To All My Ecclesiology Folks: Check out Apex
Nov 03
When you get a chance, I want you all to check out Apex Community Church . They are a network of House Churches who meet corporately and own a building, pretty much a traditional Sunday service, but are real interdepedent house churches. Go through the site, see what they do and let me know what you think. Would this be a model that you would particpate in? Is this a model that you believe reflects what Church should look like (even if not perfectly). I am intrigued by them and heard about them through Jon Zens who did an 11 part teaching there.
Network Leadership
Network Elder Team
Rennes Bowers
Chris Cardiff
Ben Helwig
Gary Palmer
Jim Schindler
Rob Turner
These are the elders. In one of Rob’s speeches he refers to men who shepherd the local house meetings as HC Facilitators.
Answer to your question: If a house is not equipped to handle more than four people meeting, if a group has more than four people, they should meet somewhere else.
That’s a weird questions why was that asked? I said above it is fine to meet in homes, public areas, parks, rented facilities, owned facilities- a meeting house, just don’t call the structure/building a church. People meet in homes(most home churches) and do not meet in a NT fashion. The location is irrelevant a group of believers meet as the church when they function according to the NT pattern. I can hold a bible study in my home, but that is not a church. I can go and hear a man give a speech, but that is not a church. The location is unimportant; it’s how the meeting functions that determines if it is a meeting of the church. Why are we still going round and round on this? I think my position over the past 2 years on location has been clearly spelled out. If the Priesthood is functioning without the hated works of the Nicolatians/hirelings suppressing the Saints, then you have a church meeting.
Hutch,
throwing it out there for convo brother. Also helping you clear your name, I believe Gabe thinks you only believe in house churches
Ah…I see. That’s odd.
Sorry I came across like an irritated jerk, my dog is going blind and we cannot get his blood glucose levels right and even though he’s just a dog, its hard to watch him run into things…I know not a good excuse.
BTW: I think Christians are free to do all these extra curricular activities, I just like to be exact with words and definitions. If someone is an older maturing Christian who sacrificially serves the local body of Christ in word and example, then he is an elder. Someone who gives speeches, administrates money and blocks the priesthood from functioning is something else. People are free to go listen to him gives his talk, and they are even free to give him money, they are even free to lay down and despise their birthright but I would not recommend it and I certainly would not call it a meeting of the church. Now, I do not know how they “facilitate” the home groups, so I cannot say if they function there as a church when they meet, I would need more information.
So the question is does Apex’s super structure allow the people to function as the church? What say you?
Can we know without attending a home meeting?
Gabriel-
How can this be construed as starting a war with Apex and not merely answering the question Lionel Posed?
Your trippin. I’m a live and let live guy, but I will not call something that does not function as a church a church. If that offends you I am sorry. I’m just not going to compromise biblical truth.
Is answering Lionel’s question or having a contrary view than you hold of what the scriptures teach about the church starting a war?… that is ridiculous, get real.
Was this starting a war?
Big L-
At least they got the eternal conscious torment right. Grin.
This was a joke, as lIonel said he was intrugued by Apex, yet he does not hold to eternal conscious torment. He holds to anihilationism.
This is called irony and humor. Lighten up.
This was starting a war with Apex?
Still cannot see what you are talking about.
Hee,Hee,Hee,Hee…I’m just joking with you, I am sure they have a lot of things right and they are a viable option for those who still want to support a building and paid staff/elders who control teh resources (did you check out the reimbursment forms-wierd) and for thsoe who want their home meeting orchestrated for them with the curriculumn and study materials prepared before hand by the young men who run the show. Can you participate if you do not give any money towards the structure?
This is only starting a war with somebody if you think questioning is a bad thing, I’m not into thought control:
To me it looks like some young men who graduated from seminary who are somewhat convicted about proper ecclesiology but still want to run the show and get paid. Grin.
Was this starting a war with Apex?
You asked: Is this a model that you believe reflects what Church should look like (even if not perfectly).
You will not find a perfect representation of the Body of Christ in any structure or format so if you would feel comfortable there and feel you can support it wholeheartedly, then go for it!
They are wise to have Jon Zens come and teach, I would really like to have that tecahing series for Christmas, I need to inform Stacy.
What about this? Was this starting a war?
Lionel-
What do you think about Apex’s structure? What do you like about it? What things would you have reservations about?
What about the quick off the cuff comments I made? Give me some push back, lets mix it up.
Gabe-
This was a question:
Payment Request Form
By Apex Administrative Team
September 1, 2009
category: Administration
series: Administrative Forms
tags: administration
Available for this resource:
Description about this resource:
Use this form when you want Apex to make a payment, reimbursement, etc. to you or another person.
For example, this could reimburse you for an expense incurred purchasing things for a ministry such as Apex Kids or Apex Students.
Or another example, you might be requesting a check for a benevolence gift your house church region wishes to provide to a person in need.
Questions? Contact the Administrative Team Lead at the Apex Office.
__________________________________
Ok, so how do they do this, are they saying that the giving is done to the Apex mothership and then the local home assemblies request the money back to give to someone in need?
