"Confronting
Theology & Practice With
the Lordship of Jesus
Christ"
Acts 17:10-11 • 1st Thess. 5:19-22
Posted April 1st,
1999
Updated April 20th, 1999
"Confronting
Theology & Practice With
the Lordship of Jesus
Christ"
Posted April 1st,
1999
Updated April 20th, 1999
It is my belief that, in "Characteristics of an Apostle," Edwards has merely designed a job description to fit his own grandiose notions of his personal qualifications to fill this office. Nevertheless, I believe it will be seen that Edwards' essay is fraught with error, and that this self-styled church planter dismally fails his own criteria for true apostleship. Before we examine some of the characteristics that Edwards finds so significant, let's consider his thoughts on Christian service, found at the beginning of his article. Edwards says:
One of the biggest problems of our day, among a
multitude of big problems, is the fact that no one
is really qualified to be serving the Lord. The
servants of God in this age universally lack
experience in really deep encounter with the living Christ. They lack complete abandonment to Him. Even beyond these deficiencies and dozens more, the
Christians of this age haven't the vaguest idea of
what God's central burden is! They do not have a
vision of the centrality of His church. The
preparation modern ministers receive before
entering the ministry is almost 100 percent
ineffective, if not useless, in light of God's
purpose.
While I would heartily agree with Edwards' last remark in this quote, his other remarks belie an unjustifiably strident attitude. These kinds of remarks indicate that it is Edwards' opinion that no one other than he knows Christ as they should. The implication, here, seems to be that Edwards views himself as our only hope; he alone knows God's central burden; he alone has had a really deep encounter with the living Christ; he alone is qualified to serve the Lord. This is the underlying message: Only Gene Edwards can teach us to know the Lord!
Here are some things we can learn from 1 Timothy.
One of them is that probably eighty five percent of all the men in any church meet the qualifications of an elder as listed in 1 Timothy.2
Yet, in "Characteristics of an Apostle," he opines that "no one is really qualified to be serving the Lord." How is it that Edwards can say that "no one is really qualified to be serving the Lord" as apostles, and at the same time suggest that "probably eighty five percent of all men in any church meet the qualifications of an elder" (my emphases)? Is the difference between the two really so vast that "no one," not even the best of the "eighty five percent of all men in any church," is qualified to serve the Lord as apostles? I would suggest that at least one out of a hundred elders in any church that maintains the religion of our Lord probably fulfills the moral characteristics of an apostle that Edwards mentions, and is probably mature enough to meet any other legitimate requirements.
In any event, it must be asked, Does Edwards view elders as vastly inferior to those who are "serving the Lord"? Are we supposed to believe that those who "serve the Lord" are apostles, while the rest of the saints are unworthy of the task of serving even in very small ways? This seems to be his thought, for, as the context will show, he cannot be speaking only of apostles, nor even of missionaries, evangelists, or elders; ultimately, he identifies who he's talking about as being "Christians," in general. One wonders, then, whether Edwards is either too divisive in his theology and practice to recognize qualified men who differ with him, or if he is simply experiencing ivory tower syndrome to the max. It does provoke the question, Where is the Lord in these kinds of statements?
However, in some of his lectures, Edwards seems to discount this possibility out of hand; he insists that the dear saints his readers might think of as pure, righteous, and godly men are really just individuals who are putting on a fantastically good show, and that if you looked closer you would see that these men sin in pretty much the same ways as anyone else in the church, and pretty much to the same extent. Obviously, Edwards offers no evidence that this is true, and is merely working off an assumption that he — and, evidently, his disciples — would dearly love to be true. He knows that most of us have seen enough "great saints" caught in serious sins, turn out to be scalawags, or expose themselves as mediocre.
As with those who believe in the full moon theory,3 our memories can be religiously selective, and we often tend to recall only facts that support our cherished beliefs — which is precisely the case with many of Edwards' followers when it comes to the notion that no one is really holy in our day. Indeed, whenever someone points to another dear saint as a truly godly man, his followers dutifully and automatically assume that the saint in question is merely faking it. Oddly enough, these same Edwardsians are the first to accuse others of being judgmental if one (such as myself) should publicly point out Edwards' many doctrinal and leadership errors! Again, this notion leads me to ask pertinent questions: 1. Why does Edwards harbor such cynical feelings toward Christians who don't see eye to eye with him? 2. Where is the centrality of Jesus Christ in such broad-sweeping judgmentalism?
