have required a direct revelation from God to institute a new order of priesthood, for "no man taketh this honor to himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." It must therefore be presumption and profanity for the Romish priests and afterwards the Protestant clergy to do so, seeing that in the New Testament there is no institution of a Christian priesthood. There were apostles and prophets, and evangelists, and pastors (elders), and teachers appointed by Christ, who was the head of the Church, but where do we find any mention of priests? But the Romish apostasy having chosen the temple and its services as the model of the Christian Church and worship, must needs have a priesthood, and accordingly it transformed the pastors and teachers into priests. And as every priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices, of necessity these men must have somewhat to offer. The Lord's Supper was laid hold of and turned into a sacrifice which only Romish priests could offer.

Sacred Places

In the Levitical system there were not only sacred men, but sacred places and buildings. It is said in Deut. xii.11, "Then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there. Thither shall ye bring all that I command you, your burnt offerings and your sacrifices." Shiloh, and then Gibeon, and then Jerusalem were the places chosen of God as holy places, where He was to put His name. Jerusalem especially is called the Holy City: and by our Lord Himself it is called the City of the Great King. The temple was a sacred building, because it was there that Jehovah dwelt in visible glory between the cherubim.

Under the Abrahamic covenant there were no sacred places, nor sacred buildings. The only instance in patriarchal history in which we find any approach to the consecration of particular places is the vow of Jacob, who vowed that if God would fulfill His promises which He made in Bethel, he would make the stone which he had used as a pillow to become the house of God; a vow which was the child of unbelief, and one of the transgressions because of which the Levitical bondage was imposed upon Israel. God never required Jacob to consecrate any place as a house of God, but as Jacob vowed that he would do so, God held him to his vow, as He also did in regard to the tithes. When the time came, therefore, God put him in mind of his vow, and bade him dwell there and build an altar, showing that in God's sight the only house in which He would then dwell, was not a building, but a covenanted people, which was then the family of Jacob.

Neither were there any holy places or holy buildings recognized in the Apostolic Church. Our Lord told the Samaritan woman that the hour had come when neither in Mount Gerizim, nor yet in Jerusalem, were men to worship the Father. John 4. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find the apostles or the early Christians attaching sacredness to any to any place or building, in connection with either our Lord's history or anything else. There were no pilgrimages to Bethlehem to visit the place of our Lord's nativity, nor to His sepulcher to see the place where our Lord lay. The Apostolic Church knew nothing of either holy places or holy buildings.

But, although neither under the Abrahamic Covenant nor in the Apostolic Church were there any sacred places or buildings, the apostasy having adopted the temple theory, must be consistent in having both holy places and holy buildings. As the temple in which the priests officiated was holy, consistency required that the churches and cathedrals in which "divine service" is performed should be consecrated and thereafter counted holy.

It was supposed that God would be better pleased with worship performed in a building consecrated to His service, and that He would be displeased if afterwards it were put to any other use. For that reason, to steal from any of these buildings, or to use it for any common purpose, was called sacrilege. A diseased and superstitious appetite was thus created, which seized upon every locality, real or fictitious, connected with our Lord's history, and invested it with superstitious reverence and sanctity. The place of His birth, the place of His crucifixion, the place of His burial, and the place of His ascension, were all sought out and regarded as holy. Jerusalem itself, after being in God's providence desecrated, and handed over to the Gentiles, was still the object of superstitious and even fanatical regard, and nothing would satisfy them until they had rescued the holy city from the Moslems. Again and again they dashed themselves against the Saracen conquerors of the Holy Land, believing that God would favour their crusades and give them the victory. But it was in vain - Jerusalem had lost its sanctity. (Isaiah 1, Jeremiah 7:4)

What is more unfortunate for this superstition is this: it has been discovered that the church that was built over what supposed to be the site of the holy sepulcher, is within the walls of the ancient city, and could not therefore be the place of our Lord's burial. Nor is this the only mistake that superstition has made, for it is not improbable that similar mistakes have been have been committed in regard to other localities. If God had intended these places to be the shrines of Christian devotion, the New Testament writers would not have been so silent regarding them.