Just more questions Gabe. No war.
LD-
That what I’m saying. Give it to us and then we will determine who gets the benevolence, just put in your request and we will get back to you. I do not think all giving should be one on one and that a local assembly can and should decide together to take up a voluntary collection from time to time for a specific need or person. But it should be like the only ones we have as modeled in scripture, Paul took up a voluntary offering for the poor saints in Jerusalem, each local assembly and the individuals within them could decide to participate or not. Seems like a wasted step of me and I cannot think of a good motivation
Some more questions.
The young men who are the paid head honcho’s refer to themselves as elders/shepherds, yet they have what they call House Church Facilitators who seem to actually be expected to kind of function as elders, but they do not call them elders. So, do the guys who are paid actually function as exemplary slaves/servants to the local assemblies, do they know the people well enough to shepherd them? Do they live with the people in community and share their burdens and joys etc. It does not seem that those who are called elders function as elders and those who kind of function as elders are called something else. Seems mixed up and an insertion of an additional unbiblical layer of control.
Another question: They provide local gathering “sermons” is the group expected to be controlled by the motherships “white Papers”, “position statements” and provided lessons to facilitate the life of the assemblies? This is a usurpation of the New Covenant Priesthood and a quenching of the Holy Spirits ability to direct the meeting as He determines as each one is led to share and exhort. Again, it seems like some seminary kids got somewhat convicted about the Priesthood of the Believer but that they still want to get paid, control the resources and make the decision. Sounds like they are conflicted and confused to me.
Just mixing it up with Lionel, no War.
Lionel-
I think groups of home churches, should get together regularly. As you know, the Greater Houston area is huge, I know of an assembly in the Memorial area, South of I10 and another one way North in The Woodlands/Spring area, I know there must be many more. I would envision at some point that there would be multiple groups just in the Katy area these might meet together maybe monthly and then groups from the four corners of Houston may meet together perhaps quarterly for Camp-outs, BBQ’s, symposiums, testimonies, teachings etc. however this is done and facilitated, each group should have its own organically developed dynamics and servant leadership. Youa nd I and BLD do not need our marching orders from anyone other than Christ to share the Word of God together in community. I’ll bring what the Lord gives me and will long to hear from both you and BLD, what more do we need?
What about this was this starting a war?
I have no problem with local assemblies agreeing to rent or own facilities either, my issues are with unbiblical authority structures, people being recognized as elders who do not function as elders, unbiblical understandings of eldership, centralized control of resources/giving and management of what is shared and taught and the mere lip service to the New Covenant Scriptures.
I think renting or owning a meeting house as I have mentioned on all of the different incarnations of your blogs is fine, I think tehre can be some great benefits…just don’t call it a church! Grin.
Can’t see how this is starting a war.
The issue is not a building the issue is does the building and the structure of the organization allow or keep the people from functioning as the church. Most of what passes for “church” in America is a structure that does everything but allow the people to function as a church, so it’s a different type of organization it is not a church it’s something else. Granted there may be people who participate in this other organization who are Christians, but it is not an expression of the Body of Christ as presented in the scriptures. It is so bad here that when you present a biblical Christianity of crucified living and a gathering as the church that flows in the Spirit of Life in Christ where mutual teaching, sharing and ministry is practiced, they call what is good(biblical Christianity) evil and evil(whatever they are doing) good.
So the question is does Apex’s super structure allow the people to function as the church? My answer is probably better than most but not fully.
Gabriel-
They call elders men who are not shepherds at the local level and call people who somewhat function as shepherds at the local level facilitators. So they do not know what biblical eldership looks like.
OK Gabriel…get off the politically correct thought police kick, this is an open discussion forum. Lionel asked what we thought about the content of Apex’s website and if we would participate in such an organization.
Is the only proper response in your book, yeah its great I’m in?
Still cannots ee how this is starting a war.
Network Leadership
Network Elder Team
Rennes Bowers
Chris Cardiff
Ben Helwig
Gary Palmer
Jim Schindler
Rob Turner
These are the elders. In one of Rob’s speeches he refers to men who shepherd the local house meetings as HC Facilitators.
Answer to your question: If a house is not equipped to handle more than four people meeting, if a group has more than four people, they should meet somewhere else.
That’s a weird questions why was that asked? I said above it is fine to meet in homes, public areas, parks, rented facilities, owned facilities- a meeting house, just don’t call the structure/building a church. People meet in homes(most home churches) and do not meet in a NT fashion. The location is irrelevant a group of believers meet as the church when they function according to the NT pattern. I can hold a bible study in my home, but that is not a church. I can go and hear a man give a speech, but that is not a church. The location is unimportant; it’s how the meeting functions that determines if it is a meeting of the church. Why are we still going round and round on this? I think my position over the past 2 years on location has been clearly spelled out. If the Priesthood is functioning without the hated works of the Nicolatians/hirelings suppressing the Saints, then you have a church meeting.