"Even beyond these deficiencies and dozens more, the Christians of this age haven't the vaguest idea of what God's central burden is!" Now, in this statement Edwards has identified who he is really scorning; it's not apostles or evangelists, but "Christians." Which leads to another question: Is it even remotely consistent with the characteristic of a true apostle found under characteristic number #18 to speak this way? As much as I despise unscriptural systemization (as opposed to biblical, apostolic order) in the body of Christ, and having been involved in one of Edwards' churches, having met the man and read at least a dozen of his books, and having seen approximately eight to ten of his videos and listened to about as many of his cassette tapes, I personally would conclude that in this day there are many men (mostly of institutional stripe) who have an equal or better knowledge of Christ and the Bible, and of what it means to be His church, than Edwards does. Such men may not have a proper understanding of how to achieve God's designs; but then, how is it apparent that Edwards does? What kind of reputation does a so-called apostle make for himself with these kinds of remarks? How is the centrality of Jesus Christ being maintained by suggesting that no one really knows Christ deeply, or understands what He purposes to do?
In terms of religious writings, many contemporary authors demonstrate a far greater knowledge and understanding of Christ and the Scriptures, and a superior understanding of the true nature of church; men like Donald Kraybill, Douglas Moo, John R.W. Stott, James Montgomery Boice, Leon Morris, James D.G. Dunn, Richard Longenecker, Moises Silva, D.A. Carson, are just a few who come to my mind. This, in spite of the fact that this knowledge has not caused many (if any) of these men to jettison the practice of systematized church. Among home-churchers, though less well known, perhaps, men like Robert Banks, Steve Ackerson, Eric Svendson, Hal Miller, Frank Viola, and Arthur Gish also come to mind.
While the ekklesia is certainly very central in God's heart, this in no way proves that the totality of the purpose of apostles (all apostles) can be simply summed up in planting churches. Regardless, isn't it is the height of sublimated conceit to suggest that only one's self understands this "secret"? Is it even credible to suggest that one is promoting God's central burden while refusing to obey what is explicitly commanded in the Great commission (Matt. 28:19-20)? As far as I can tell, it is not Edwards' great burden to make disciples, in the sense of planting the Word in the field (i.e., the world, not the church) and indoctrinating and disciplining new believers according to the teachings and commandments of Christ. Rather, Edwards seems to gather men and women who have been Christians for some time, but who have become discontent with the usual arrangements they have found in systematized churches, virtually destroying any inhibitions that the commands of Christ might place on them. Naturally, without making very many converts, it is rarely necessary that Edwards should have to baptize anyone, or even delegate the chore to another, let alone that he would need to follow the apostolic practice laying hands on newly baptized converts.
Now, I realize this is a serious and sweeping thing to say, but not only does he not impress upon his followers the commandments of Christ, as found in the Gospels and in the epistles of His apostles, he actually gainsays the idea that Christians should be governed by any kind of law! At the January 1998 Tacoma conference, Edwards told his audience that the cross of Christ did away with "all law." Indeed, at one point in the conference, he said that in the church there inevitably arises a situation where some brother will point out that another brother and sister have been divorced and remarried, and that they are living in sin; at which point, Edwards nearly popped a vein, screaming, "So what!" Now, regardless of one's views on divorce, this is an incredible disregard for two evils that, very likely, some in Edwards' audience were contemplating, if not even currently engaging in. And Edwards' ensuing words did nothing to disabuse his hearers of the impression he gave that adultery and divorce aren't that big of a deal.
The Sermon on the Mount is not for you — it is
not for
Christians
in general. Rather, the Sermon on the Mount is only
for those who preach the Gospel, for church
planters or apostles. We know this
because Matthew tells us that when the Lord saw the
multitudes,
He left them, going up on the mountain; after
which, His apostles came to him, and He sat down
and taught them, His
apostles, and gave to them the words of the
Sermon on the
Mount.
Now, of course, this is a facile approach to the Sermon on the Mount. Unfortunately it is hardly credible to believe that this protegé's doctrine on the Sermon on the Mount was not informed by Edwards' own theology. Indeed, when I privately confronted Edwards' protegé with the truth in an e-mail, and several weeks later sent a copy of my correspondence to Edwards, himself, I received no response regarding this teaching from either man (even though both have responded to other posts). In fact, in a letter mailed to this same group of believers, this same protegé admonished them, saying, "The first century church had no doctrines or beliefs," the ignorance of which should be glaringly obvious to even a first year VBS alumnus!
