Comments on: What Did Jesus’ Version of Community Look Like?

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 22 May 2009 05:27:08 +0000

Hey Tony, thanks for responding without throwing any big rocks. I’m aware that I’m a wee bit radical in my views, and I have a nasty and annoying habit of questioning everything under the sun. I probably wouldn’t have fared very well (or lived very long) in Europe during the Middle Ages.
Firstly, I’d like to address your statement that the Church is the authority, citing I Timothy 3:15 and Matthew 18:17. In the first verse Paul calls the church “the pillar and support of the truth.” I take Paul to mean is that a key indentifying aspect of the church is that it upholds the truth, which is Christ Himself, the source and embodiment of all truth. To interpret that to mean that whatever the church decides to support and uphold (or mandate) magically becomes truth … I’m sorry, I just can’t buy that. Jesus is the truth, the way, the life, and the head and supreme authority over His church, and when we collectively uphold His truth, then we’re being His body. If we’re not doing that — but rather upholding our own understanding, opinions, traditions, and preferred ways of doing things and calling it truth — then we might want to examine ourselves.
In regards to the other verse you cited, I don’t pretend to know the full scope of what Jesus meant by “binding and loosing,” but if you go on to read verses 19 and 20, apparently just two or three people can do it. I’m guessing that Jesus is talking about the supernatural power of getting together with other believers and praying in faith according to God’s will. It seems a bit of a stretch to interpret that as Jesus giving blank-check approval to absolutely any practice, policy, ritual, or doctrine the church chooses to establish.
As far as church as an institution, professional clergy, liturgies, and the like, I have my opinions, but I don’t claim to know God’s mind in these matters. When you get into issues of postBiblical church history, it always comes down to the question: Was this orchestrated or approved by God or not? The tendency is to always say “yes” when it comes to those things embraced by your own church institution or denomination and “no” to everything else. I know it’s not going to happen anytime soon, but I think Christian institutions would do well to take some time to examine themselves and their history, and dare to ask the questions: Where did this come from and why do we do it? The answers they find might surprise them.

By: MAJ Tony

MAJ Tony — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:44:43 +0000

Ron, I doubt that you will find everything in the Bible that the Apostles taught, because they probably didn’t feel the need to write down everything in it that everyone would have known, such as liturgy, which would have shared many common traits with Judaic practices (chanting of psalms, reading of scripture, sermonizing, hymns, and of course Eucharist). Of course, that did develop somewhat over time so you have the various liturgical traditions (Gregory, James, Basil, etc.) but they all are interconnected and do the same thing in similar but diverse ways. Another thing to consider is the Bible tells us that the Church is the authority. 1 Tim. 3:15 , Matt. 18:17 .

Holders of “sola scriptura” will tend to practically canonize anything written outside of scripture 1600 AD and beyond that says “sola scriptura” but ignore extra-biblical references from the early church (pre-Constantine) that would refute that very notion, either in word or deed.

If you look back to the history of the church in the volumes of patristic liturature (works of the “fathers” who are those who knew the Apostles, who learned from them) you will find there is much support for both the physical institution and the liturgical forms. One such example is the Didache.

By: Ron

Ron — Thu, 21 May 2009 07:45:37 +0000

Just from studying the NT, I would have to say that the first century church was much more relational and focused on healthy, Christ-centered relationships than it was on developing any specific institutional or organizational structure. Sure, they had leaders, but there is little or no Biblical evidence that they had a hierarchy of religious “offices.” Take for example Paul’s method of establishing leaders in the churches he helped found. Read the book of Acts and you’ll see that Paul did not set up leaders immediately. He made sure that the local community of believers got started on the right foot, and then he left them to their own devices without any official leadership. It wasn’t until he revisited these churches (sometimes years later) that he ordained (publicly confirmed or recognized) elders — which I might add was a common Greek term most commonly used to refer to men of proven standing and character within a community or family. Basically, Paul allowed time for leaders to emerge naturally and then publicly recognized those who had already stepped up to the plate. That sounds like an excellent idea to me.
As far as any kind of liturgy or set order of services, I don’t see any evidence that they had either. The closest thing to instructions for order in church gatherings can be found in I Corinthians. Check out chapter 14 (particularly verses 26-33) and you’ll find Paul encouraging a state of affairs in which everyone has something from the Holy Spirit to bring to the table for the collective edification of the church. He only stipulates that they do so in a polite and orderly manner. No liturgy. No bulletin. Just the Holy Spirit communicating and acting through individual members of Christ’s body. It’s beatifully simplistic and (if you’ve ever had the privilige of witnessing this kind of thing in action) awe-inspiring to behold. In my opinion, the sad fact that this kind of collective, interactive, spontaneously Spirit-led body ministry was eventually abandoned (and even outlawed) stands as one of the biggest tragedies of church history.
I’m just gonna state this plainly, so please forgive me if you’re deeply offended and feel free to inform me if you think I’m way off base. I believe that the church’s gradual evolution from the simplistic and relational to the complex and organizational was not part of Christ’s original design or plan for His bride-to-be. Looking honestly at church history, I would say that transition took place as a result of moving the central focus from love-based community to doctrinal correctness (which was an understandable reaction to the rise of false teachings) in the late first and early second centuries, the church fathers inventing and then widening the seperation of clergy and laity in the second and third centuries, the marriage of the church and the Roman government in the fourth century, and the basic fallen tendency of we humans to be control freaks, regardless of what century we live in. I think these changes involved not just the addition of organizational structure and hierarchal government, but also a shift in the church’s basic character and focus.
Did Christ continue to work in and through His church even after we thoroughly institutionalized ourselves? I believe He did and still does. Can we as Christians dump all the religious baggage we’ve collected over the centuries and rediscover simple, Spirit-led, relational community in Christ? With His help, I believe we can.
That’s all I’m gonna say.

By: iMonk

iMonk — Sat, 16 May 2009 21:49:12 +0000

Most translations are going with Simon the “Canaanite” and most NT scholars believe the Zealots were more indigenous resistance (brigands to Roman authority) than a formal movement/party.

Sue: That’s fair. I’ve never heard Peter called a zealot. But there is a disciple called Simon “Zealotes” or some variant.

By: sue kephart

sue kephart — Sat, 16 May 2009 21:38:12 +0000

imonk,

Not being a perfect person I always leave open the possiblity of being wrong. I can’t tell you where I learned that.

By: Martha

Martha — Sat, 16 May 2009 21:18:14 +0000

Surfnetter – you could have been a lawyer? Lucky escape!

By: Martha

Martha — Sat, 16 May 2009 21:14:42 +0000

Is the “Peter the Zealot” thing possibly a confusion of Peter who was Simon with Simon the Zealot?

Or if we like some more confusion spread on our bread, Simon the possibly-means-’from-Canaan’?

By: iMonk

iMonk — Sat, 16 May 2009 21:08:17 +0000

>Peter was a zealot.

What?

Where are you getting this?

Could you give me the name of any legitimate New Testament scholarly work that believes that? Bart Ehrman and Dan Brown excepted.

By: sue kephart

sue kephart — Sat, 16 May 2009 20:53:28 +0000

Bob,

Jesus is God. My pastor only human.

I am not putting down people who can’t read or write. As someone else said: I want a doctor who went to medical school.

By: dac

dac — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:55:34 +0000

Great list. My pastor (SBC) thinks so to. Of course, he is not a true believer SBC (more calvin than Arminius, thinks drinking is ok and has even been known to dance with his wife)