R.L. Faber

The Other Trend 1 Corinthians 14, etc www.rlfaber.com/othertrend.html Version 1 - March, 25, 2024 R. L. Faber oneanotherchurch earlychurch relational church traditionalchurch

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to explain what we mean by the "Other Trend."
NOTE: Under construction: There is a lot of overlap with oneanotherchurch.

Introduction

The Bible shows a way of doing church that is very different from our traditional church ways. ^{3.earlychurch} Every church in the New Testament met in a home and there was no one man who preached sermons at the primary weekly meeting. ^7.sermon Every meeting in the New Testament church included the Lord's Supper as a full meal to encourage fellowship and remind them of what Jesus had accomplished. ^{5.lordssupper} The full meal of the Lord's Supper relates to the full meal of the Jewish Passover where children were important. ^6.fullmeal The early church never met in disconnected assemblies but always thought of themselves as the church at the location (city/town). ^8.citychurch According to 1 Corinthians 14, only men spoke/shared. The men were required to take turns speaking and there was always an expectation of testing (evaluation). Anyone who spoke was to be evaluated (tested). No one was allowed to speak without being subject to evaluation. All evaluation was to be based on the Bible (if we filter though our modern times). The Bible is not clear on the role of the elder in this meeting, but we assume the elder was responsible to speak up if something was out of order. If other men did not speak up, an elder would be responsible to speak up if anything was clearly out of order. In the early church, there was special revelation from God. We assume God granted this in the early days but now expects us to follow the Apostles teaching as recorded in the Bible. God could theoretically give special revelation today, but we do not see this and so we conclude that God expects us to not look for it. We have the sufficient-for-life Bible well established and in our hands. We are calling this different way of doing church a "trend" based on a comment by D. A. Carson. He speaks about this "trend" as having good biblical evidence. He suggests that we should consider it. Even though we are not involved in this kind of church, we dream about it. We live it out as best we can, even as we attend a traditional church. But we have long noticed how the Bible encourages a very one-another way of doing church, very unlike modern church. ^4.oneanother

The main criticism many people have about using 1 Corinthians 14 is that it seems to involve special revelation. We do not believe God is sending new revelations to Christians as he did in the early church. We think the purpose has been fulfulled (1 Cor 14:21). So when you read 1 Corinthians 14, we believe one must read it without the idea of special revelations. But according to D. A. Carson, the word prophesy is very broad. So one can and should read 1 Corinthians 14 without the narrow definition of prediction prophecy. 1 Corinthians 14 should be read for today without assuming tongues and special revelations. If you have ever read the chapter of 1 Corinthians 14 and have removed the parts about tongues and revelations (things we do not think apply to the church today), you might notice what we are talking about.

Men are supposed to speak up for the purpose of encouragement. There is a "dynamic interplay, sharing, give and take"... a more relational style of church service than we are used to experiencing. We will call this the "Other Trend." This term is taken from a sentence in D. A. Carson's "Showing the Spirit." On page 136 (1987), he says,

"So far as our practices today are concerned, this means we should give more thought to developing in our contexts both trends found in biblical evidence."

What is he talking about?

Well, we came to these ideas long before reading this in D. A. Carson's famous book on 1 Corinthians 12-14. He just says it in a very short clear way and gives a good suggestion at the end. He begins a two-page section like this:

Let Schweizer set the stage: "It is completely foreign to the New Testament," he writes, "to split the Christian community into one speaker and a silent body of listeners."⁶⁶ The same point has been made by many more popular writers:⁶⁷ chapter 14 reflects a church service where there is a dynamic interplay, sharing, give and take-- not detailed liturgy climaxed by lengthy exposition delivered by one properly recognized authority.

We omit the rest of the page and following page, but we appreciate the section and recommend you read up on it or contact us for more information about this if you cannot get access to the book.

He ends with the helpful assessment that we are agreeable to:

"So far as our practices today are concerned, this means we should give more thought to developing in our contexts both trends found in biblical evidence." Page 136 - D.A. Carson - "Showing the Spirit" - Baker Books - 1987

The Complementarian Other Trend View

We will refer to the usual (common) church way as "traditional", but we are not trying to demean it by this term. It is just helpful to use terms. We will sometimes refer to "The Other Trend" as the "Relational" church, but that is not trying to make too much of the term since there is much relational activity in a traditional church meeting. We may need a separate article to develop a justification for terminology! But on to the main point... we want to clarify what we believe about our complementarian "Other Trend" views.

