How do we gather 35-50 people together. I believe this number would be optimal, no more than a 100 but when we remain small (10-15) there is an inherent danger to put a barrier about ourselves and to become insulated.

Good questions…..

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.

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?

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.

More than agreee…..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

 

5. Too much administration, positions, staff to be considered a church for me. They may need to split this thing up.

 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

What do you think are the pros and cons of the Apex structure?

Are they similar to the concerns of Jon Zens?

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…