Sacred Things

In the Levitical system there were also holy things, and the temple theory required that the Romish apostasy should have holy things as well. The tabernacle and its furniture were holy, so holy that none but priests and Levites, who were holy men, might might touch them; so holy, that, when the Ark of the Covenant was carried away from his father's house, Uzzah was smitten dead because he

inadvertently put forth his hand to stay it. The frankincense and the anointing oil were holy, so holy that no one was permitted to compound them or make anything like them for common use. God alone could dictate what was to be holy. The brazen serpent made by Moses in the wilderness, although it was a type of Christ, was later broken into pieces by Hezekiah because it became an object of veneration among the people. He called it contemptuously "a bit of brass". 2 Kings. 18:1-5.

But under the Abrahamic Covenant we find nothing of the kind; neither do we find it in the Apostolic Church. We search in vain in the Acts of the Apostles, or in the Epistles, to discover anything that was an object of veneration in the Christian Church. The disciples had been in daily contact with their Master; Martha and Mary had many opportunities of treasuring up articles connected with our Lord's visits to their house; yet in no case do we find that they ever did so. When the disciples returned from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem, or to their homes in Galilee, how many must have been the objects which our Lord left behind, as mementos of His sojourn here on earth! Had they not felt that He was still a living and a present Savior, they would have gathered up these memorials as precious relics of One whom they should see no more. Joseph would have claimed the linen cloth that he paid for, and Nicodemus would have claimed the hundred pounds weight of spices which he might distribute among his friends as precious memorials of a buried Savior. A committee of the apostles would have been appointed to collect, to label, and to authenticate the objects of veneration left behind, when our Lord passed away. How different the reality! The life of Christianity ran in a totally different channel. Their daily life was in communion with a living Christ, who was with them always.

The Romish apostasy on the contrary, true to its principles of turning back to the Levitical dispensation, must also have its holy things, but unlike the Levitical system, its holy things were not things representing Christ, and set apart by God Himself to represent Him before He came, but objects supposed to be connected with Christ's person, and receiving reflected honor from that connection. That was a principle unknown to the Levitical system, and in the case of the brazen serpent, it was later disowned and condemned. As the apostles had handed down nothing of the kind, the "new priesthood" was obliged to manufacture relics to supply the ever-increasing demand, and imposture was thus called in to nourish superstition. The napkin of Veronica, the holy coat of Treves, the wood of the Cross, the nails of the Crucifixion, and the spear of Longinus, with dead men's bones in cart loads, were the holy things which the Romanists held up for the veneration of mankind.

Sacred Days

Another feature of the temple system was the canonizing of certain days and seasons which were to be kept holy to God. The days of unleavened bread, the feast of tabernacles, the feast of Pentecost, the great day of atonement, and such like, formed the calendar of the Levitical year. They were really holy days and holy seasons set apart by God Himself to be religiously observed by the holy people.

None of these existed before the time of Moses, because, with the exception of the Sabbath, every day was alike under both they was alike under both the Edenic and the Abrahamic covenants. When the Levitical system was abolished all holy days and seasons were abolished with it, and could not be restored except by a revelation from God. The Apostolic church returned to the original simplicity of the Abrahamic covenant, as it was before the Levitical covenant was added.

If it had been possible that holy days or seasons would have been helpful to the spirituality of the Church, the apostles would have been authorized to draw up a Christian calendar, or, at least, to have commenced one by setting apart certain days or seasons in commemoration of events either in our Lord's history or the history of the Church. But we find nothing of the kind in the teaching of either our Lord or His apostles. No doubt the Jewish Christians continued to observe the Levitical feasts for a time, but that was by special permission. When the temple was destroyed, and it was no longer possible to carry on the Jewish ritual, they ceased altogether even among the Christian Jews. Before that time it was a matter of Christian forbearance: when the Christian Jews observed the he Jewish holy days, they did it to the Lord, and when the Gentile Christian esteemed every day alike, he also did it to the Lord. But when the Gentile Christians began to imitate the Jews, and to observe days and months and years, years, Paul entered his protest against it as unlawful; whether it were the keeping of the holy days of the old dispensation or a presumptuous attempt to institute a new Christian calendar, he would not tolerate it. "Ye observe days and months and times and years; I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." Gal. 4:9-11.