We agree with NTRF (or perhaps more so) that the Bible presents a very complementarian view of man/women roles in the church, particularly in the "worship service." Just like in the traditional church, there is a debate about complementarian or egalitarian views, so the same is true in the "other trend" perspective. We hold to the simple plain reading of the Bible that when it says the man should speak and the women should remain silent (at times), it means what it says. ^{2.complementarian}

Many egalitarian-oriented Christians will immediately react to this with disgust. But the same is true of our reaction. We react with disgust when we hear the egalitarian view being advanced because we think it is compromising God's Word and distorting the truth. But we have to calm down a little bit and be reminded that we do have friends who think differently than us, and who are also solid believers in Jesus. We believe the differences are opportunities to learn how to discuss and debate and when to hold off from those activities, to maintain the peace. Every discussion with a true Christian should remain with a desire to maintain a peaceful dialog. True Christians who cannot discuss issues are not showing the love of 1 Corinthians 13, John 1, etc. It is good to express your views and know why you believe what you believe. Don't just follow others. Study the Bible and find your support in the Bible. We should all be becoming experts in the Bible. Christians who read the Bible as their main text will also have to read other books to be relevant to the struggles and issues of our times. So we do read books... we do sometimes read books (or skim books) that others like. But we should mainly be looking for good books that we find to be faithful interpreters of the Bible. We should test all things... that means finding good interpreters and this will include finding weak points of the good interpreters.

So in summary, we may refer to some books within this "other trend", like Jon Zens, or "Robert Banks", but that does not mean we support their egalitarian views. No, we see a complementarian "other trend" as a good biblical interpretation. We would not need to use these terms, except we find all kinds of strange differences in how our modern interpretations deal with the Bible. If we just read our Bible, we cannot hide the fact that we have been "taught" every week in our churches for many years. We filter everything we read in our Bible. We don't just read the Bible in a clean slate context. Everything we read in the Bible gets filtered by our pre-conceived ideas. A new Christian learns the way. The pastors teach the way. It may be a while until you discover these ideas. You may have to read the bible for years and meditate for years to see how we have changed. It may be in plain English, but it can be hidden by the traditions we have developed over the years. We are not implying this kind of distortion among traditionalists, but by way of analogy, a Catholic person will naturally think their way is right. A Mormon will think their way is right. It is only when you ask questions and read the Bible with thoughtful discussion and dialog that one may notice blind spots. It is only when you hear the testing responses (as in 1 Cor 14 describes), that you might notice some spots where you might be following traditions that have been added. There are some ways that our modern church has been influenced by factors outside of the teaching of the Apostles. The natural question at this point is to discover if any of these traditions are “traditions of man” (as the Bible says) or if they are following the traditions of the Apostles (something we are encouraged to follow).

The Bible is our standard, but we have to interpret it carefully.

What Other Books Explain The Other Trend View?

First, we would say that "the other trend" is our view of what we think the Bible teaches. We are not trying to spin the Bible to support some alternative idea. Rather, we are trying to follow the Apostles and what they have said about church meetings. Some people believe there should be regular sermons in the worship service and others (like ourselves) see the Bible as teaching something different a bit different in 1 Cor 14. We are friendly toward the traditional church. But we want to see the Bible informing our "worship services." We want the Apostles to guide our church meetings. We would fully support most of the traditional evangelical church ways. We are regularly encouraged by attending traditional churches. Our friends go to traditional churches so we do too.

There are many books related to the "Other Trend." Some are supportive of our complementarian "other trend" views. We could add other words too... Like "reformed-complementarian-other-trend"... but that starts to get ridiculous. So we shorten it to the "other trend" since that is a confusion. But yes, we are also "reformed" in the sense that we believe God is sovereign. Yes, we believe in compatibilism, but that is getting off-topic. Our focus here is to show something important but not important like the Gospel. How the church orders itself and how worship services go is important just like many important things in life that affect you, but don't define you. You are a Christian because you believe in the Gospel. But as a Christian, you may have many different views.

