Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherHall
This leads my train of thought to the subject of licensing. Licensing of ministers in house churches certainly isn’t an absolute necessity, but I feel it may provide some benefits. For example to maintain a license one generally has to have at least some experience, study, education, or knowledge of doctrine. There is the risk of Bro. Joe starting a house church and not knowing the foundational teachings of justification and sanctification, oneness, eschatology, etc. One could essentially drift into a doctrinal wasteland where truth is completely subjective to the teacher’s take on things. At least a licensed minister would have the basic doctrinal knowledge needed to keep himself/herself and others on a biblical path in their discovery of truth and Christian living.
|
Please do keep in mind that the majority of licensed preachers preach some sort of error. Licensing is a broad statement as there are many, many denominations out there.
The concept that licensing will prevent erroneous teaching is a failed on in my opinion.
As a matter of fact. I wonder how many people out there would more readily hear further truth if the fact that they have a license in their back pocket caused them to hold so true to one specific dogma. A license is, for all intents and purposes, an agreement to defend a particular dogma.
This statement reminds me of GW Bush's statement.
"This would be a whole lot easier if it were a dictatorship... as long as I'm the dictator."
This is to say... "Licensing would be a good idea... as long as everyone is licensed by us"
I think the openness that comes with open study without having signed a contract of allegiance to a particular doctrinal stance could, in the grand scale, lead to more people being more open to more truth.
Of course... then we would have to leave the leadership to God. (YIKES!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherHall
Licensing would also provide accountability. There are strange doctrines that arise even among those who are educated in doctrine. If an unlicensed minister launched a house church he/she could essentially teach anything. They could teach adoptionism, covenantal polygamy, or even alternative lifestyle theology. But if they are licensed they are accountable to the licensing body for their teaching. If they teach something inappropriate actions can be taken to correct the mistaken minister or to officially remove him/her from fellowship for others to see. It would also assist the outsider’s perception of legitimacy. The house church pastor, elder, facilitator would be a recognized “licensed minister” though his official function and capacity may not be much different than anyone else’s in the fellowship. He could also file with state authorities to perform weddings etc. It could prevent the notion that such pastors are just “loose cannons”.
|
The house church model has it's own set of built in accountabilities. Local accountabilities by people you know and who know you.
The Bible gives an excellent set of guidelines to follow which produce accountability as well as provide instruction on how to deal with situations as they arise.
It's like the Constitution. We have it. It has some GREAT ideas. We should use them.
Again... on the loose cannons issue... licensing causes people to hold to a particular dogma. That is great if you are the one fortunate organization that stumbled upon truth. But licensing causes any who are in error to stick to their dogma's just as tightly and quenches a spirit of open, honest, Bible study which could lead all to a greater sense of truth.
In the end, licensing creates an us vs them mentality and shuts off the free flow of ideas that is necessary for the perfection of the saints.
Of course my thoughts come from the mindset of house church and how it fulfills its goal to save the world. If one were to look at the issue from the standpoint of house churches and the need to keep them saved (or at least all on the same page) then that is another whole set of thoughts.
I think licensing of house churches viewed from a forward perspective can only limit this powerful model that served so well to turn the world upside down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherHall
Also licensing would provide wider base of fellowship. A licensed house church ministry would keep the smaller body in fellowship with the larger body of like Christian faith. For example if a house church pastor was a licensed UPCI minister he could freely participate and fellowship with other UPCI churches in a given district. Marriage retreats, seminars, leadership meetings, conferences, etc would be excellent places to keep the smaller body in fellowship with other churches both traditional and house church. Could you imagine a house church pastor who had launched a house church movement producing multiple house churches in a major US city speaking at a district or general conference on evangelism, body ministry, and/or church growth? I can see the title of his message now, “Shrinking to Grow: Little is much when God is in it”. (Actually… I’ve preached that sermon in my head maybe twenty times already. LOL)
|
IMO licensing only narrows the base of fellowship. When your base of fellowship is a free flow of fellowship with the many ministries in the area then licensing can only serve to narrow that field. Licensing creates an allegiance to one group which, often, creates a desire to make ones fellowship increasingly singular to those in that group.
On a local level (which is where the house church operates for the most part) licensing would not seem, to me, to have any ability to increase the base of fellowship.
Linear Mode
