Commenter: Please explain what you mean by:â€community as Jesus exemplified itâ€. Thanks
It is the community that Jesus created and demonstrated during his earthly ministry.
I would describe it as:
Cross cultural: Jesus crossed every available cultural barrier to announce and practice the Kingdom.
Counter cultural: Jesus was offering an alternative to the dominant cultural and religious options in his world.
Inclusive: Jesus was creating community that included all of the excluded at every level. He dd this– as he did all of his community movement– with total intentionality.
Kingdom Gospel-centered: Jesus the King made the reality of the present and coming Kingdom of God the center of his movement. This center was clearly seen, and stood in contrast to the “Kingdom boundary” thinking of other Jews.
God-centered: God is present and active, as Father, creator, and redeemer of a broken and lost world.
Confrontative: Jesus confronted the powers at every level, using the weapons of love, truth and the Holy Spirit.
Radical: Jesus’ version of community was radical in its nature and demands. Compare it to the expectations people had of family and religion.
Sacrificial: Jesus’ community was identified with sacrifice, i.e. a willingness to suffer that God’s will might be done.
Healing: Jesus’ movement was restorative, including praying for and working for healing of persons and relationships. (This included spiritual warfare and deliverance.)
Didactic: Jesus constantly taught his disciples his constantly reflect on the meaning of the Kingdom of God.
Prayerful: Jesus taught his disciples to pray.
Invitational and Open: All were invited to come. All were invited to believe in Jesus as the messiah.
Non-institutional (in its essence): Jesus gave few if any indications that his movement would take on serious institutional forms. It may have institutional expressions and fruits, but that isn’t the essence of the movement.
Non-political.
Missional: Jesus’ movement was focused on the Gospel ministry and engaged in other kinds of ministry that established the presence and power of God’s compassionate Kingdom.
Jesus shaped and Jesus centered.
Becoming part of this movement was what it meant to be a follower of Jesus.
That should be “are damaged”
Why is the witness to non-Christians damaged if we disagree on transubstantiation? Our witness is damaged if one of us denies the Gospel and says the other doesn’t belong to Christ.
Ben,
Sorry I don’t know Latin. I do think Jesus went to worship and kept the Jewish Holidays. He also sang. He sang the Psalms.
It actually is hard to know what the early church was like. We do know somethings from Scripture and scant early writings. But not enough to reconstruct the early church.
But do we want to do that? I know imonk will disagree but the closest thing to the early church I can find is the monastery.
How do we today reach people with the Gospel message no matter what tradition we are in. Including the people in our own pews. How do we grow Spiritually? Encourage others? I have a big problem in my tradition because we stress justification so much many think they are done at Baptism. Each tradtion has it’s huddles.
I have learn much from other traditions, very much from the RC Church. It is not my choice, either is the Baptist one. Doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate both as well as others. I had my pastor tell me one time I should be a Pentecostal. I told my pastor being a contemplative I have to balance myself out!!!
I agree with you on the wwjd movement. First you have to know what Jesus did. He got nailed to a tree. That’s what He is asking of us.
Sue:
I live in an intentional Christian community. Have for 17 years.
My main issues in comparing monasteries to Christian community would be the absence of secular vocations and marriage.
Jesus wasn’t a monastic. Something of a Franciscan
“Why is the witness to non-Christians damaged if we disagree on transubstantiation? Our witness is damaged if one of us denies the Gospel and says the other doesn’t belong to Christ.”
I see what you are saying up to a point, but transubstantiation is Gospel to me. As I read the discourse on the bread of life in John, I notice that Jesus lost quite of few of His disciples to this “hard saying”. I know some Churches do allow both views to coexist (Anglican for example), but to me that’s an abdication of leadership. You speak of decisions.
Well a decision literally means cutting off the other possibility. If you decided A and I decide B then we are left with two choices: either split or live with our differences in little informal sub-Churches. The lack of a unified message, a singular coherent teaching is inherantly confusing to others (thus bad witness). Why won’t they say “you’ve accepted this difference why can’t I continue to believe in Zeus”, just to pick an absurd example.
Let me give you a concrete scriptural example of authority from today’s mass from Acts. The Gentile churches are worried about a possible requirement for circumcision, but the letter reassures them that, by consensus and the Authority of the Apostles, it’s not a concern, just ignore those disquieting contrarian voices. Unlawful marriage, blood and meat from idol sacrifices and strangled meat are all off limits but that’s it. Doubtless you know Acts better than I do , but clearly somebody has to be in charge and make these decisions. Acts points to the Apostles Catholics rely on Apostolic succession. You don’t have to agree with it to see why it arose.