But although neither under the Abrahamic covenant, nor in the Apostolic Church, were there any holy days or seasons; nevertheless, because under the Levitical covenant there was such holy days and seasons, the Romish apostasy began to construct a Christian calendar. As their holy places were selected in connection with some of the most prominent incidents of our Lord's life, so in the construction of their calendar, the same principle was adhered to; consequently the day of our Lord's birth, the day of His death, the day of His resurrection, and so on, were canonized. But it is interesting to observe how in God's providence these inventors of evil things were permitted to blunder not only in regard to the places, but also in regard to the times of their superstition.

The day of our Lord's birth was, of course, that which they would be most anxious to canonize and to celebrate as a holy day, but alas, nobody knew what day it was, because there was no tradition on the subject. Either His mother had not told the disciples, or the disciples had never inquired. But so it was, the Apostolic Church kept not their Lord's birthday; and if they ever knew what day it was, they allowed it to be forgotten. What then was the new priesthood to do? They must invent a day. The resolution to which they came was to adopt the great heathen festival called Yule, held in honor of Baal, the sun god, when the sun begins to rise in the heavens. This was the origin of Christmas; and they thought that if it could not be proved that it was the right day, nobody would be able to prove that it was wrong.

In this, however, they were mistaken, because there are two circumstances mentioned in Scripture, which prove that our Lord could not have been born on that day. In the first place, the decree that went forth from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed, required a great deal of traveling to enable each person to be registered in his own city. Having his choice of all the months in the year in which the census should be made, it would have been strange indeed if he had chosen one in which traveling would be most difficult, and in many places impossible. But we are also told in the gospels that there were shepherds abiding in the field all night on the on the same day on which Christ was born. And as the 25th day of December is in the very middle of the rainy season in Palestine, when it was impossible for shepherds to allow their flocks to be without shelter, this is another proof that our Lord could not have been born in the very depth of winter. (editors' note: heed Rom. 14:6)

In regard to the day of our Lord's crucifixion also, God in His providence permitted them to commit a blunder so gross that it casts ridicule on all the superstitions connected with Good Friday. Our Lord was crucified on Thursday, two days before the Jewish Sabbath, that is, on the Thursday of the Passover week. This is asserted thirteen times in the four gospels, while there is not a single verse in any of the four gospels that gives the slightest countenance the idea that He was crucified on Friday. We have no difficulty in discovering what misled them. Long before Good Friday was canonized, the blunder had already been committed, the Romanists, in reading Mark xv.42, "Now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea," &c., never doubted that the Jews counted their days as from midnight to midnight, and that if the evening was the day before the Sabbath, the morning must have been the day before the Sabbath too. It was thus that the tradition rose; it was a Roman blunder, and must have arisen long after the destruction of Jerusalem, and long before the time of Constantine.

Sacred Ceremonies

Last of all, there were in the Levitical system certain rites and ceremonies of Divine appointment, which derived their value not from anything in themselves, or the person who performed them, but from the fact that they were of Divine appointment. As specimens of these we might mention the ceremonies performed at the consecration of the priests, and the minute distinctions to be observed in offering the different sacrifices, none of which were alike. They were all outward, bodily performances, which obtained acceptance not because of the devout spirit in which they were performed, or the motive of the performance, but simply because they were performed in accordance with the law. Under the Abrahamic covenant there was nothing of the kind. There was no ritual and no outward observances which had any merit of their own. Consequently when the Levitical system was abolished, and only the Abrahamic covenant remained, all ritualistic observances were bound to disappear; and unless they were re-enacted or others put in their place, the Church had no power to do so. Under the New Testament dispensation therefore, the only worship that will be accepted by God, is the devotion of heart and charity of life.

But the Romish apostasy, having adopted the temple theory, must have ritualistic worship, and a canonical bodily devotion. The saying of the Mass, with its postures, and genuflections, the attendance of the people while it is being said without being understood, the vain repetition of paternosters, ave Marias, and such like, are but specimens of Romish ritualism. When we remember that the whole Levitical system was prescribed by God Himself, and that nothing was to be changed and nothing added, we must conclude that the ritualism of Rome is not only superstitious, but presumptuous and profane, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. Matt. 15:9. Moses would not have dared to do what they have done.