So the "other trend", when rightly understood, is just trying to follow the Bible when it encourages a one-another-oriented church. There are many who write about the "other trend", and we will list some books, but that does not mean we endorse all the views of these writers. We are only saying that we see something in God's Word that makes us want to follow what we see. Before and after listing some more passionate writers (who may be extreme or "off" in some ways), we first want to begin with someone who succintly tries to moderate the trends (like D. A. Carson does). Ultimately, we want to see the Bible and the apostles writing gain more influence, not win an argument about church style. Stephen Crosby seems to agree with D. A. Carson, and seems to understand a peaceful blend of the traditional and the other trend.
youtube.com/StephenCrosby-ekklesia-I
youtube.com/part-II
youtube.com/part-III
youtube.com/part-IV

But now, since we are on the topic of the "other trend", and since there are more passionate writers, we list some of them now.

Jon Zens has a book titled, "58 to 0 - How Christ leads through the one anothers."
Francis Chan has a book "Letters to The Church."
Watchman Nee has a book called "The Normal Christian Church Life",
"The Church and the Work I - Assembly Life",
"The Church and The Work III - Church Affairs."
NTRF has an older book - "Toward A House Church Theology."
Robert Banks has a classic called "Paul's Idea of Community - The Early House Churches in Their Cultural Setting."
Jon Zens has another book that may be slightly offensive, called "The Pastor Has No Clothes! - Moving from a clergy-centered church to a Christ-centered Ekkesia." The book may be a bit offensive, but so is a misleading teaching that distorts the role of the pastor.
Beresford Job's book is called "Biblical Church - A challenge to unscriptural traditions and practice."
John S. Hammet has a book at questions ordination. "Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches." We first heard John Hammet in a 9Marks interview. He is by a Southern Baptist teacher with missionary experience in Brazil.
David C. Norrington's book is called "To Preach or Not To Preach? - The Church's Urgent Question."
Jon Zens has a book called "A Church Building Every 1/2 Mile."
Frank Viola has a book called "Pagan Christianity."

Some of these books are more provocative than we are comfortable with. Some of these books are very egalitarian. We are more comfortable with the tone in D. A. Carson's Showing the Spirit. We are very comfortable with NTRF's teaching, though we may have a few differences. We are just saying there are quite a few books (we have just mentioned a few) and more that keep coming off the presses.

If the Bible is true and reveals something special in the authentic one another oriented way (As D.A. Carson describes), then there will be a stream of people reacting to the traditional church. You will only be able to stop this stream of ideas by controlling the platform and trying to ignore these ideas.

How to Proceed With Our Different Views?

We prefer an open discussion that is not afraid to research, as D. A. Carson has surely done. We do not think that D. A. Carson says it all right. We rather think he is a bit shy about discussing the topic for a book "on 1 Corinthians 12-14." But we also think there is a good reason for his hesitancy. It seems the topic of how the church should operate is a "silenced topic." D. A. Carson knows well that he will be somewhat rejected and dismissed if he says much more on the topic.

But D. A. Carson does offer wisdom and a way forward that is more open. He suggests that we accept both trends. In our current model, there is a quiet silencing of the other trend. There is a constant re-affirming of the traditional model. The topic is not explored except by those rare readers who do read these "popular writers." In the church I attend, there seems to be a complete ignorance and a suspicion of these "hidden books." One older man who left our church some years ago spoke about reading "Pagan Christianity", but that is the only person I recall. (And this is not a great book in our opinion) His awareness of these ideas was only pricked by this book, but he had not studied the topic well (in our opinion). This book has its distortions (It overstates many ideas). It is better to read more carefully and more extensively. I have heard that D. A. Carson reads quite a few books on a topic before he writes on a topic (like a hundred or so). The average Christian man, myself included, cannot cover that much material while holding a job. Nor should he. But it is the anti-study squelching of learning and reading that we are concerned about. If a top scholar reads and discusses like this... he is not acting strange. He is doing what every man should be doing. We live in an age of pretty good information that can help to counter the flood of distortions. But like the "hidden treasure" in Matthew 13:44, the "treasure" comes to us through biblical words that are massively filtered and interpreted by the teachers in our modern days.