Uh, Excuse me, Jesus had several buildings: the synagogues & the Temple in Jerusalem.
Also, could all the little pieces of Protestant/Evangelical/Reformed/Charismatic/Covenant/Baptist/Non-Denominational/Bible/Community etc Churches mentioned here maybe be because people try to lead when they feel led without being properly prepared or even called?
Very early there were local Churches who communicated with each other and answered to Rome with established leaders called Bishops and Presbyters.
Just a few random thoughts. AnneG in NC
Some think that Jesus was a monastic, an Essene, until His active ministry at the age of 30. I tend to be of that camp. Of course we don’t know.
Yes, most of us marry , raise a family, work a job. That don’t mean we can’t learn from our monastic brothers and sisters. I do believe they have much to teach us about living a Christian life in community. We can adapt that to fit our own life situation.
Sue Kephart, There are gobs, tons, lots and lots of writings from the very early Church by St Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome to name just 3 and they are fascinating. They dealt with the same things we are talking about as well as the threat of martyrdom while defining essential doctrines: the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, the Sacraments, the dual nature of Jesus.
They are really worth a read.
AnneG in NC
Memphis:
We all rely on the Apostles too. Their testimony and authority is in scripture for us, and by way of God’s grace and fallible tradition/reason, we read it together. Our elders also interpret and help us.
Our primary difference is the pope/magisterium.
BTW, I’ve never heard “transubstantiation is the Gospel.”
ms
Sue:
Many scholars are currently doubting the existence of the Essenes in the form we’ve popularly heard about.
Even if so, the Essenes were a radical reform movement preparing for a military messiah and practicing extreme asceticism. Hardly sounds like the guy accused of being too touch with women + drinking and eating too much at too many parties.
ms
>Jesus had several buildings: the synagogues & the Temple in Jerusalem.
Jesus said the temple was coming down, replaced by him.
Synagogue is a gathering of elders, not a building.
I’d be interested to know specifially what passages of scripture in I and II Timothy and Titus my church violated when they ordained me to the Gospel ministry. And I’d like to know what passages of scripture I violated in the ordinations I’ve participated in.
We also might ask where in scripture these men are 1) called priests or Father 2) commanded to be celibate and 3) given specific educational requirements.
The Bible is extremely plain on the subject of qualifications for elders. It’s hard to mess that one up.
ms
BTW, I’ve never heard “transubstantiation is the Gospel.†Certainly not as full blown mature theology under that name, but rather that the blood and body terms used by Christ are explicitly literal not at all figurative, abstract or symbolic. That is Gospel, as I read it in a very concrete literal way. Whether you believe it is another question entirely, but that’s why I pick the story where the less committed bailed. If it was understood as merely symbolic why leave?
Memphis Aggie:
When you can find me saying it’s “merely symbolic” I’ll answer that question
There are other views of the sacraments that are not RCC and not blatantly minimalistic. I’ve written about that many times on here.
ms
Also on point Christ emphatically repeats himself, does that even happen anywhere else? He doesn’t turn to Peter and say “that was a parable I meant x y and z” rather He asks if Peter wants to leave as well. The text implies a serious not seen elsewhere.
“There are other views of the sacraments that are not RCC and not blatantly minimalistic. ”
Fair enough. I’ve not made a study of your cite, so I’ve missed the your take. Link me back and I’ll take a look.
Wait a sec. Didn’t you say once you were Zwinglian on the point? Did I imagine/misremember that? From the quick internet look up I get that Zwingli held the Eucharist was merely symbolic. Is that my misunderstanding, is the source inaccurate?
Michael, You said Jesus didn’t have buildings but He did and he gathered in the Synagogue with, yes, a group of men.
I didn’t say your church violated anything. I was responding to your comments regarding people feeling lead to ordination as opposed to being called by God and being prepared. Is there anything wrong with that? You seem to be pretty well prepared and well read.
As for requirements, it is all there. Do I have to repeat it?
Celibacy is a Church discipline, not a dogma or doctrine. The word priest comes from Presbyter. Calling the priest Father is a custom we get from Paul saying he is father to the Galatians, etc.