The great object aimed at by the Romish apostasy was to establish a priestly despotism over the souls and bodies of men, and for that purpose to crowd out all spiritual worship and heart holiness. This was accomplished by substituting an artificial system of barren rites and ceremonies, which may be performed by ungodly men, what ever their character; always taking care that the key of the whole should lie in the hands of the clergy.

The Christianity of the New Testament is the very opposite, being especially the religion of the heart not of the body, bringing men into personal relations with God, without the intervention of a priest. Where there is no love to God therefore, and no purity of heart, no ritual is able to take their place. The purpose of the Gospel is to make peace between God and man by the blood of the Cross, and to bring the sinner into loving communion with his God. The object of the Romish apostasy is to prevent a reconciliation, except through a priest, in order that he may make make profit on the transaction. Matthew 23:14.

No doubt the priests of the Levitical system were higher and more sacred than their brethren, but that was only because they represented Christ, who is the great Mediator between God and man. They offered sacrifices and burned incense in the temple, which the Jewish laity were not permitted to do. But when Christ Himself appeared, and by offering Himself a sacrifice put an end to the Levitical system, both priests and priests and sacrifices were done away. Hebrews 10:6-12.

The pastors or elders of the Church therefore are neither higher in rank nor more sacred than their brethren. The Church is itself a royal priesthood and a holy nation. It is both the bride and the body of Christ. The pastors as Christians are indeed part of that body, and therefore partake of her consecration and dignity, but as pastors they are only the senior attendants or servants of the bride, and derive all their dignity from her. She does not belong to them, but they belong to her. "Therefore let no man glory in man, for all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, all are yours, and ye are Christ's and Christ is God's." The order of dignity therefore is, first God, then Christ, then the Church, and then its servants.

Paul understood this well, for although he was the greatest of the Apostles, he regarded himself as only the Servant of the Bride of Christ. "Whether we be afflicted it is for your consolation, or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation." "For all things are for your sakes." "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which was behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for His body's sake, which is the Church." "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake."

We have reason to thank God that during the whole of the present century (19th) the priestliness of the evangelists and pastors has been gradually melting away under the influence of a revived Bible Christianity. But it has not yet altogether disappeared, because the temple theory is still de jure recognized, and only partially repudiated de facto.

In the first place, we have not yet learned to distinguish between holy orders and holy functions. The pastorate is not an order like the priesthood, but a function of the Christian eldership. The shadow of the temple theory still rests upon us in many things. For example, we have still the idea that baptism and the Lord's Supper can only be administered by priestly hands, and that marriage can only be rightly celebrated by a priest at the altar. If we examine Scripture on the subject, we shall find that it gives no countenance to such an idea. So far as the Bible is concerned, any Christian may administer baptism or dispense the Lord's Supper, and any man may perform the marriage ceremony whom the civil magistrate may authorize to do so. As for marriage, both under the Old and the New Testament dispensation, it was a civil rite, with which neither priest nor apostle had anything to do.

It is the Church and not office-bearers that is called the pillar and ground of the truth. 1Tim.3.15, because it is the spirit of Christ dwelling in the Church that is the truth.

The Tendency of the Temple System

The constant tendency of the temple theory is to magnify and exaggerate everything of a material character that can be molded into a priestly rite; whereas the constant tendency of living Christianity is to withdraw attention from merely outward and bodily observances, and to fix it on practical godliness and the worship of the heart. It is only part of the dregs of the temple theory that makes godly men in remote localities shrink from baptism and the Lord's Supper, refusing to commemorate the Lord's death, according to His dying command, because there is not an ordained minister present to make them valid. It is well that this error should be exposed, and that the liberties of the Church should be understood; but we should be acting contrary to brotherly kindness and to the spirit of Christianity, if we gave offense to weak brethren by using or flaunting our liberty before them. All things are lawful to the Christian, but all things are not expedient. We are, and have been for a long time sloughing off (shedding) the temple exuviae (shell, skin, or covering that is shed by an organism); let the process go on naturally and spontaneously, without violence, and without disturbing the peace of the Church. Amen.