Brother Lionel
Just wanted to be clear, before going any further, that I don’t think H believes in house churches only—-but on leadership, as has been indicated in many of the postings, it seems a bit clear (IMHO) that any form of organized leadership teams equates in his view to being like domineering ministries (which is illogical)/
I see Hutch, did you ask me what I agreed with and where I had reservations?
Gabe,
Why illogical? And define “organized” and “leadership”. What exactly does these leaders do and what type of organzing?
Hutch
One,
If you’re going to respond without/apart from graciousness—-or reasonability, for that matter (as what’s being said is not “politcally correct” since most house church ministries..and even many organic ones…have noted the saem for ages, which you seem to be avoiding)–then there’s no need to go further….as there’s no need for insults (James 3:12-18). The issue was made on the CHARACTER of those at APEX—as it was said that they did not meet the character of elders, even though you’ve never met any of them to see their hearts/lifes or the FRUIT of the ministry—-and as such, that is an issue of slander. If you do not have any evidence other than disagreeing with the form of their ministry, so be it.
Two, as the entire issue again in the OP was buildings/showing where the ministry of APEX is not producing disciples who love Jesus and are seeking to love others as we’re called to, you are not showing evidence that they are doing otherwise. As it is, one could get a bit tripped out that even if they’re on the Mission Field—and give their life for the Gospel based on what they were trained to do with the Great Comission—-you and others of the same mind would still either belittle it….or say that where they came from was not a significant part of their actions, such as saying “Well, yes you love the Lord…and yeah, you’ve been trained to preach the Gospel/encourage others….but you came from a church that had Network Elder Team….and its JUST NOT AS good as the people from my fellowship who don’t have labels…
Third, as the Church has things in place that give plenty of room for issues such as “one anothering”/mutual ministry, especially seeing the reality of intimacy built in one anothers homes (as goes the Small Group Model–and not one where the focus is soley on what the Pastors say), there has yet to be any LOGICAL basis or demonstration that APEX does not produce disciples.
At best, one has a bias based on a bad experience—but is now imposing that upon another group that in no way is the same. But again, at best, one can simply do as Jon Zens did and investigate.
Now i’m insulting you. Get real brother your trippin.
Lionel,
It’s illogical because it the reality is that the effectivenss of an organization is seen in the people they produce via the Spirit (i.e. loving one another, teaching the scriptures, aiding them in mutual ministry, etc). As it is, there has been no evidence of doing otherwise in the ministry of APEX—yet people look at the structure and then assume such. That’d be no more better than my going into an home fellowship and then assuming that they must automatically qualify for “making disciples/building others up”—even though PLENTY do an individualistc/insular type of mentality that damages many.
When I say “organized”, I am discussing the issue of having teams/others over certain jobs for large scale issues. Recognized leaders, as supported by the Body/Church members whose wisdom people learn from as they grow in Christ.
Not really, H–unless, you can show ANYWHERE that “poilitcally correct” is somehow a compliment. But as it is, by that logic, we can also say that the churches around the world and in differing cultures are also “politcally correct” since they do not agree with YOUR viewpoint….
Again, by your logic, God help the Underground Church in China—as I suppose they just as are not as “correct” as you or others of the same mind are here in the states…even though they’ve been fufilling the Great Commission.
gabriel-
Hutch
Yes.
One,
Okay.
If you’re going to respond without/apart from graciousness—-or reasonability, for that matter (as what’s being said is not “politcally correct” since most house church ministries..and even many organic ones…have noted the saem for ages, which you seem to be avoiding)–then there’s no need to go further….as there’s no need for insults (James 3:12-18). The issue was made on the CHARACTER of those at APEX—as it was said that they did not meet the character of elders, even though you’ve never met any of them to see their hearts/lifes or the FRUIT of the ministry—-and as such, that is an issue of slander. If you do not have any evidence other than disagreeing with the form of their ministry, so be it.
I did not say they do not meet the character requirements of elders I said they do not function a selders. Check you facts. So what you just stated about what I said is a lie. Read it again and pay attention this time.
Two, as the entire issue again in the OP was buildings/showing where the ministry of APEX is not producing disciples who love Jesus and are seeking to love others as we’re called to, you are not showing evidence that they are doing otherwise. As it is, one could get a bit tripped out that even if they’re on the Mission Field—and give their life for the Gospel based on what they were trained to do with the Great Comission—-you and others of the same mind would still either belittle it….or say that where they came from was not a significant part of their actions, such as saying “Well, yes you love the Lord…and yeah, you’ve been trained to preach the Gospel/encourage others….but you came from a church that had Network Elder Team….and its JUST NOT AS good as the people from my fellowship who don’t have labels…
Huh?
Third, as the Church has things in place that give plenty of room for issues such as “one anothering”/mutual ministry, especially seeing the reality of intimacy built in one anothers homes (as goes the Small Group Model–and not one where the focus is soley on what the Pastors say), there has yet to be any LOGICAL basis or demonstration that APEX does not produce disciples.
Huh?