AnneG in NC
Memphis:
What you mean by “merely symbolic” is probably considerably less than I mean and probably quite a ways from Zwingli. I’m more Z than Calvin or Luther.
I have a rich theology of the sacraments. I have no theology of transubstantiation.
We can leave it there.
ms
>The word priest comes from Presbyter.
I had a couple of years of greek and 3 of Latin. Did I miss this?
Jesus never commanded the use of buildings for anything. New covenant worship doesn’t exclude or include buildings. Jesus was silent about them.
But I’m sure what we spend on them, do in them and believe about them is often a long way from the new covenant.
peace
ms
“I have a rich theology of the sacraments. I have no theology of transubstantiation.”
I think I follow that distinction well enough and I’ll let it go, unless you care to take it up elsewhere some other time. I expect Zwingli, like everyone else, is not done justice by his Wikipedia page.
No one who talks about Zwingli ever reads him. Only what Lutherans and RCs say about him.
Really….a post on the community of Jesus isn’t a discussion of the difference between Protestant and Catholic versions of the sacraments is it?
I mean, isn’t there something quite revealing about the continual quest to establish that all my criticisms of my own tradition and all my efforts to hear Jesus really need to be laid aside so I can accept the theology of the sacraments? The community I’m looking for is the RCC as it is?
I’m sorry guys. Really. I am so happy for all of you, but I’ve been to mass 50x, and I’m not looking for the faith to believe that a miracle happens on the altar, etc.
I’m looking for the Jesus shaped community. That many people believe they have found it in Orthodoxy and the RCC (or the latest meagachurch) is no surprise to me. I’ve read the best RC apologists and what they found isn’t what I am looking for.
peace to you brothers and sisters,
ms
“Really….a post on the community of Jesus isn’t a discussion of the difference between Protestant and Catholic versions of the sacraments is it?”
You wouldn’t think so , but if you’re Catholic and want to play too, it comes along. From the Catholic point of view, the Eucharist literally defines the community. Other wise I felt like I was outside looking at totally Protestant question. That’s why it drifted that way.
Sorry about revisiting the point I was trying to explain, not to argue.
So as long as there is a priest doing mass, there are no other questions regarding the community of Jesus that need to be asked and answered?
That’s what we are seeing in the book of Acts? The extension of priests making the sacraments available?
Acts 8:4 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. 5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ.
This movement was ordinary people evangelizing and church planting.
Sacraments may “define” the church in important ways. I agree. But it’s not all there is to the community. That’s a serious error in my view. One that is still worth resisting.
iMonk
Anne G. is right. Presbyteros became priest in English. In old French it would have been prestre. You wouldn’t have learned this in Greek, since it’s English etymology we’re talking about.
There’s no law against the word ‘Essene’ being a kind of catch-all with vague or misunderstood boundaries, either – like ‘Evangelicalism’, perhaps?
- Invested in only a few with the secrets of the kingdom.
- Said that Herod was a fox. Luke 13:32
Good list.
CCC Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”
No, it isn’t just the priest celebrating Mass or making available the other sacraments. Each believer is called to participate according to our vocation in Christ’s mission, in other words, I am a wife, mother, grandmother, embroiderer among other things. I am called in each of these areas to minister. I really try to do what I do as I would do it for the Lord Himself. That includes trying not to cut people off in traffic, giving way in the grocery line, helping in my community, not in big ways, but as individuals need and I am able. That is my vocation as a Christian. That is what the sacraments do for me, they empower me to do those things, and they heal me from the millions of ways I fall short and don’t live up to what God has set aside for me to do to serve Him by serving my neighbors. That, I think, is the process of sanctification and making Jesus visible in the world.
That said, no other group is better or quicker to get out of the parking lot from church than a Catholic parish leaving mass. I guess we don’t so much do it there as where we have our vocations. AnneG in NC
BTW, presbyter is Greek for priest. AnneG in NC
“So as long as there is a priest doing mass, there are no other questions regarding the community of Jesus that need to be asked and answered?”
Is that a fair reading of my comments? It’s not what I wrote or meant. In this one thread I paid attention to the Eucharist because it’s what I personally care about. Not an exhaustive list of community activities and issues, which, sorry, I just don’t care about. I’m happy to let y’all sort that out.
However the activities of mission, witnessing etc all have as a goal union with Christ. We disagree on the form of that union not the necessity of it.
1. In response to my comment about Jesus choosing blue-collar types to be leaders, you wrote:
Millions of Christians do, did and always will. Probably 90% of Evangelicals worldwide. What’s the alternative? Please illuminate that one.