The Levitical system, with its external ordinances and formulated rites, bears the same relation to the New Testament system, as exhibited in Scripture, that the crustacean forms of life bear to the vertebrate. They are both Christian, but the Levitical Christianity is sheathed in an outer crust of gaudy ceremonials and ritualistic performances, which enable men to be very religious without even professing to be pure in heart; and as long as they are obedient to the ceremonial law, they are supposed to have fulfilled its demands. Christianity and the house churches belong to a higher type of religion than Judaism and the temple, in the same sense that vertebrate animals belong to a higher type of life than the crustaceans. The crab, for example, wears its skeleton on the outside as an external casing, whereas the vertebrate animals have their skeleton within. The consequence is, that when a vertebrate animal dies it leaves only a few bones behind, having little resemblance to the original form; but when a crustacean dies there is no change in its outward form - so far as that is concerned, life and death make little difference. The dead crab is just as plump and perfect looking as it was when it was alive. So did God intend for the Levitical system to be independent of life as far as form was concerned. It had no life in itself, and was not intended to have any, because its only purpose was to present to the bodily eye an outward and visible representation of something else which was to take its place.

The Christian Church, on the contrary, belongs not to the crustacean, but to the vertebrate type of life. It has no rigid crust of outward forms, which makes it independent of spiritual life and, therefore, vitality is essential not only to its comeliness, but to its very existence.

We must remember also that Romanism is nothing else than the religion of Jesus molded into conformity with the native corruptions of the human heart. There is not a single element of Popery which is not to be found dimming the brightness and marring the usefulness, not only of every Church on earth, but of every member of these Churches. So natural and so insinuating are these errors that they grow into deformity before they are recognized; and in their incipient form are anything but repulsive. Ritualism and Sacerdotalism, in a diluted form, give rather a zest to that which is naturally insipid to the carnal taste. Authority and centralization are the world's own way of being strong, and although Christ has expressly forbidden (Matthew 23:8-12) their introduction into His Church, yet the prohibition is evaded as meaning something else. Intolerance, provided it be ourselves that measure the dose and administer the medicine, is always regarded as healthy, and sometimes indispensable; and tradition is simply the heredity of opinions and habits, which casts its vote against any change, whether right or wrong - and who of us is without it? If we always planted our compasses upon Scripture as our center, the circle we should draw would be always and everywhere the same; but if we substitute tradition for our center instead of Scripture, immediately we have a multiplicity of denominations as the result.

The corruptions of Popery or Templeism are the full grown weeds of God's garden, which require only neglect to allow them to grow, and they can only be kept down by continual and progressive reformations. Even in individual Christians there is always a Popish crust being formed upon the surface of their religious life, which requires to be continually removed by the child-like reading of the Bible, and especially, by cultivating fellowship with living Christians of other perspectives than their own. It is by such means only that the spirituality and purity of their experience can be maintained.

There is not a Protestant Church or sect that is not daily growing its own Popery, and it is only by continual revivals and reformations that it can escape from an unconscious process of corruption and decay. The Church that most glories in its own superiority to other Churches is the one that ought to be most jealous of itself. "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

From The Synagogue, Not the Temple, the Germ and Model of the Christian Church (chapter 4). Christian social reformer in Scotland. As a result of his inner-city work, public drunkenness in Edinburgh was cut in half.

Milton, John

And this all Christians ought to know, that the title of clergy St. Peter gave to all God's people, till Pope Higinus and the succeeding prelates took it from them, appropriating that name to themselves and their priests only; and condemning the rest of God's inheritance to an injurious and alienate condition of laity, they separated from them by local partitions in churches, through their gross ignorance and pride imitating the old temple, and excluded the members of Christ...