At best, one has a bias based on a bad experience—but is now imposing that upon another group that in no way is the same. But again, at best, one can simply do as Jon Zens did and investigate.
What are you talkng about?
What do you think politically correct means Gabriel?
Are you taking offense because you do not know the definitions of the words being used?
Politically correct (PC) denotes language, ideas, and behavior, constrained by orthodoxy and the fear of giving offense.
The fact that you take offense one none has been given speaks a lot about your intolerance of dissenting opinion.
Why are you so touchy?
As it was, you failed to actually show where it was that they were already demonstrating the Power/Grace of the Lord in their lives….and by your comments, showing plainly that what they do just is not good enough. But then again, what’s more essential than the issue of the Gospel being preaced?
Has nothing to do with my being “Offended”—as the reality is that you have not shown that the Church is what you define it as–with our main definition being I Corinthians 12:1-28 where the Body comes together to aid one another in the WORK of the Gospel. And as it is, you’ve not shown where APex is not doing that. What has occured is that something is not considered a “churcH” because it doesn’t line up with your format. that’s the danger of LEGALSIM. By your logic,
When you can show that the churche of APEX—or for that matter, the same for churches around the world in differing cultures suffering for the name of Christ, doing the work of the ministry in feeding the helpless/clothing the naked and a host of other issues (Matthew 25:36-46, Mark 9:38-41, John 13:1-20 –with Jesus noting it was BY OUR LOVE for each other that we’d be considered disciples, Acts 4:32-36, Acts 2:42-47, Colossians 3:14-17, Ephesians 5:15-21, etc), then one can only go so far.
Never did I say at all that you could not answer Lionel’s question as you saw fit. The reality, however, is that others did so as well…and after I procedded to answer to Lionel on my perspective, you made comment to what I said and responded to it as if it was directed to you. Thus, I responded…..so no need tripping as if anyone is coming after you.
H,
Show in scripture where it is the case that functioning as Elders was anything outside of Character. For that’s not dealing with the text. If they show the character of elders, they qualify as walking in the function of elders
Quick Question, Lionel.
What were Jon Zens exact thoughts on the matter—-as one not going to the meetings can only go as far as either emailing the people who go there….or interacting with those who went.
Gabe,
You bring up some good points on your organizing, and I do believe there is a freedom in that. There may be dangers; however, I don’t think we live our lives in fear of those dangers. I think I shared that before, just because people abuse pulpits, don’t make them bad, as I believe a gifted person teaching can be important even amongst the mature as long as all are given the opportunity and duties aren’t shirked in the process.
Gabriel-
I do not understand your question in teh context of our discussion. You lied and mistated above that I said that the men recognized as elders are not character qualified to be elders. When what I actually said is that do not function as biblical elders. So, quit changing the subject apologize for lying and quit being so sensitive and touchy.
On the issue of OFFENSE,
As the Word makes clear under NO UNCERTAIN terms that our character is to be above reproach and doing things that cause uncessary offense (Ephesians 4:1-7, Colossians 3:1-13, etc), the issue is one of character. There have been PLENTY of disagreements in the past on many issues—though people can agree to DISAGREE agreeably without either using COARSE language (Ephesians 5:4-5) or belittlement. I can disagree with Lionel on the issue of financial giving—-but it’s not proper disagreement if I procedd to call him/others “greedy, just wanting to hold onto money” because of thoughts he shared previously on finances. That’s silly, as its needless exaggeration——as well as not representing him fully. It goes for every other area of life…..and in CHRIST, if you cannot acknowledge God’s workings inside of them with as much fervor as things one can see WRONG in them, one is not reflecting Christ—-especially when the same standard is not appplied to their own camp when they make it appear as if all but them are “flawed”
Saying one sees a church with many beautiful qualities but still having things they may disagree on is NOT politically correct. And on the other side, seeing a church and then failing to find ANY sign of grace—or procedding to blast them in all areas in conclusive statements–is not “speaking truth”…and the entire issue of the Niclotians in Revelation 3:15-16 is already woefully out of context, as that had nothing to do with leadership structure—but with DOMINEERING leadership for selfish gain….much like what occureed in III John 1:9-11 with Diotrophes. With the church in Revelations, they were spreading sexuual and spiritual infidelity at Pergamum in Revelation 2:6. Like the Prophet Baalam, they seduced Gods people to participate in idolatry and sexual immorality, perhaps disguising antinomian liscense as freedom in Christ (I Corinthians 6:12-20, I Corinthians 8:1-11, etc)
If you’re going to raise issue of “thought police”, you’re more tha freee to do so—as no one said others could not share their thoughts. But again, as it was, I was responding to LIONEL…and you responded to my post with personal comment. At that point, no one should trip if you get a response directed at you……as you sought dialouge—and for you to avoid that speaks a good deal (IMHO) on the level of humitly you may have.
Gabriel-
On the issue of OFFENSE,
Yes?