I can’t speak for the global Evangelical movement, but I’m willing to bet that the majority of Christian clergy in this country are, in fact, of an educated middle class background. I don’t believe this is a problem, but it is different from what Jesus did during His earthly ministry.
At the least, it means our leaders are not qualified by education or other kinds of status, but by Christ’s call.
After receiving a call, most churches expect their leaders to get some kind of education or training–usually at a college level–before they are “qualified” for ordination.
2. Sue–that little patch of Latin just means, “Arguing that something MUST be true because that’s the way it turned out”…basically, this is the argument that you say some of your RC friends make. Since no one made that argument here, however, it seemed sort of odd to bring it up.
3. Divisions within Christianity do hurt our evangelization efforts. It’s well and good to say that we agree on the essentials, but there’s not even agreement on what is and isn’t essential! I’ve talked to non-Christians who have made this observation. It’s like we all work for the GM dealership and we’re all keen on GM, but I’m selling Chevy and you’re selling Caddillac and we’re each claiming that we’ve got the best GM product. If we’re not on the same page, some folks are going to find that very off-putting.
“Confrontative: Jesus confronted the powers at every level, using the weapons of love, truth and the Holy Spirit.”
I think Jesus’ position vis-a-vis “the powers” is more complicated than this.
“Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.”
“Therefore all that they tell you, do and observe . . .”
“And he did not answer him with regard to even a single charge, so the governor was quite amazed.”
In point of fact, Jesus neglected to confront the powers at almost every level almost all of the time, unless they insisted on confronting him. This likely offended the zealots who desired confrontation with the powers.
In my mind, the Church exists to worship God and the principal way it does this, both on Earth and in Heaven, is through the sacrifice of the spotless lamb of God, united with our priest on Earth and with our High Priest Jesus in Heaven.
Vatican II calls the Eucharist the source and summit of Christian life. The source because everything flows from it and is dependent on it. The summit because the Church never does anything better or more important.
It involves quite a bit more than transubstantiation. Even the distribution of Communion plays a pretty small part.
I suspect that there is more agreement here than disagreement. For instance, I think most would agree that the main purpose of the Church is to worship God. I seem to remember Piper making a similar point. But Michael was not really talking about the purpose of the Church, so much as describing some characteristics of our interactions with each other and with outsiders.
Maybe this is stupid, but it seems to me that Jesus didn’t have a community at all, he had a loose group of followers. It was (and is) the Holy Spirit who built the church which followed once Jesus ascended.
There is a characteristic that was discussed in a similar thread a while ago that I don’t see here — it is that the Kingdom/Community of Christ was/is tribal.
This is how the Jews stayed a homogeneous people diffused in contrary societies for all these centuries — how they can live to argue theology with each other while Christians have killed each other wholesale and repeatedly over the same eons for the same disagreements.
You cannot intelligently deny that nothing in Scripture has changed that. Everything points to the Tribal Family of God.
In the penultimate, we Christians define who we are by what we believe, while it appears that the proper thinking is the reverse.
imonk,
Sorry if my comments came across as trying to persuade you to convert. If the myriad of talented apologists out there haven’t been able to convince you, I certainly don’t think I can!
I also know many people in your position. Protestants in the pro-life movement are often inundated much like you’ve been with Catholics trying to convert them, and I know how tiring that can be, especially if you’ve done your research.
I think my point can be applied to whatever ecclesiology you like. Jesus came and appointed leaders who organized people to accomplish spiritual and temporal goals like worshiping God in an organized way and caring for the poor.
I hate to be the guy playing the dictionary card, but here I am:
Institution: an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, esp. one of a public, educational, or charitable character.
If that doesn’t describe the Church, or even the Church as you’d like her to exist, I don’t know what does. We are an organization devoted to the progress of the gospel and the care of the world, with an especially public, educational and charitable character.
It seems to me the word “institution” has gotten a bad rap. There’s nothing dirty about it.
Again, my apologies for the perceived attempt at conversion. I wish you all the best on your spiritual journey.
The church can have institutional forms. I agree.
Jesus didn’t inspire a dictionary
The perceived characteristics of an institution are so subjective it’s not worth talking about.
Jesus intentionally began a movement. It has structure. I agree. But you guys are going to say that everything in your church down to the trivia was personally authorized by Jesus. I just am not going there. Protestantism hasn’t done much better, but it ought to.
ms
>I’m willing to bet that the majority of Christian clergy in this country are, in fact, of an educated middle class background.