For we have learned that the scornful term of laic, the consecrating of temples, carpets, and tablecloths, the railing in of a repugnant and contradictive mount Sinai in the gospel, as if the touch of a lay Christian, who is nevertheless God's living temple, could profane dead Judaisms, the exclusion of Christ's people from the offices of holy discipline through the pride of a usurping clergy causes the rest to have an unworthy and abject opinion of themselves, to approach to holy duties with a slavish fear and to unholy doings with a familiar boldness. For seeing such a wide and terrible distance between religious things and themselves, and that in respect of a wooden table and the perimeter of holy ground about it, a flagon pot and a linen corporal, the priest esteems their layships unhallowed and unclean, they fear religion with such a fear as loves not, and think the purity of the gospel too pure for them, and that any uncleanness is more suitable to their unconsecrated estate. But when every good Christian, thoroughly acquainted with all those glorious privileges of sanctification and adoption which render him more sacred than any dedicated altar or element, shall be restored to his right in the church, and not excluded from such place of spiritual governments his Christian abilities and his approved good life in the eye and testimony of the church shall prefer him to, this and nothing sooner will open his eyes to a wise and true valuation of himself, which is so requisite and high a point of Christianity, and will stir him up to walk worthy the honorable and grave employment wherewith God and the church hath dignified him; not fearing lest he should meet with some outward holy thing in religion which his lay touch or presence might profane, but lest something unholy from within his own heart should dishonor and profane in himself that priestly unction and clergy-right whereto Christ hath entitled him. Then would the congregation of the Lord soon recover the true likeness and visage of what she is indeed, a holy generation, a royal priesthood, a saintly communion, the household and city of God. And this I hold to be another considerable reason why the functions of church government ought to be free and open to any Christian man, though never so laic, if his capacity, his faith, and prudent demeanor commend him. And this the apostles warrant us to do. But the prelates object that this will bring profaneness into the church; to whom may be replied that none have brought that in more than their own irreligious courses, nor more driven holiness out of living into lifeless things.

John Milton, The Reason of Church Government, 1642. English poet and scholar who is best known for the epic poem Paradise Lost (1667).

Haldane, Robert

Many of the errors of the Man of Sin arise from considering teachers of the New Testament as successors of the priests under the law. But there is now no priesthood, except in Christ, who abides a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The priests under the law of Moses were His types. As he is come, and has engrossed the whole duties of the office to Himself, He alone possesses priesthood. There is no longer any need of a typical priesthood; and the great sacrifice has been already offered. When the Apostles are spoken of as doing any part of the priest's office, it is in a figurative sense. It is in the same sense that the altar is spoken of. As there is no sacrifice now to be offered, there is now no altar. To give the Lord's table the name of an altar is very erroneous. It is wonderful (amazing) to consider how, from the figurative use of a few words in the New Testament and in early Church history, a number of the grossest and most superstitious doctrines and practices, as has been already observed, arose in the Church. The bread of the Lord's table at length becomes the body of Christ in the literal sense; the table on which it lay became the altar; the teachers became the priests who offered the sacrifices of the mass; and the contributions of Christians became offerings. In all these things, and innumerable others, the figurative sense has been, by a gross imagination and the artifice of Satan, turned into a literal sense, to the utter subversion of truth.

Robert Haldane in An Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, 1835, pp. 619-20. That the Apocrypha is removed from the English Bible was the result of the scholarship of Haldane. He also sold what was referred to as "the most enchanting seat (his house and land) in all Scotland" and gave 10's of millions of dollars to foreign missions.

Adams, John

I confess I am not fond of the Presbyterian Meetings in this Town. I had rather go to our Church. We have better sermons, better prayers, better speakers, softer, sweeter musick, and genteeler company. And I must confess, that the Episcopal Church is quite as disagreeable to my taste as the Presbyterian. They are both Slaves to the Domination of the Priesthood. I like the Congregational way best - next to that, the Independent.

John Adams to Abigail Adams, Oct. 9, 1774; Butterfield, Abigail and John, pp. 78-79. The first Vice President (1789-1797) and second President (1797-1801) of the United States.

Round Table

You mean I'm not alone? You mean after 12 years of starting house churches, writing about finishing the Reformation (Leadership, Presbyterian Survey, Searching Together, etc.) and preaching these concepts to unreceptive, uncaring crowds, there's a network and a newsletter? Joseph Higginbotham

We are "experimenting" with home churching in our large home schooled family. Thank you, Tina Filbert

We have been worshiping in our home for over eight years, sometimes with others, sometimes alone. We are looking forward to reading your newsletter! Pam and Darrell Smith

Please send us your Newsletter "2 or 3 gathered." We have been out of the "mainstream" for almost a year now and have found that we have grown in the Lord by leaps & bounds! We look forward to your newsletter. In Him, Doug & Anne Van Patten

Please add our names to your mailing list and to your networking list. We are home schooling our three sons (ages: 14, 13, and 5 years old). We would love to meet some folks who are "not forsaking the assembly of the Saints" in simple first century ways ... "From house to house"... NOT "going to Church" in superficial twentieth century ways. Sincerely, Vivian Maddox

We are a Homeschooling family, and we are having reservations about organized Church in todays society. My son comes home from Sunday School telling about all the jokes told in class, what the kids were up to, etc., and getting nothing from the lesson itself. I'm hoping your newsletter will help us with our problem. Yours in Christ, Mrs. G.J.