We encourage each man to read their Bible and study it well. We encourage each man to read other good books related to the Bible to help counter the distortions of our modern age. We encourage each man to discuss any ideas that seem important with other godly men. We encourage each woman to get together with other godly women and let the older women teach the younger women. We encourage women to respect the way the Bible calls women to behave in how they learn the truth in the Bible. We encourage men to respect the Apostles and follow not only their teaching but also their traditions. ^1.traditions

The bottom line is that Christians have different views about how the church should operate. We encourage everyone to study the topic, find the best books, find the best ideas, discuss these ideas and always put God's Word as our guide for how we live.

In summary, we like the tone and peaceful way that Stephen Crosby explains how the traditional church and the other trend can work together. He seems to agree with D. A. Carson and says it in more words, but still very short and to the point. We think there is wisdom in trying to peacefully blend the traditional and the other trend.
youtube.com/StephenCrosby-ekklesia-I
youtube.com/part-II
youtube.com/part-III
youtube.com/part-IV

FOOTNOTES

1.traditions

Holding to The Traditions of the Apostles

NTRF says this well,

1 Corinthians 11–14 constitutes a four-chapter section on church practice. In this passage, Paul revealed his attitude about following his ecclesiological traditions: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you" (1Co 11:2). He praised the church at Corinth for holding to his traditions.

timeless-apostolic-traditions

2.complementarian

Complementarian Views

On the topic of complementarian vs egalitarian we actually would disagree with some of our favorite Bible scholar friends like D.A. Carson and Douglass Moo in favor of John MacArthur (and others) who hold to the plain reading of scripture (in a complementarian way of understanding).

There is much more we could add to this footnote. But to keep it simple we assume you are familiar with the book by John Piper and Wayne Grudem on the topic. We also assume you can compare the Study Bible notes in John MacArthur's Study Bible and compare it with the egalitarian ESV Study Bible.

We may add more to this later... but this is really a separate topic, so we should really link to another topic article.

3.earlychurch

Learning The Early Church Ways

This footnote could be another article since the topic of the early church ways is a huge research area. For now we just give a few links and we will add to this as we have time.

This is one of our favorite trustworthy websites and ministries for many years about "the other trend" (Not that he would call it that). We know Steve Atkerson, having met him a few times, stayed at his home, read his books/articles, followed him since 1998, etc.

NTRF.org

Google search on March 2024 using these key wordsh:
"the early church one another interactive testing 1 Cor 14"

The link below has an interesting discussion full of divergent thinking on the 1 Cor 14 interactive meeting topic from 2008. This is a good demonstration of traditional vs biblical thinking (less biblical/traditional vs more biblical thinking). It seems the one guy wants to keep "the traditions of man/church" alive, no matter what the Bible is obviously saying. The one guy is asking good questions and is closer to the truth. The other guy is hung up on traditions and how the church has become better over time (The modern pastoral role, sermons, etc). The "Senior" guy is the one who is holding on to traditions, with an interpretive filter technique that nullifies a lot of what Scripture is saying. The "Freshman" guy is listening more closely to scripture and is asking some good questions. Unfortunately, we still see him as not going far enough in following scripture. He still seems to be blinded by his interpretation of church and modern traditions. The discussion is good, and we would enjoy digging into the details of the discussion more, but that would have to be another article.

puritanboard.com/1cor-14...

4.oneanother

Early Church One Another Church Meetings

The early church focused on one another oriented way of doing church. Here are some references.

youtube.com/NTRF-Participation NTRF.org

youtube.com/TomWadsworth-#1 (#1 has issues) session-#2 (#2 and the rest are ok)

youtube.com/JonZensPulpit

youtube.com/JonZens-Elusive

youtube.com/JonZens-Leader

youtube.com/JonZens-ToPreachers

youtube.com/JonZens-Pews

youtube.com/JonZens-Journey

5.lordssupper

The Lord's Supper In The Early Church

NTRF videos and articles on the Lord's Supper, by Stephen Atkerson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NBLHk_a9LY

ntrf.org/the-lords-supper-a-fellowship-meal/

https://ntrf.org/helpful-hints-for-hosting-the-lords-supper/

6.fullmeal

The "Passover" like Lord's Supper as a Full Meal

The Lord's Supper in the early church was celebrated as a full meal.

