“The Church Comes Home”–Final Analysis Part 2
Filed Under (book reviews, dee dee's posts) by dee dee on 27-11-2009
I finally finished reading The Church Comes Home by Robert & Julia Barnes, and unfortunately I have to give it a thumbs down. I am not entirely unsympathetic to the house church movement and definitely would consider joining a house church if the opportunity presented itself. Instead of this book, I would recommend anything by Steve Atkerson of the New Testament Reformation Foundation. The fatal criticisms I have about this book are not present in his. Some may think it unfair that I am trashing the book based upon only two points, but these two points highlight the problem with the mindset of some in the movement.
Also, I had previously promised that the next theological book on my plate would be House Divided. I have decided that it will not, and no matter what I say or do someone will spin it, so I don’t care. I am very distracted with my divorce right now and don’t feel I can do the book justice if I can’t concentrate or if I have to put it down not to pick it back up until a few weeks later. It will be the next book on my list when I feel I can do it justice. It was given to me as a gift, and it would be disrespectful to the giver to give it a shoddy breeze-through. (the latest on the personal front is a mediation scheduled for mid-December)
Now to the last criticism of The Church Comes Home, and the one made me want to distance myself from the authors’ shoddy treatment of the issue. What issue? The role of women in the Church. (pages 224-225)
What makes this treatment so embarrassing is that the authors have an agenda but pretend like they don’t, and it is only those narrow-minded doctrinal people (yes, this is the same book promoting a doctrine of the church–hmmm) who have a “particular interpretation,” as if they don’t. Arghh!!
There is considerable controversy concerning the role of women in church meetings, but our view is that all women and all men ought to be able to participate in both smaller and larger gatherings of the church according to the gifts and maturity God has given them. Experience has shown us that both are equally able to give talks, lead discussions, exercise pastoral gifts, baptize, introduce the Lord’s support—as well as pray, read Scripture, choose hymns, mind children, prepare meals, and do dishes. Although not every member will have exactly the same function in church, one half of the body cannot say to the other, “We have no need of you” or “You have less to offer.”
Poison the well much? Where do they get this idea? From the Scripture? No…from experience. I’m sorry, but I think the first place to look is the Scripture. Plus did you notice the straw-man drowning in the poisoned well? That those who hold to a different position on women in the Church must think that women are only able to choose hymns, mind children, prepare meals, and do dishes. Why did they stop there? They might as well have made the circle complete by adding barefoot and pregnant in there. Anyone with an ounce of education about opposing views knows that those who oppose women serving certain functions in the Church do not believe so on the basis of women being unable or incompetent. And you just gotta love the passive-aggressive barb at the end. I hate to say it, but I bet Julia wrote that part. I have dealt with enough women ticked off at the complementarian position to see it coming a mile away.
Differentiation of gender roles is not normally a major issues in home churches, perhaps because of their informal setting and relational character. The issue arises only when a particular interpretation of Scripture intrudes, although, even there, people’s practice is normally more inclusive than their doctrine.
Ahh, notice that they assume that non-differentiation is the default, and it is only a “particular interpretation” that moves things from that. Scripture teaches otherwise, and holy cow, so does my experience! Trump THAT Julia. The fact is that both of these positions are from a particular interpretation of Scripture, so let’s move behind the emotive arguments of inferior women slaving in the kitchen, shall we?
It is also true that even those who espouse the equality of men and women carry some cultural and theological baggage. That means that women are not always allowed to contribute all that they can.
If you don’t hold their position, you have baggage. In other words, heads you win, tails I lose.
***
Many women are attracted to home churches precisely because they find opportunity and encouragement to be all and to give all that God intended. Such groups provide an excellent setting for both women and men to discover their individual gifts, develop the fruit of the Spirit, and work out their divine complementarity
Substitute homosexual for women and the Metropolitan Church for home church in that paragraph, and the fatal flaw is apparent. The question isn’t what is attractive to the sinner. It is what the correct view is. And that last bait and switch of co-opting the term complementary for their egalitarian views is hyper-preterist worthy.
This book has done a great deal to turn me off of the home church movement when I am predisposed to be attracted to it. I am thankful that I know balanced male leaders in the movement such as Steve Atkerson. His book Ekklesia has a balanced treatment on this issue from both points of view.
I think you nailed this one Dee Dee. Yeah, I know there are good home churches out there, but as I think you pinpointed in this review (OK, this is my language, but I think it conveys the same basic idea), the danger in homechurches is that they lack the very thing so many home church believers intended to lack all along: church authority.
The move is from “authoritative” (i.e. there are standards and we have to stick to them) to “relational” (i.e. the standards are what we say they are, and besides, we relate better to each other that way), and boom, church changes into what we want it to be, instead of us becoming part of the church and changed by it.
It’s possible to do home church and not fall into that trap I know, but when that’s done, what is really happening is that regular church is being done. In a home.
It seems Dr. James White agrees with you although he does point out Atkerson has done some execellent work debunkng hyperpreterism.
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?amount=0&blogid=1&query=Steve+Atkerson+
Oh Paul, perhaps I was unclear. It is not Atkerson I am criticizing. Atkerson has some great material on the home church movement, I recommend his work. He is also a very good friend. I was comparing Atkerson’s work to the Barnes’ work, and do not recommend the Barnes. I host Atkerson’s contrahyperpreterism work on the Preterist Site and have for some years now.