The fact is, in teaching the Lord's people such twaddle, and by not correcting it, Edwards is actually in opposition to what our Lord taught His apostles. Even if Edwards' understanding of the Sermon on the Mount were correct, he has not taken into account that the risen Lord commanded His apostles to teach His disciples to observe all that He had commanded "you," (i.e., all that He had taught His apostles — Matt. 28:20)! But, besides this, as I pointed out to Edwards and his protegé, this understanding is based on a superficial examination of the text.
The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, not as their scribes. — Matt. 7:28-29
Thus says the Lord of hosts, "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; they speak a vision of their own imagination, not from the mouth of the Lord. — Jeremiah 23:16
Now, Edwards and his disciples often speak of the centrality of Christ, but it seems to me that they use this phrase primarily as an escape clause to evade the implications of what it means to follow Christ. Here Edwards seems to have shown us what he really considers to be pivotal: his vision for the church.5 You will have to judge for yourself whether or not Edwards' vision for the church, as described in his fast and loose paraphrases of the inspired story, lines up with God's desires for it, as described in the real story (i.e., the Holy Scriptures, which, unlike Edwards' paraphrases, were actually inspired by the Holy Spirit).
Interestingly, of the apostles who wrote enscripturated (i.e., canonized) letters to the churches and the saints, the only one of whom the Bible clearly tells us raised up churches (Paul) did not shy away from declaring himself to be apostle in his writings. Edwards "plants" churches, he thinks, but definitely shies away from calling himself an apostle. Quite prudently, none of his literature or lectures start out with anything approaching an assertion of the notion that he has been commissioned by the Lord.
When one realizes that the prophets of the Old Testament age were not all of the same mold, as such, and when one sees the characteristic differences between men like John, Thomas, Peter, Paul, and James, it is hard to say with any certainty how an apostle will approach his work. And, considering that an apostle may act the part of a hypocrite (Gal. 2:11-14, q.v.), it would certainly seem possible that an apostle might fall into the error of institutionalism. Certainly, Paul provides us with a reliable pattern for spreading the gospel to which missionaries should generally adhere, but this is no guarantee that true servants of the Lord will necessarily see the wisdom or binding nature of these patterns.
Furthermore, wherever Paul entered a city, it did not appear for some weeks, perhaps months, that he was outside the religious system, for he continued preaching in the synagogues as long as the Jews would tolerate him. It was only after the rabbis would eject him from their synagogues, or would refuse him entrance, that it became apparent that he was outside the religious system.
Edwards says, "The reasons are endless," why a true apostle "will be a man totally outside the religious system," but the only reason he gives is one that is irrational: "Apostleship takes nothing if it does not take courage. If a man has not the courage to step . . . outside the religious system . . . then he hasn't even taken one step toward a deep knowledge and understanding of Christ and the church." This is a good argument for suggesting that a true apostle will step out of a jet at 3,000 feet without a parachute as much as it is for an apostle not being in the religious system. Why? Because, as Edwards observes, apostleship requires courage; but, if a man hasn't stepped out of a jet at 3,000 feet without a parachute, then he hasn't even taken the first step toward living a life of faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Absurd? Yes; but so is Edwards' argument about apostles being outside the religious system. How much courage was the veteran apostle, Peter, showing when he acted within the framework of the Jewish system (Gal. 2:11-14)? Yet, he was still a true apostle.
Having a deep knowledge and understanding of Christ does not necessarily entail having a complete understanding of all that He desires of us, and having a deep understanding and knowledge of His church doesn't require an experience of a properly functioning assembly, either; any more than a child born deaf and blind, with no arms and legs (i.e., lacking many of the normal functions of a human) has failed to have a deep knowledge and understanding of his parents, or of human life, or of family life. Function is not what makes a church; life, real life — not real life as it is perceived and grasped with the mind, but life as it actually is — is what makes a church. And for all of the institutional baggage that has many churches bogged down today, most of them probably do not have the gross problems that the churches at Corinth and Galatia had, or that some of the churches of the Apocalypse had.
Okay, maybe he's not leading an organization. Perhaps it really is nothing more than several like-minded churches that just sort of associate with one another; kind of like the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. Except, I don't think the GARB goes out of its way to discourage its members from visiting with churches of other denominations, except those they consider to be heretical (e.g., the Roman Catholic churches). However, this Association of Devoted Edwards' Churches (ADEC)8 smacks more of those in Corinth, who were saying, "'I am of Paul,' and 'I am of Apollos,' and 'I am of Cephas,' and 'I am of Christ'" (1 Cor. 1:12). ADEC is of Edwards! Still, his disciples have not pledged, contracted, or covenanted themselves to him; so maybe it's really nothing more than a movement that Edwards is leading.