"it would have been one loaf of bread that was broken and shared among the believers

"the Corinthians were evidently celebrating their version of the Lord's Supper in the context of a full meal (full at least, for some of the members but not for all of them)."

To the early church, eating supper at church was mixed up with the Lord's Supper.

Imagine little children being "fenced" from the Lord's Supper, watching their parents eat a full meal and being denied participation in the Passover Seder like full meal. Think of the Philipian jailer who wanted his whole household to participate in his decision to follow the Jesus Paul spoke about (Acts 16:31-34). Think of the Passover being celebrated for a long time with the children being a focus.

Each Jewish fatehr was to explain to his son that he celebrated the Passover Seder the way he did because...

Any behavior that would marginalize members of the community or treat them as lesser members of the body must be strictly avoided.

7.sermon

The Sermon - Pulpit Or Participation

This video by Jon Zens discusses the typical sermon meeting vs the participation meeting.

youtube.com/JonZensPulpitOrParticipation.

8.citychurch

The City / Town Church

The Bible records a consistent record of considering the visible local church meeting at the "city" (or town) level. The Jerusalem church considered the whole city to be one church, even though the 1000s of Christians probably gathered in many house churches (especially after the temple was destroyed in 70 AD).

D.A. Carson ^9.carson

Douglas Moo ^10.moo

Brian Rosner ^11.rosner

Alexander Strauch: ^12.strauch

Robert Banks ^13.banks

Watchman Nee ^14.nee

John Hammett ^15.hammett

The Apostles seem to have consistently assumed a local church to be at the city level and this created a unity that even unbelievers could easily observe. The basis (or "ground") of the church was at the city/town/postal level (not at the individual assembly level). If someone asks how we do this in a large city like London, they are distracting and missing the point. Even people outside the inner part of London say, "lets go into the city." The city of Jerusalem was large enough to see that a rather large city church model can work just fine.

We think considering church at the city/town/postal level is the best way to respect the traditions, practice and ways of the Apostles. We believe if we do that, God will work out details of how it will work.

You can read more about this topic here: citychurh

9.carson

D.A. Carson on The Early Church and Local Church Assemblies

D.A. Carson on early church and modern church assemblies (mp3)

D.A. Carson explains,

The church in Jerusalem was made up of one unified "church": denominations had not yet been invented. But although for a while Christians could meet together in a large venue such as Solomon's porch, it wasn't long before this venue would not do, both because they became too numerous, and because of virulent opposition. This meant that the one "church" in Jerusalem was soon broken up into many house groups. It was the same in Ephesus. There wasn't one physical assembly, even though Christians spoke of the "church" (singular) in Ephesus. All the people of the one church in Ephesus met in different locations, in different assemblies. It was not long before Christians became so numerous that there was no one site suitable for a single meeting. Obviously, they could not rent the stadium - the same stadium where, slightly later, they were fed to the lions - so they met in various houses. As a result, what we refer to as "house churches" in the ancient world functioned in some ways a bit like our individual "churches," except that our local churches are often bigger, and sometimes much bigger, than their "house churches." But all of their "house churches" in one city constituted, as far as they were concerned, the "church" of that city. How the elders of that one "church" were distributed, it is impossible to say. Perhaps smaller house churches had one elder each; perhaps larger house churches had several elders. We simply do not know.

Out of these terminological realities have sprung two or three competing theories. In particular, the Presbyterian view of things holds that all of the elders - the presbyters - of a particular area constitute one body, the body as a whole having some kind of control over all the local churches in that area. But there is another view, one with which I am personally more comfortable. But to explain it, I need to establish a larger framework.

In the New Testament, a final authority rests, in many cases, with the congregation. In 1 Corinthians 5, for example, there is an instance of church discipline that goes to the whole congregation, however much it may be instituted by the elders. Again, in Matthew 18, the Lord Jesus insists that when things come down to the crunch, you tell the conflict to the church. You tell it to the church - for not only is there wisdom in the whole church, but there is a final sanction in the whole church.

http://riversidecommunitychurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Carson-Defining-Elders.pdf

10.moo

Douglas Moo on The City Church

But we must qualify "local church" to mean the Christian community in Rome, for chap. 16 makes it clear that the Christians in Rome, all of whom Paul addresses in the letter (cf. 1:7), met in several "house churches." Our oneness in Christ, Paul reminds us, extends beyond those with whom we meet weekly for worship, embracing all who call on the name of the Lord.