Not in America’s largest Protestant denomination. Not in most evangelical churches under 150 members. And not in most Pentecostal churches, or rural churches, or historically black churches.
You are thinking mainlines. My denom has 35,000 churches. I doubt if a third have trained clergy.
ms
Are we now saying Jesus authorized educated clergy?
I gotta tell you, this thread is doing wonders for my book. Great examples of making Jesus endorse whatever our church is already doing and not doing.
Gospels? Why sure…..Jesus is commissioning even BIGGER buildings than the temple. Spencer just can’t see it.
It’s depressing. I may be really wrong, but where does some of this stuff come from?
Jesus endorsed educated clergy?
Whatever happened to the old fashioned way of determining what God is endorsing …? i.e. — good old “signs and wonders” — not someone’s Scriptural interpretation.
When i hit on something — or, rather it hits me — that I know to be true, it’s not because of a good human argument — there are undeniable and convincing “proofs”. When that happens I can’t be moved. I heard God speak it to me.
One thing I know — God is doing His thing — He is building His “community.” He doesn’t need my help — or anybody else’s. We need Him to, in His merciful kindness, let us participate. I just pray that I don’t do too much damage. But then it’s God I’m trying to work for. The most I can hope to be is an unprofitable servant. I cannot possibly add anything — or take anything away. Any understanding of what He is doing can only help me to feel valued enough to be afforded a little Holy insight.
It doesn’t help Him a bit.
Jesus didn’t authorize organ music, stain glass windows or lots of other things churches are full of.
I want, no, I will not accept a pastor who does not have seminary training. But hey, it’s a free country. If you want a pastor who thinks the Bible was dictated down to a group of men in the time of a ruler named James it’s your right. If you want a preacher who can barley read and write and can’t pronounce most of the names in the Good Book, you are entitled.
That doesn’t mean others can’t do ministry, can’t be active in the church community. There is one Spirit and many gifts. Please don’t have my pastor have to ask me questions because I have taken an old testament history class.
“Inclusive: Jesus was creating community that included all of the excluded at every level. He dd this– as he did all of his community movement– with total intentionality.”
I read these words, considered what is often my daily life experience, and felt like weeping. How wonderful it must have been to be a physically disabled person in Jesus’s presence! How hard it can be to be a physically disabled person (without a job, who can’t drive) in even a *good* church today!
Okay, we seem to have gotten sidetracked into ecclesiology.
What did Jesus say about the Kingdom of God? The Kingdom is like…
…a mustard seed, a man who planted a field, a woman sweeping her house looking for a lost item, leaven in the dough, a man who found a treasure in a field, a merchant seeking fine pearls, a dragnet cast into the sea (Surfnetter, this is your chance!), a landowner hiring labourers…
What picture of community can we draw from that?
As an aside, the priest/presbyter/sacerdos thing is covered in Wikipedia:
“Two different Greek words have traditionally been translated into English as priest…Both words occur in the New Testament, which draws a distinction not always observed in English. The first, presbyteros (Ancient Greek: Ï€ÏεσβÏτεÏος), Latinized as presbyter, is traditionally translated priest and the English word priest is indeed etymologically derived from this word; literally, however, this word means elder, and is used in neutral and non-religious contexts in Greek to refer to seniority or relative age.
…The second word, hiereus (Ancient Greek: ἱεÏεÏÏ‚), Latin sacerdos, refers to priests who offer sacrifice, such as the priesthood of the Jewish Temple, or the priests of pagan gods. The New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews draws a distinction between the Jewish priesthood and the High Priesthood of Christ; it teaches that the sacrificial atonement by Jesus Christ on Calvary has made the Jewish priesthood and its prescribed ritual sacrifices redundant. Thus, for Christians, Christ himself is the one hiereus, and Christian priests have no priesthood independent or distinct from that of Christ. As in the belief of most of Christianity (including the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy) the one sacrifice of Christ, which he offered “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10) on the Cross, is made present through the Eucharist, so the one priesthood of Christ is made present through the ministerial priesthood of bishops and presbyters, who are therefore by analogy called priests, without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood.