Indeed, what is the point of knowing the Scriptures at all, if it is not to inform the course of one's life and ministries? I am sorry if I seem to be harping on this — but, if the Scriptures ruled Edwards' thoughts and life, wouldn't he be obeying the Lord's instruction to apostles to teach others to obey everything He commanded of them (Matt 28:20)? Indeed, Edwards gives me the distinct impression that he doesn't think that the Lord's children should even be concerned about what the Bible says. In his theology they certainly shouldn't be concerned about obeying precepts of the Scriptures that apply to the church. Evidently, Edwards does not think that they should be taught the Bible, at any rate.
Of course, Edwards himself doesn't seem to teach the Scriptures, except to subvert them for the sake of his own tradition, or where they happen to nicely coincide with his agenda. Indeed, Edwards doesn't even seem concerned to get back the essence or ideal of the New Testament church; he appears to be looking to recover, instead, his own reconstruction of the first century church! As many a liberal theologian has demonstrated, you don't need the Scriptures for that. Be that as it may, is it not legitimate to assume that, since the Master Himself taught His disciples the Scriptures10 while He was on earth, that His apostles would have imitated Him in this, and would have taught the churches the Scriptures, as well?11
Edwards continues, under the same point:
When he speaks [a true apostle] will minister not
doctrine, not creeds, not chains of interwoven verses to prove some teaching. He will speak of Christ. He will tell men, show men how to know
Christ. Christ will be his sole occupation, his
only topic.
First of all, as one brother has observed, this statement displaces the objective knowledge of Christ with the subjective; and, by so doing, places a man (viz., Gene Edwards) in the authoritative place God has given to the Holy Scriptures. This is precisely what Catholicism has done by elevating their "apostle," the supposed successor of Peter, above the authority of the Scriptures! Indeed, this is what every cult and aberrational sect of Christendom does (some, perhaps, replacing the authority of the Scriptures with a plurality of leaders, rather than a single person).
Paul said to Timothy, "In pointing out these things [viz., Paul's doctrine] to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following" (1st Tim. 4:6). What's this?!!! Timothy was following doctrine? Yes, because being focused on Christ requires attention to sound doctrine! Indeed, Paul has said, here, that teaching his doctrine will make Timothy a good servant of Christ. Now, if doctrine or teaching was so important for subordinate apostles, such as Timothy, and for elders, how much more important it must have been for Paul and the Twelve!
Listen, also, to what Paul commanded Titus, an apparently subordinate apostle, instructing him with regard to the qualifications of elders:
For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward . . . holding fast to the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching [i.e., doctrine], that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. — Titus 1:7&9Now, while Edwards teaches that what Paul means by those who "contradict" is merely someone who has "an opposite opinion" to what they see in the meetings of the church,12 it is clear from the actual letter to Titus that Paul is concerned with more than mere opinions. If the overseer is to hold fast to the faithful word in order that he can both exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict, then it is clear that those who contradict are those who disagree with sound doctrine and the faithful word. In fact, if what is taught by anyone in the church is just an opinion, it ought to be opposed even if it is taught by a so-called church planter! Interestingly, when Edwards discusses this passage in his book on eldership, he glosses over the fact that overseers are to exhort in doctrine entirely.
Paul goes on, in Titus, and tells his reader, "But as for you, speak these things which are fitting for sound doctrine" (Tit. 2:1). Paul tells this subordinate apostle, "to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine . . ." (Tit. 2:7). He tells him, as he did Timothy, to exhort slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, in order "that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in every respect" (Tit. 2:9-10). So, we can see that Paul considered doctrine — sound doctrine — to be very important, as we may assume did all the apostles (in fact, Acts 2:42 tells us that just after the Spirit had come on the day of Pentecost, the saints in Jerusalem "were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching [i.e., doctrine]."
Furthermore, the apostles were busy giving the church "traditions," too! Not as the ever changing traditions that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic denominations hand down in their churches, but traditions which they received from our Lord, and which the Holy Spirit (intending them to continue in the churches) inspired to be recorded in the New Testament (e.g., see 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15 & 3:6). Additionally, it is widely recognized that there are numerous creedal statements in the New Testament; creeds are merely a concise way of stating and remembering teachings. But, above all, the apostles taught like crazy. You want a string of interwoven scriptures drawn together to prove a point? Read Paul's epistle to the Romans. Read Hebrews. Read Galatians. Read the sermons recorded in Acts. Edwards doesn't appear to know what he is talking about when he inveighs against such things.