As the Word makes clear under NO UNCERTAIN terms that our character is to be above reproach and doing things that cause uncessary offense (Ephesians 4:1-7, Colossians 3:1-13, etc), the issue is one of character. There have been PLENTY of disagreements in the past on many issues—though people can agree to DISAGREE agreeably without either using COARSE language (Ephesians 5:4-5) or belittlement.
Huh? Coarse language and belittlement? I still do not know what you are talking about.
I can disagree with Lionel on the issue of financial giving—-
Okay. I agree.
but it’s not proper disagreement if I procedd to call him/others “greedy, just wanting to hold onto money” because of thoughts he shared previously on finances. That’s silly, as its needless exaggeration—
I agree, did you say that Lionel was greedy?
—as well as not representing him fully. It goes for every other area of life…..and in CHRIST, if you cannot acknowledge God’s workings inside of them with as much fervor as things one can see WRONG in them, one is not reflecting Christ—-especially when the same standard is not appplied to their own camp when they make it appear as if all but them are “flawed”
What are you talking about and what does this have to do with anything I have said here?
Saying one sees a church with many beautiful qualities but still having things they may disagree on is NOT politically correct.
I agree. I did not say it was.
And on the other side, seeing a church and then failing to find ANY sign of grace—or procedding to blast them in all areas in conclusive statements–is not “speaking truth”…and the entire issue of the
I have not said anything gracious about Apex?
Niclotians in Revelation 3:15-16 is already woefully out of context, as that had nothing to do with leadership structure—but with DOMINEERING leadership for selfish gain….much like what occureed in III John 1:9-11 with Diotrophes. With the church in Revelations, they were spreading sexuual and spiritual infidelity at Pergamum in Revelation 2:6. Like the Prophet Baalam, they seduced Gods people to participate in idolatry and sexual immorality, perhaps disguising antinomian liscense as freedom in Christ (I Corinthians 6:12-20, I Corinthians 8:1-11, etc)
Good try, thats the typical paid church staff line, but they and you are wrong.
If you’re going to raise issue of “thought police”, you’re more tha freee to do so—as no one said others could not share their thoughts. But again, as it was, I was responding to LIONEL…and you responded to my post with personal comment. At that point, no one should trip if you get a response directed at you……as you sought dialouge—and for you to avoid that speaks a good deal (IMHO) on the level of humitly you may have.
I’m not trippin at your responding. I’m just not going to let your lies about what I have said stand without correcting you, nor will I hesitate to share the truth from the scriptures because you try to smeer me with your slanderous accusation that I am startinga war with Apex. Get real man.
Hey I think things got a little lost. Lets try this
Hutch give me 5 key issues you have
Gabriel give me 5 key praises you have
I will then ask for the reverse of that, Hutch give me 5 praises and Gabriel give me 5 issues.
Hutch,
H,
I made clear (under no uncertain terms) that I think that owning/renting buildings are cool—-and that as many in differing House Churches have organized leadership/are producing disciples who are quite wonderful in their love for Jesus, it’s not something that I’m going to trip on much. As the old saying goes, “I don’t care if the cat is black or white, for as long as it catches mice…it’s a good cat.”..and as another German proverb says, “The cat who frightens the mice away is as good as the cat who eats them.” All are differing and have differing ways of getting the job done……with it being the case that the way one abuses something is not the same as for all–no more logical to think otherwise that to say all cars are bad because drunkdrivers drove in many/killed others——and I also made clear that I think that rather than tripping on buildings, people should think on how they can be used in ways to further the work of the GREAT COMMISSION…and shared a quote on the issue by another leader within the House Church Movement as to what it looks like when others condemn people for doing sch. All of that was directed in response to Lionels’s post/questions…and none of that to you, yet You came and then responded DIRECTLY to what it is that I said. You agreed on the issue of buildings not mattering for location, to which I agree. At that point, it could have ended. But then there was further disussion on the leadership structure not being what Biblical ELdership is about..and I shared some of my views on where I stood..and for more info, one can go to “Gentle Wisdom: Leadership” ( http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?s=leadership )for more info…as it’s one of the minisrtries I network with
Why then do I need to apologize for simply responding point for point to what you said? If you feel a certain way, cool. Feel that way….but if you sought another out for debate and they respond…..
Incorrect, Bruh—as you stated in no uncertain terms “They call elders men who are not shepherds at the local level and call people who somewhat function as shepherds at the local level facilitators…..So they do not know what biblical eldership looks like”…yet as the Word makes clear, elders had a MYRIAD of jobs/forms—some who were teachers and others who were leading via administration and other tasks. The rest of the issue is truly (IMHO) one of Semantics. For if they’re fufilling the call to be mature/lead by example and nurture others up as I Peter 5:1-9 discusses, then they fit the Bill. Even more importantly if they’re SERVANTS above/building others up. As it is, that’s occuring at APEX. To what degree, one can only know fully by either emailing or talking to Jon Zens…or actually going over there/living life with them for awhile.
Subject was never changed, Bruh—and no one is lying. If you’re going to be quick in stating such without demonstration, that’s not a good sign……but again, blessings…..