This analogous use of the word “priest” (ἱεÏεÏÏ‚, sacerdos) for Christian ministers appears to have arisen only at the end of the second century, at first for bishops only; but by the time of Saint Cyprian, in the mid-third century, it was applied to presbyters also. The late first-century Epistle of Clement uses the terms á¼Ï€Î¯ÏƒÎºÎ¿Ï€Î¿Ï‚ (bishop) and Ï€ÏεσβÏτεÏος (presbyter) interchangeably for the clergy above the rank of deacon, but for Ignatius of Antioch, who died in the early years of the second century, bishops and presbyters were already quite distinct. Elsewhere, particularly in Egypt, the distinction seems to have become established only later. By the middle of that century all the leading Christian centres had bishops distinct from the presbyters.
The word “bishop” is derived, through Latin episcopus, from the Greek word á¼Ï€Î¯ÏƒÎºÎ¿Ï€Î¿Ï‚ (episkopos), whose original meaning was “overseer” or “supervisor”. Both English words “priest” and “presbyter” come from Greek Ï€ÏεσβÏτεÏος (presbyteros), originally meaning an elder, through Latin presbyter.”
Martha,
Thank you for reminding us what the Kingdom of God is supposed to be like.
Christopher, my heart goes out to you. I just wish that I could do more than extend the hand of friendship through the Internet.
I can just imagine this scene on the road in Galilee. After the meal was done, and the dishes were washed and put up, the men and women would each separate to talk. Then, later, a single man would join the women, share in their stories, their insights and whom they saw as needy. Then and only then, would Jesus go to his bed.
Just to continue the aside on priests and bishops, for those of you who don’t know it, in the Catholic Church (I’m leaving the Anglicans, Orthodox and Lutherans to explain themselves) the priest is the representative of the bishop.
The bishop possesses the fullness of the priesthood, the bishop is the successor of the Apostles (that’s why the whole laying-on of hands in the Apostolic Succession is so important, and why the Pope has universal jurisdiction by virtue of being Bishop of Rome and successor to Peter), the bishop is the one who has the power to ordain priests (priests can’t ordain other priests), the bishop is the minister of the sacrament of Confirmation. The diocesan bishop is the ruler of his diocese and is the only one with the right to govern the members of that diocese and has the responsibility for the teaching of the faithful – this covers everything from the seninaries to the parish schools.
Trivia: the bishop’s ring is a wedding ring – it symbolises that he is ‘married’ to his diocese as Christ is Bridegroom of the Church
Sue-
So what do you have to say to…
Millions of third world Christians, rural churches, etc whose pastors are godly men without seminary or even the possibility? (Like the people in the New Testament?)
[I am a seminary grad, but for genuine usefulness in the Kingdom, seminary seems to be of little help or an actual hindrance in many cases. Look at what liberal seminary grads have done to the church.]
Jesus seemed to be recommending the rabbinical model, i.e. mentoring.
ms
On the education point, I think that in our age we should look at totally new models of doing education. Example, people could read texts online at Google Books and prepare papers using Buzzword, then discuss online with Skype, talking to mentors in other cities.
Jesus didn’t “endorse” education when he was on the earth, but look at Paul, who was incredibly educated and was chosen by Jesus to write tons of the NT. And, if we’re not Marcionite, look at the OT church, where the entire canon was written and preserved by a hieratic group of priests who were out of sync with the high-places and idols syncretistic culture around them.
So much of this discussion about “community” has come down to “hierarchy” and our personal ecclesiastical choices as to what we think that should look like.
But the only real choices that any of us has in any of this is the moment to moment decisions we are faced with on a daily basis. We are to “Love God with all our hearts and strength and our neighbor as ourselves.” If I do that, then the whole world becomes the “Community of God.” If I want to be seen as a member of that Community — if that is my highest goal and desire — then I am to “Love my neighbor as myself …”; everyone I come across I am to see as a member of that “Community.”
Hence — if I am thinking and acting aright — this world — as it is — is the “Christ -shaped Community of God.”
imonk,
In my tradtion future pastors have a year of internship. I guess you could call that mentoring. However, the basic Christian education in Bible study and other fundamentals I think need to be taught at seminary. The examples I cited are actual from non-seminary trained pastors who were mentored by a pastor who didn’t know much either.
I see you point regarding the third world and rural churches here. Whatever denomination one is in has to get busy training more people for this need.
I agree that seminary isn’t all one needs. A call to the priesthood or ministry and discerning that call is most important. In my tradition seminary grads are not ordained until they are called by a congregation. The laity have the final word if a call is valid. I like that.