Does it not seem ironically incongruous to minister a doctrine such as that the apostles didn't minister doctrines? Is it not incredibly inconsistent to gainsay creeds, and then encourage the singing of hymns and choruses? After all, meaningful hymns and choruses are rarely anything other than creeds set to music. Perhaps this is why the Scriptures teach us that we are to minister to one another by speaking to each other in hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19); hymns and spiritual songs are a useful vehicle to help us to remember doctrines. Worse, isn't it is patently foolish for the saints to believe a man, such as Edwards, who gives no Scriptural evidence that what he says is true about what the apostles ministered, when others have shown, through numerous citations and legitimate expositions of various New Testament texts, that just the opposite is true. Doesn't it seem obviously self-deluding to give any credence to a supposed apostle who says that the apostles' sole occupation was ministering Christ, when his own occupation is, apparently, proclaiming the work, authority, and characteristics of an apostle, and most definitely is not solely Christ? Where, in the entire New Testament, do we see any of the apostles taking up more than a few sentences about their apostleship?
In the same way, he seems to encourage his followers in the notion that there just isn't very much literature available, besides his, that gives an accurate and honest picture of how to "do" church.15 More importantly, as one brother observed, when Edwards routs firm belief in the authority of the Scriptures from the minds of his disciples and ardent admirers, making their "knowing the Lord" dependant on his instruction, he has effectively formed a cult and placed himself as the head of a movement.
Let the reader ask himself, Just what constitutes a movement? One of the definitions of this term — the one that describes what we are treating of, here — says that "a movement is a collective (or force) of diverse individuals who demonstrate marked preferences for distinctive activities engendered within the collective or by its leader(s) for the purpose of achieving a common end." Now, doesn't it appear that the items mentioned in the previous two paragraphs, along with the other distinguishing characteristcs of Edwards' churches that have been discussed, demonstrate that he has indeed turned the churches that he has "raised" into a movement? A movement of which he stands as the head?!
Additionally, Edwards teaches that it is the duty of apostles to be "riding 'herd' on . . . elders"!16 But how does an apostle "ride 'herd'" on anyone without calling "for men to submit to him"? How does an apostle "not rule or dictate" while he is "riding 'herd' on those elders"? Riding herd is not a shepherding term, it is one of those words that belongs to a cattleman's or a cowboy's cultural matrix, and indicates a method of herding that is contrary to the method used by shepherds to keep their sheep. In fact, a synonymous expression to "riding herd" is "cattle punching." I have already mentioned other things that Edwards dictates to his churches (e.g., don't pray, don't try to be holy, don't discuss doctrine in your meetings).
Edwards' ardent followers may respond to my assertion that he dictates to his churches by justifying his commands, suggesting that they are "gifts" for the benefit of the churches (Luke 22:25, q.v.), and thus concluding that I have twisted them into an authority issue. Nevertheless, the fact remains that, regardless of the reason for handing out orders, the one who does so is attempting to rule or dictate others' lives. Thus, I have not turned the purposes of Edwards' commands into an authority issue; rather, Edwards has made them an authority issue by the nature in which he advances them.
However, Paul said that there were signs of a true apostle, and that he had demonstrated all of them. While we may not be able to know for sure what signs Paul referred to (perhaps because God may never have intended for apostles to continue past the first century), we do know of certain signs that both Paul and Peter manifested. One of these is raising the dead; another is demonstrated when an apostle lays hands on a newly baptized believer: the convert receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, and manifestly so!
Paul's apostleship was attested by the witness of proven prophets and recognized teachers at the church in Antioch. When he was called by the Holy Spirit, it was not especially revealed to him, but to the prophets and teachers who were serving the Lord in Antioch with him: "As they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set aside for Me Paul and Barnabas to do the work for which I have called them" (Acts 13:2 — my emphasis). Yes, Paul was especially called, but it was the company of prophets and teachers to whom his calling was especially revealed at the time of his commissioning. Beyond this, Paul also received the right hand of fellowship from the Jerusalem apostles, Peter going so far as to equate Paul's writings with those of the Old Testament Scriptures (2nd Peter 3:15-16). Paul's apostleship was also manifested in a miracle from his hand on his very first missionary journey, in the very first city in which he proclaimed the Gospel (Acts 13:4-11)! And also in the third city where he proclaimed the gospel (Acts 14:8-10).