11.rosner

Brian Rosner on The City Church

"and the words, 'not even' point to private meals also. If Paul had meant only the Lord's Supper, there would not have been any need for these words.

"He could not simply attend another church in town. 'The church of God in Corinth' was his only option

12.strauch

Alexander Strauch on The City Church

"The phrase 'in every city' is another way of saying 'in every church.' As the New Testament writers consistently record, the local church embraced all believers within a particular city (see Acts 20:17). The New Testament never speaks of churches within a city, only the church. Thus, in each city, that is, each church, Titus was to designate a plurality of elders"

"So according to Acts, Jerusalem had one citywide church, many house churches, and one body of leaders. This also appears to be the case in Antioch (Acts 11:26, 13:1, 14:27, 15:3,30) as well as in Ephesus.

Strauch, page 144.

13.banks

Robert Banks - Local Ground of the Church

Robert Banks discusses the "local ground" of the church with reference to Watchman Nee's well known ideas.

b. While linguistically ekklesia has its roots in ek=out and kaleo=call, hence 'called-out' ones, the word had not had that sense for some in inter-testamentary or early christian times. There, as the Greek grammarians point out it means an assembly, and NT scholars now generally agree that this is the way the word is used in the NT as well. It's not difficult to see how this meaning developed from the earlier one, for a gathering is a group of people who have been called out from their normal activities to be together. In the NT period, the emphasis is upon the 'being together' rather than the 'calling from', which is why those who stress the latter as decisive for its meaning are off target.

c. Ekklesia is used in writings contemporary with the NT of a whole range of assemblies, not just civic ones. The word has a very broad usage, and can be used of any group of people coming together intentionally for some purpose.

10. I don't know that I can say anything worthwhile in a short space about 'right encouragement' in relation to the long-term functioning of a house church. All I know is that where such groups are in relation to one another and seek each other's welfare in regular and practical ways - for example, through regular pastoral meetings and exercising hospitality to one another, and where a few people model and encourage this in various ways - just as Paul and his colleagues did, mainly through letters from a distance but on occasion through visits - house churches can last, grow, and multiply in ways that benefit their members, other believers in the city, and the wider community in which they live.

I think I am talking here about the kind of thing that happens in a healthy family, that is, helping to create a culture of affirmation and mutual concern within which all members can grow and give themselves to others. Well, more than enough said. Although what we have been discussing is not of interest to most, would it worth informing the moderators about our dialogue and, if you still have a copy of it all, offering it (slightly edited perhaps) to be in a file that people can download who are interested in this sort of thing? What do you think? And, if you're agreeable and have the materials, would you be willing to organize it?

Shalom,

Rob

This is the full discussion between Robert Banks and someone else interested in his NT understanding of the "local ground of the church."

localchurch.html

14.nee

Watchman Nee on Local Churches

Anyone wishing to belong to a church in a given locality must answer two requirements - he must be a child of God, and he must live in that particular locality. Membership in the Church of God is conditioned only by being a child of God, but membership in a church of God is conditioned, firstly, by being a child of God and, secondly, by living in a given locality.

Most believers of today are so utterly blind to the scriptural basis of a church that if one asks another, "To what church do you belong?" The first thought of the one questioned is of the specific line of teaching he approves of, or the group of people with whom he has special fellowship, or how his group of Christians is different from others, or perhaps the name that particular group bears, or the form of organization they have adopted-in short, anything but the place in which he lives. Few would answer that question with, "I belong to the church in Ephesus," or "I belong to the church in Shanghai," or "I belong to the church in Los Angeles." It is our being in Christ that separates us from the world, and it is our being in a given locality that separates us from other believers. It is only because we reside in a different place from them that we belong to a different church. The only reason I do not belong to the same church as other believers is that I do not live in the same place as they do. If I wish to be in the same church, then I must change my residence to the same place. If, on the other hand, I wish to be in a different church from others in my locality, then the only solution to my problem is to move to a different locality. Difference of locality is the only justification for division among believers.

15.hammett

John Hammett on The City Church

"In fact, it is a fascinating fact that the New Testament never speaks of churches (plural) in a city (singular)."