Not touchy in the slightest, Bruh—as there have been many discussions about fellowships others have never been to that were cool. Disagreeing is not the issue….as one can disagree with structure all day and there’s no issue. Making commentary without basis on their character (..as in saying what was said earlier in 6 ” it looks like some young men who graduated from seminary who are somewhat convicted about proper ecclesiology but still want to run the show and get paid”—which is an speaking on character without basis), BLessings.
Gabriel,
If a church has 5K members and 20 elders they are not elders nor are they shepherding. They may be business mangers but there is no way they can care for that many people.
Incorrect, Bruh—
No, Gabriel you are incorrect.
You are still lying about the issue.
as you stated in no uncertain terms “They call elders men who are not shepherds at the local level and call people who somewhat function as shepherds at the local level facilitators…..So they do not know what biblical eldership looks like”…
You just proved my point that you lied.
Nowhere in there did I say they are not character qualified.
Thanks for proving that you lied.
I never expected you to apologize brother. But you did and still are lying about what I said, its crystal clear.
I said they do not function as elders. One can be qualified to be an elder but if I am not functioning as an elder then I am not to be recognized as one. This is plain and simple.
Yes, yes Gabriel-
I’m glad you are now getting to the point.
Biblical truth is very hard for people to accept, they have been taught error so long, they cannot see it for what it is and yes, It looks like some young men who graduated from seminary who are somewhat convicted about proper ecclesiology but still want to run the show and get paid. The bible is clear that Christ hates the works of the Nicolatians, hirelings and those who peddle the gospel for money. Anytime you see this type of structure Gabriel you are seeing error contrary to the law of Christ and just because you do not wish to accept it or wish that I do not call attention to it, I will not feel intimidated to stop speaking the truth because it offends your or anyone else’s sensibilities. Anytime you see a paid staff of so called leaders you will see the church being harmed and limited as the priesthood of the believers has been usurped. It’s just the truth, not slander Gabriel.
L.
Hey I think things got a little lost. Lets try this
Hutch give me 5 key issues you have
Gabriel give me 5 key praises you have
I will then ask for the reverse of that, Hutch give me 5 praises and Gabriel give me 5 issues.
Shalom, L.
My apologies…..as I just saw this and it got lost in the translation of commentary. On the issue, I think that the 5 key praises that they have are the following:
1.) Their ability for networking with other ministries on the mission field so that the Good News of Christ/Him Crucified can be preached
2.) Their ability to diversify in differing areas where there are needs specific to certian groups—such as having teams over things from worship to other things like outreaach..and alongside that, their ability to give opportunity for not only leadership opportunity, but to change out positions in time for others who are risen up.
3.) Their consistency in meeting in homes/getting involved in the nitty gritty of real life with others—–for as said before, the “Block Party” and Church Social/Hang out is just as powerful as any sermon since our lives are to be the sermon.
4.) Their desire for STRONG families/all being on the same page—-in listing out the expectations of what being apart of their family is like so that others will not jump in/try to shape it to their image…..much as it would be with one who lets others know what their specific family is like/what all in the family agree to (as well as who it is that the family have recognized/chosen as the leaders in that home) before allowing others into their home—-and giving room for others to not respect the boundaries of that specific family.
5.) Their heart for making DISCIPLES–and simply loving Jesus and others as we’re commanded. For in the end, that’s all that matters…
Lionel-
What do you think are the pros and cons of the Apex structure?
Are they similar to the concerns of Jon Zens?
Shalom, L
That’s the issue that I tried to note earlier—as others being in leadership positions or exercising their giftings in leadership/administration does not equate to them being elders as those who shepherd. One can have a gifting in organizing an activity, so the elders of that fellowship/the church can entrust a certain task to them and recognize them….whereas the elders do their job of getting in-depth with the people. That’s why when looking at the leadership team it was not an issue—-as it merely described differing roles/teams others were on. In no way did it indicate that those leaders were over 100′s of people alone…or that within their own groups they were in when it came to home meetings, that there were not others whom were people that were looked up to for leadership…as I Corinthians 16:15-16 states with Stephenas. Even in churhes in the Underground Church in China, one may have a church with hundereds in it and some looked to as Pastors—but that does not they pastor/do all the jobs that ALL the saints are to be doing such as encouraging one another, building others up and other things. They may act as the Spokemen of groups—be ones who simply serve as people to go to for insight on special issues/preaching. But all in the body do the job of aiding one another….with the shepherds leading the way in example of how they nuture to one another.
On the issue, I’d have to consider how it was in the Book of Acts when it came to the early church and how many elders there were for each church…as there wasn’t the issue of having a church on every corner to divide the thousands of people converted daily ( Acts 21:19-21 /Acts 21, .Acts 2:40-42, Acts 4:3-5 ) as is the case today. The churches there were indeed limited—with their only be ONE church per area….and I’d also have to consider the reality of how big homes were that the early churches met in, as I don’t see historically (as of yet) that meeting in homes meant the same as it does today with a group of 5 elders meeting in a house fitting about 20 members. Concerning the question how many elders were to be appointed in each church, the text never says…so possibility is open. Only the fact of a plurality is clear, as a plurality of elders were to be appointed rather than just one elder for each church. While we cannot say for sure, it would seem logical that there was not more than one house church in each town. This supports the idea of a plurality of leadership in each house church. It’d seem that in many ways it could be the case that one had churches of 5k members with 20 elders.