Again, in all of Edwards' years as a so-called apostle, or, as he normally calls it, a "church planter," there is no record of any works of wonder being done through him. As for laying hands on newly baptized converts, Edwards explained to me, in a personal conversation (witnessed by no less than three men), that he does not consider himself worthy to lay hands on the newly baptized; still, he seems to consider himself worthy to plant churches, write books, and lecture at conferences. Ask yourself, though; does it require a greater degree of personal humility and other worthy attributes to lay hands on men than it does to order their church life for them, or to be their spiritual guru?
Call it coincidence, but before Edwards teaches his disciples to pray, before he exhorts them to try to be holy, before he does almost anything the apostles in the New Testament did with their converts, very early on in the start of his churches Edwards puts it upon his disciples to make financial contributions. In fact, this is one of the few biblical requirements of the church that Edwards seems to really insist on right from the get go. However, unlike many religious leaders, these contributions aren't for the purpose of benefiting Edwards, personally. No, they are to pay for a library of his books, and other books published and sold by Edwards' non-profit publishing and distribution companies,19 so that, when a visitor comes to a meeting, there is plenty of literature handy that can be given out. The money is also to be used to pay for the travel and lodging expenses of Edwards' protegés when they come to check up on the churches, and, as was mentioned before, to pay for poorer members of the churches to go to Edwards' conferences. These contributions are also, occasionally, to help the poor of the church with their living expenses. Last, but not least, Edwards asks his disciples to give of their monies in a very unusual way; at the conference in Tacoma, at the very last session, he asked his disciples and admirers to pick the largest local Christian bookstore in the region and go to it at least once a month, and purchase or order at least one of his books each visit— even if they already owned all of his books. This is in order to give the store the impression that Edwards' books are hot sellers, so that the store would then begin to stock a broad selection of his books which other customers might then be attracted to purchase!
Now, it is possible that when Edwards says, "There will be no specially trained men left behind who have to make sure she survives" that he is referring to non-apostles who are appointed to stay in the churches in a leadership capacity (e.g., pastors, elders). If that is what he means, the problem with it is that it would be somewhat deceptive. For Edwards' knows that eventually Paul appointed elders in all of his churches, either in person or by proxy. Indeed, Derby evidently had its elders appointed before Paul had even left the region, just after the church in that city had been raised up, before he returned to Antioch from his first journey (Acts 14:23), as did the other churches in the area (Acts 14:21-23). While Luke may not have mentioned the appointment of elders in each place where Paul preached, the fact that he does not stop to explain their function (where he does mention them) suggests that their presence in all the churches was so ubiquitous that no Christian reading of them could possibly be ignorant of what they were!
It seems to me that the easiest way to smoke GE out on the Apostleship issue is to get him to DENY being an apostle. He may never claim it by anything else but insinuation, but if he doesn't claim it, he should have no problem disavowing it. Unless he is a liar also. But I predict that he would somehow evade the question and refuse to respond, because I think he really does view himself as an apostle.
Take this challenge. The next time Edwards visits your church, or is in your area, even, make it a point to go and listen to him. Then take the opportunity to ask him the following question: "Given the biblical use of the term, and given your 20 characteristics of an apostle, will you answer me with a 'yes' or 'no,' whether or not you consider yourself to be an apostle, whether or not you have been sent by the Holy Spirit in like manner to Paul and Barnabas, and with like authority to Paul and Peter?"
Don't ask Gene's protegés (or even his disciples or other devotees of his books) whether or not he is an apostle, or whether or not he thinks he is; what they think, though interesting and telling, is, ultimately, irrelevant to what Edwards himself would say. The Moonies think their guru is a god, that he is Jesus Christ, even; but Sun Myung Moon has never said that he is, and that is his escape; but it is clearly what he wants his followers to believe.
If you ask Edwards the above question and he evades you (if he starts out by saying something like, "I'm glad you asked that question . . ." look out, he's probably going to dodge), tell him that he didn't answer your question; tell him that all the other stuff he said is fine and interesting, but that, really, all you want to know is whether the answer is yes or no. Persist. Ask him why he won't just give you a strait answer. Tell him he doesn't need to define terms according to the definitions used in the Paula Jones law suit (we all know what the meaning of "is" is), that you just want a simple yes or no answer to your question. Repeat the question for him if necessary. If he gives you anecdotes, and a convoluted diatribe that goes nowhere, then try asking him, when he has exhausted himself dodging the issue, "So, in other words you do consider yourself an apostle?" Or, "Is this to say that you don't consider yourself an apostle?"