We also currently hold services in our home. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this regard. Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ, by Sovereign Grace, A. Hembd

Please send me the newsletter of the House Church Network, Int. Also, if available any information of resources/books on the Home Church movement. Thank you so much for your advertisement in 'Great Christian Books'! How timely for us! God Bless! Mary Guenther

Thank you very much for sending me a sample copy of the introductory issue of "2 or 3 gathered". I have read it and must say that I found much I agreed with, some with which I did not agree, and some which stimulated more thinking. I have become more and more interested in the Home Church concept since seeing your advertisement.

I think you are doing an admirable job with the newsletter and would ask you to please enter a subscription for me for the next five issues. I look forward to more stimulating reading. Your Brother in Christ, James D. Rich

Please send me the issues of your Newsletter and any information about your network. My family has home churched for 10+ years and we'd love to find others locally and across the nation. Thank you. In Christ, Scott D. McKellips

Praise the Lord! God's Spirit has been speaking to some of us here about the possibility of a home church. We are very interested in learning more. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter ... Thank you very much and God bless you with His peace. Dianne Brooks

We've been worshiping as a cell church for about a year now, and enjoying every moment. The intimacy and accountability are invaluable, and as a woman, I find myself sharing about God's working in my life as I never would have in our former style of organization.

I'd love to be in contact with others who have chosen this same method of organization. Thank you, Andrea Jessop

Greetings in Christ Jesus. I am part of a home church in Maine and am interested in helpful insights from others doing the same thing. Sincerely in Christ Jesus, Curtis Cataline

Praise the LORD! Just as our family has been confronted with church business as usual just one too many times, we come across a different idea that sounds so much more Biblical. We have been checking into Home Church just recently and are not quite sure how to begin. In Christ, Anette Leeder

We are currently churched but are intrigued with the possibility of returning to 1st century Christian worship. Thank you, Sherryl Dombeck

We lead a Home Church Ministry here. God bless you. Your brother and sister in Christ, David & Lois Handt

Thank you for the first issue of 2 or 3 gathered. We found it very interesting as it answers many questions we had about beginning our own home church. In Christ, Colin & Cheryl Christie

My husband and I through the Lord's direction have begun a Church in our home. Sincerely in the Grace of Jesus Christ our Lord, Carolyn Hennig

For some time now, I have wondered whether the traditional structure of our churches was biblical. I have recently concluded it isn't but have sought for alternatives. Sincerely in His Cause, John J. Murphy, DC

Colwell, Steven

The clergy of the church of Rome and all denominations of Christians since the Reformation have failed, as we allege, to present Christianity to the world in the sublime and simple beauty in which it was clothed by its Author in his ministrations. The papal clergy have overlaid it with the superstitious mummeries and traditions of ages of darkness: through which the faintest traces of the divine and pure original can scarcely be perceived. The Protestant clergy have rescued the Bible from the darkness of papal libraries and have scattered it abroad over the whole earth. They have exalted it in the highest terms of human praise. They have studied, commented, and explained, nay even tortured every word, phrase, and expression in the original and translations, for every possible interpretation.

The result is, that Christianity is smothered in theology and criticism: the truths of revelation are wire - drawn and spun and twisted into the most fantastical shapes human fancy or human logic can devise. A system of technical divinity has been constructed which rivals in complexity all the machinery of the Romish church.

New Themes for the Protestant Clergy: Creeds Without Charity, Theology Without Humanity, and Protestantism Without Christianity, pp. 211-212. Lippincott, Grambo & Co., Philadelphia, PA 1851.

Steven Colwell, Princeton University Trustee, anonymously published New Themes.

To discuss this article, enter the appropriate web forum.

housechurch.org > 2 or 3 gathered index > this document

 

---

---