Volume 46 Number 11 July 2004
Objection:
To a great extent, this is true. Our circumstances, with respect to
miraculous gifts, are substantially different from those that prevailed
in the first century church, and Paul's instructions clearly concerned
their unique, and temporary, circumstances. Tongue-speaking and
prophesying are not a part of our assemblies. Logically, then, neither
are the rules governing their use (Where there is no traffic, there is no
reason for traffic laws.). None of this undermines a legitimate appeal to
1 Corinthians 14, however.
We appeal not so much to Corinth's specific practice (nor the rules
governing it), but to the principle expressly communicated by their
state-of-affairs, namely, that God desires a plurality of participants, a
multiplicity of ministers. How do we know? God inspired numerous persons
at Corinth! God gave gifts to many, knowing full well that by doing so
confusion and chaos (as a result of abuse) would arise. Why did He do
this? Why didn't He just inspire the most talented man, and avoid these
potential problems? Why didn't He just inspire the least talented man in
order to manifest His glory, and thereby create an environment where
there could be no "competition"? After all, "God is not the author of
confusion...." Why did He inspire so many? Obviously, He wanted more
than one member edifying the group. That was true concerning the
exercise of supernatural gifts, and it stands to reason that it would
also be true of the exercise of natural gifts.
We do not rely on reason alone, however. The case for "mutual
edification" (as we have already seen in previous articles) in no way
rests solely upon an appeal to the implied principle of 1 Corinthians 14.
Various passages teach that God wanted several involved in the teaching,
preaching, admonishing, edifying, and exhorting (Acts 15:30-35; Romans
15:14; 1 Timothy 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:2).
Objection:
If a congregation that practices mutual edification has unqualified men
standing before the group, it is not the fault of the system-it is the
fault of those "practicing" the system. Paul told the Roman brethren,
Objection:
At first, this objection could lead one to think that there might be
gradations of mutual edification. One might begin to entertain the notion
that how far a congregation has to go in involving its male members is a
matter of liberty, that it falls under the guise of "congregational
autonomy," and that there's a great deal of latitude so long as the
"preacher" shares the pulpit once-in-a-while. As persuasive, or
plausible, as that may sound at first, it becomes problematic when
carefully scrutinized.
First, one has to contend with the fact that the mutual edification we
read about in the New Testament took place during the Lord's Day
assembly, not during some other agreed-upon gathering time. So far as we
know, Corinth was meeting regularly only on the first day of the week (1
Corinthians 16:1-2). This was the occasion they observed the Lord's
Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20-33), and on this same occasion they enjoyed
the edifying efforts (though miraculous in nature) of many (1 Corinthians
14:26-32).
Second, even in the above scenario, there remains a focus on "one man,"
as opposed to the "one another" of Scripture (1 Thessalonians 5:11;
Hebrews 10:24-25; 1 Peter 4:10). The participation of members has been
made the exception, rather than the rule. Neither Scripture, nor first
century history, ever speaks of such organization with respect to the
edification of the church. The whole system of the pulpit
preacher/minister is wholly unknown until the second century, after the
death of the apostles.
(Editor's Note: This article is the second installment in the two-part
series dealing with common objections to a congregation practicing mutual
edification in their assemblies.)
The "mutual edification" service described in 1 Corinthians 14:27-31 is
not a directive for modern-day assemblies of the saints. This passage
describes how miraculous gifts were to be exercised in the first century
church. In the absence of miraculous gifts, the instructions are no
longer applicable.
Mutual edification puts unqualified men in teaching roles, and men in
teaching roles, and thereby weakens the church.
"Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are
full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one
another" (Romans 15:14)
. To the Colossian church, he wrote:
"Let the word
of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one
another..." (Colossians 3:16)
. In both places, he taught with clarity
that knowledge (as well as goodness and wisdom) is required in one who
would admonish and/or teach his brethren. So long as a congregation
practicing mutual ministry adheres to these stipulations (and many do),
working God's plan, God's plan works! Such mutual edification,
"by which
every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of
itself in love" (Ephesians 4:16).
Mutual edification can still take place with a "preacher." Some brothers
are permitted to preach occasionally on Sunday evenings.