Go ahead and ask Gene the question. I dare you! If he affirms that he is an apostle, ask yourself, "What great men of reputation in any church heard the Holy Spirit call him to be an apostle? When did he see, as Paul or Peter saw, the resurrected Christ? Why are his churches made up almost exclusively of individuals who have been Christians before ever hearing of him, and so few converted by actually hearing him proclaim the Gospel? Why doesn't he teach the saints to obey all that Jesus had commanded the Twelve, as per the Great Commission (Matt. 28:50)? What miracle does he perform to authenticate his apostleship? Who has he raised from the dead, now that he is in his old age? Who of his disciples has the Holy Spirit fall upon them, and manifestly so, when he lays his hands on them? Why, in fact, does he not follow the example of the apostles of the New Testament in laying hands on new believers that they may receive the Holy Spirit?"
If he denies that he is an apostle, then ask yourself, "Why does he go if he knows he hasn't been sent? What authority does he have for the things that he does? Ask him, then, in view of his beliefs, if he is willing to lay all his work at Jesus' feet, and to back away from it, altogether. I think we both know what his answer will be.
As a side note, in When the Church Was Led Only by Laymen, Edwards says that sisters share the spotlight with the brothers. However, while he says there are "more than one hundred references to brothers and/or sisters" (p. 20) in the Acts and epistles of the apostles, as opposed to only "some thirteen references to elders" (ibid.), my exhaustive concordance shows that, in reality, of those "more than one hundred references to to brothers and/or sisters," there are only seven actual references to sisters. So, I guess, if Edwards were consistent in his abusive use of Bible statistics, sisters should be booted to the sidelines, among the "bushes in the backdrop of the stage's scenery" (p. 19) along with the elders and the deacons. The way he writes and speaks, you'd think sisters were mentioned on every page of the New Testament!
To illustrate what he means, Edwards gives historical reality an ignorant twist, suggesting that a number of Christian denominations came by their names through external observations of what their members talked about most (although, he was very careful not to suggest that the "Brethren" got their name because of their frequent use of this affectionate term). That is, he says that people outside these churches named the churches because of the kinds of things members of these denominations spent so much time talking about. In reality, groups that have been named by outsiders have rarely been named because of their nomenclature, but because of their practices. Regardless, I would suggest that if an outsider were to listen in on the conversations of Edwards' disciples, they would probably call his churches by his name.
Thus, myself being an outsider (though formerly a member of one of his churches), I am hereby giving Edwards' churches a name: Edwards' Churches — and the lot of them, together: the Association of Devoted Edwards' Churches (or ADEC). I think this is a legitimate name to give his churches, as would be several other names that could be given his churches. There was an observable "unconscious" vocabulary that others could see in the Edwards' church I was in, just as there is among Baptists, Brethren, and Methodists! Let me illustrate.
A visitor came to the Edwards assembly where I fellowshipped, and within an hour or two she passionately asked the congregation, "Who is this Gene Edwards person, and why do you keep talking about him and repeating what he says?!" The church was in shock. Until this visitor had asked the question, everyone was oblivious to the fact that Edwards' name had been so frequently bandied about in the meeting! The young woman who asked this question was really quite alarmed by the way we seemed to fawn over everything that Edwards said.
Now it pains me to share this, as my response to this question was mortifyingly idiotic, not to mention spiritually bereft. But at the time, I had been keeping my eyes closed to everything that was wrong in Edwards' doctrines and practices. I was trying very hard to think in the Edwardsian matrix. And I was actually bewitched by it enough to spew idolatrous filth in defence of Edwards and his ecclesiology. I was not, perhaps, the epitome of Edwards' disciples; but, as humiliating as it is to even think about it, I was a thrall. Thus, I dutifully defended our Edwardsian matrix, explaining to this young woman that, just as the churches of Corinth and Ephesus probably mentioned Paul's name frequently, and cited Paul's doctrines to each other, so we, in our church, looked to our apostle regarding our theology and practice. The outrageous thing was that no one in the assembly disagreed with my answer to her!
In any event, in neither this church, nor in an Edwardsian church I visited elsewhere in the U.S., did I ever notice that the words "brothers" or "sisters" was used any more than in any baptist church I've visited, and much less than in many other churches I've been in (members of the New Testament Christian Churches denomination use these terms far more than do any Edwardsians I've ever met). Of course, now that I've pointed this out, Edwards' disciples will probably go all out to call each other brother and sister — especially when visitors are present. Anyway, some former Edwardsians will tell you that common terms and expressions among Edwards' disciples include, besides "Gene Edwards": "No doctrine," "the centrality of Christ," "brother's meetings," "knee football," "sister's meetings" or "sleep-overs," "sisters' conferences," "brothers' conferences," "over-functioner," "experiencing Jesus," and "Clump" (an expression that is used by some Edwardsians to indicate the psycho-social and unseemly practice of whole assemblies grinding their bodies into a tight mass while they sing praise diddies together).