As it is, one cannot know fully how much the people are being nourished in a fellowship simply because of the titles/structure given in it. One can at best make an assumption or guess—-but the churches’s inner workings are not really known fully apart from the members who support it/enjoy the time in Christ they have. Hence, why I think it’d be good to try and contact some of the members/talk either by email or phone for more concrete information. As it is, when it came to shepherds, there was a diversity of help involved in the process of aiding sheep—as it was not just a matter of those close in the field. Some were inside who aided in cleaning sheep..whereas others did NIGHT watch of them when other shepherds helped during the day…and others were involved in the process. Will go back and come back later with the resource info on how shepherding was in the Middle East when it came to the culture in which Paul was speaking.
I never asked Jon what his concerns were, I just know he had a few reservations. Lets start with the pros
1. They seem to have the best ecclesiology of any “structured” church that I have seen, as it relates to framework (I don’t know personally)
2. They seem to be very open to changing in face of error (Jon going and speaking is hats off to them).
3. They seem to be very serious about meeting the physical needs of their community and giving all the believers a chance of doing this, even if that is reimbursed somehow.
4. I like that they come together every week.
5. I like that they are at least attempting to puruse the priesthood.
Now for the cons.
1. They perform like a mothership, so the churches aren’t really independent as they may think they are, this is huge for me, indepedence with interdepedence is important, they seem to be more interdepedent than indepedent, thus functioning like a an ecclesiastical structure more than an organic one.
2. The reimbursement means that the primary giving is at the mothership and I think this can cause trouble as bureacracy and red tape ties up resources that could be easily deployed, even at a corporate level. I believe much more in Paul’s model found in 2 Corinthians 8-9. There we see the saints rallying to meet a need, not a “storehouse” model.
3. You are correct about the leadership. They have “elders” who don’t really function like elders to those they are supposed to be shepherding and the shepherds are called something differrent. Names are not important ; however, those guys really are small group leaders as far as I can tell. I would need to see if membership and baptism and the Feast are performed at the house church level, if so that would be good. But I don’t think so because it seems that a good portion of them don’t meet enough, so the “house church” really isn’t a house church it is a small group mascarading as one.
4. One man seems to do a great deal of the teaching, that is the cult of the speaker. I believe each house church elder should be teaching at least, but with a congregation that size they just get lost in the shuffle (and they are not considered elders anyway).
5. Too much administration, positions, staff to be considered a church for me. They may need to split this thing up.
Pros:
1. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ
2. Their concern for the poor and needy.
3. Doctrine seems to be a high priority.
4. They let Zens teach when I know a number of his positions would be in conflict with theirs.
5. Moving towards mutuality and encouraging community.
Cons.
Much the same as yours.
H,
Again, you have not shown anywhere from the text that the Nicolatians were a matter of having structured leadership in place—–as that’s what APEX has—-and if you can only assert such, you’re not doing a good job of demonstrating your point. For structured leadership is no more a matter of the Nicolatians than it was for the elders who met Paul alongside James in Acts 21:17-26 or Acts 15:1-35 with the Council addressing a region wide issue infecting the body with Judaism when it came to the “Pharisaic” wing of the Jerusalem church saying Gentiles had to keep the law. Even people within Jewish circles that the scriptures were written in understand this simple reality when it comes to all being made priests and how that does not equate to organized leadership/structure being counter to that. For more info, one can look up Call No Man Rabbi. For more info ont he Nicolatians, one can go to “Church in Peragum“…and The Nicolaitans …..for again, the issue was about THE LOVE OF MONEY/PROMOTING sin rather than simply being supplied by others.
Not about being “intimidated” or “stop speaking truth”—but showing ones claims VALID and with Biblical examination/basis. As of yet, you have yet to do so except in saying you disagree. From the text of scripture, one must show that the Nicolatians were a matter of condeming all strructured leadership, as well as those who are in churches producing mighty men and women of God. The fact that you’re reacting so strongly seems to indicate that perhaps you are in love more so with a viewpoint than being objective. For nowhere has it been shown in scripture that a staff being paid equates to either doing as the Nicolatians were doing (with the sexual immorality) or that they’re just in it “for the money”…..as one would have to assume without basis/interaction to come to such a conclusion. And again, unless one can shown/deal with the NUMEROUS examples of churches with paid staff that are making passionate disciples of the Lord/lovers of Christ showing the Good News, you do not have a case. For people are being built up, trained to lead and are being sent out to make disciples…..and not showing otherwise is “opinion”, as well as slander when accusation is made without basis. Too many people in the House Church Movement who’ve called out the SAME issues you’re demonstrating, Bruh…and I do pray it ends at some point.
H,
Again, you are doing no different than what you did on Lionels previous blog when it came to his article on “Carbon Monoxide and the Church” on legalism. If you wish to argue, you’re more than free to do so alone. For obviously it is not fruitful and there’s no need if one cannot refrain themselves from insulting, mocking or doing things kids do. Seriously, leave it be and move on (Hebrews 12:13-14)
Gabriel-
If you not willing to admit that you lied, that is fine with me. As I said, I did not expect you to apologize.
From the text of scripture, one must show that the Nicolatians were a matter of condeming all strructured leadership, as well as those who are in churches producing mighty men and women of God.
I don’t have to prove that since I do not believe what you just stated nor have I ever said what you just stated.
Hebrews 12:13–14 (ESV)
13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. 14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Is this supposed to have anything to do with this discussion?
I’m not arguing, I’m just correcting your lies.
More than agreee…..
In what sense would you mean? For the “mothership” issue is moreso one where there’s central teaching from one or a couple of individuals who share their thoughts…..and then, as often happens in cell-type churches, people are bound to focus upon that/discussed on what the “pastor said” rather than having room to go into differing conversations and areas. Though it seems cool that to a good degree they’re connected/each have their own families but know they’re part of a larger family and have other brothers/sisters they can meet with.
I agree…..
That was probably one of my main hesitations on the issue when it came to resources and their being given….as one can end up becoming so structured that they become akin to a corporation rather than a family. I don’t know if one can say 100% from their ministry that they have issues with “red tape”–though potential is always there. And I think T.Freeman raised some great points in post# 3 of the “Money Thread” you made, as it realtes to why churches have “storehouse” models, as in the Book of Acts they did so to meet needs….and surely in our times, when needs are always abundant—from aiding widows/orphans to helping others who are struggling financially–it’d seem practical to always have continual giving going down….especially if one plans on expanding true community and gathering in numbers. To me, it seems the issue is similar to having a car. It’s effective if used properly–but depending on who is driving, what level of maturity is present and where it is that they’re going (as well as the mindset they’re in) potential for harm is always present…and can vary from time to time.
I guess I’d have to wonder of what is that is being produced in the “small groups” (which is really the issue of intimate family==—whether in occuring in the form of what often happens in House Churches/Organic Churches ) or in the sense of what occurs with “Cell Groups” churches…..as the shepherding can only be seen clearly in studying how they interact with others. But I can definately see where you’re coming from.
Disagree (to a degree), as one doing a significant portion of teaching may not equate to others teaching throughout the week either oraly, informally as in conversation or living by example. Alot of House Churches where one man is gifted to preach—but others already preach to one another throughout the week since preaching/teaching was never something that was to be limited to the pulpit. If, howver, it becomes an issue of domiannce…..as in not raising up others to do what you’re able to…or giving room to practice doing so in their giftings, it can be a problem.
Agreed—-as there’s a dark side when things get too “formalized”…as from there, the issue comes up of “micro-managing”. Neil Cole discussed the issue grealty in his book “Organic Leadership”–as even in the Buisness World, there is realization that decentralization can often be more effective than centralized focus…even if it’s informal. Of course, there lies the other side of the coin when it comes to having no formal organization—as one can have a church with none of what APEX has and want to do a job….yet no one can break up into teams for seasons if there’s a need–or work with one another to see with each other who works in a certain area best. Happens in family units all the time.
Good thoughts, L
Brother Lionel…
I guess the issue is one of nagivation—–for in example, if it came to the issue of having something such as an Outreach to the Inner City and one wanted to get things done consistently on a large scale, then leadership and diversity would have to be a must. One would have to set things up in a way that involved people in places that best fit them, alongside also having others with their respective giftings in place. Some who are good with networking/administration may be given a position of “directing traffic” and keeping all on the same page (i.e. emails, newsletters, phone-calls, etc)…especially if their skill was in that. Others may be skilled in things such as offering hospitality via their homes/supplying others and thus a team would be needed for that. The same with others who may be skilled in things such as encouragement (or knowing the culture intimately that they’re going to)—with them thus leading the way/aiding others in how to do so. The reality would also mean that some people will never have the same degree of skill/gifting and ability as with others….or even the desire to lead, as some are cool with letting others hold it down/give guidance as long as they can just follow/help however they can. In all cases, people in leading positions would be involved …serving one another in love……and knowing how to interact to get a goal down.
However, there would be potential at all times for things to go crazy—such as an elder/deacon in the continual position of leading at outreaches getting offended/”power mad” when there’s suggestion for another to lead in his role for awhile (or at least, learn under them so they can get experience/eventually get a shot), as that’d be like one being the “star player” of a football team not showing how to utilize all……..or for people go the oppoisite extreme and place people in positions of leadership that they were not mature enough to handle simply because they “wanted all to teach/lead”. The same when all are wanting to lead/do the same jobs—but often not understanding of their own giftings and abilities…..and needing to best serve elsewhere. All of it takes GREAT humility….and the Spirit of God. Thoughts?
Lionel…
Good questions…..