Now, while at east one of these expressions (viz., "the centrality of Christ") has legitimacy, an Edwards' church could easily be called things like, "The Clumpers Church" (the church I was in clumped only once, when Edwards was in town) or "The Conference Church." But the one peculiar thing that comes out of Edwardsians' mouths the most, at this date, is the name of Gene Edwards. Again, now that I have revealed this little secret, Edwardsians will probably make a concerted effort to avoid mentioning his name around non-Edwardsians.
Additionally, there are numerous examples from the epistles, especially Romans, Hebrews, and Galatians, where the apostles taught the Scriptures to the saints through letters to the churches. All one has to do to realize this is to read these letters. Indeed, Paul tells his readers that "whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom. 15:4); the apostle Peter says much the same thing (1st Pet. 1:10-12). In fact, just as the Lord did before him (Mark 7:7-13), Paul equates the Scriptures with God Himself (Rom. 9:17; Gal. 4:30), so that we are to understand that what the Scriptures say, God says!
New Testament Restoration Foundation
Edwards explains away the notion that Paul is telling women to keep silent in Christian assemblies, in 1st Cor. 14:34-35, by suggesting that Paul is actually telling them to keep quiet in the civil courts. For a time I bought into this specious notion, as the same Greek word rendered "church" is also the word used of the Greek and Roman forums of the first century; however, unless Paul can be construed to be an undisciplined and befuddled teacher, it does not make contextual sense to render these verses as pertaining to secular matters. Nothing in the context indicates that he has taken a detour from his subject (which is the Christian ekklesias, not the civil ekklesias).
I'm not sure how Edwards handles the 1st Timothy passage, but the force of the Greek is such that Paul is literally saying, "I never permit a woman to teach." In other words, this cannot be relegated to one specific time or instance in Paul's ministry, it does not have to do with a single culture, for Paul said he never (i.e., under no circumstance) allowed women to teach! Additionally, a woman cannot be considered to be obeying Paul's directive to "quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness" if she is leading or teaching, much less if she should be telling the one who is instructing her that he is over-functioning and should shut up. Some may wonder about the legitimacy of inserting the Ephesians passage into this context, but the fact is, during the first century it was rare for women to be independent of either their father's or their husbands; how can a wife think she is submitting to her husband in everything when she stands in a role of leadership or instruction?
Elsewhere in the
Berean
Inquirer:
Other Articles on Gene Edwards
.
.
.
.
.
Gene Edwards is a Christian author who writes about apostles, the house church movement, and church leaders. He can often be heard denouncing the clergy/laity system, yet he acts as the clergy to a large albeit scattered laity in the U.S. and other countries. He appoints female elders or overseers in his churches (although he doesn't dare to call them by such terms). Gene Edwards is in control of several house churches around the country, although he himself has never founded a home church, per se. His home churches were all estabished on the old-fashioned traditional principle of sheep-steeling and relocation. Besides pretending to be an apostle himself, Gene Edwards has also writen the Savior's autobiograph, titled The Story of My Life. Other books by this acclaimed conference speaker include Beyond Radical, Divine Romance, A Tale of Three Kings, Inward Journey, Climb Highest Mountain, Our Mission, Dear Lillian, An Open Letter to Leaders of House Churches. Some of his fondest memories are of his first so-called "beyond radical" house church, in sunny Isla Vista, California.
BOOKS:
Edited by Steve Ackerson
New Testament Restoration Ministries
G.H. Lang
Schoettle Publishing
Richard H. Akeroyd
Portal Press
Watchman Nee
Living Stream Ministry
Watchman Nee
Christian Fellowship Publishers
Watchman Nee
Christian Fellowship Publishers
Robert Banks
Hendrickson Publishers
Robert and Julia Banks
Hendrickson Publishers
Hal Miller
Servant Books
T. Austin-Sparks
Testimony Book Ministries
Frank Viola
Present Testimony Ministry
Web Sites:
The Berean Inquirer
www.angelfire.com/ia/BereanInquirer/
www.tdn.com/ntrn/Default.htm
Table of
Contents
(Home)
Other Essays About Gene
Edwards
Table of Contents (Home)
Useful Links
Mailing List: Free Enrollment
E-Mail Me
Email:
TheBereanInquirer@saintmail.net