Pagan Christianity

[DannyM]

Check:

Sorry for spelling errors; I'm typing very fast in a rush. Apologies.

Dan

[Canuckster1127]

Fascinating discussion. I will try and find the Viola book.

I agree with the point about accountability and fellowship. I also agree with a lot about how passive and man-centered most churches have become.

Maybe I just don't understand the organic church concept well enough, but I don't understand how it deals with the Biblical mandate of elders, given as gifts to certain people to instruct and lead the body of Christ.

Hey August,

What would be helpful from me in that regard? I can find the references within Viola regarding eldership and how he sees it functioning within the body. I tried to touch on it with some of my earlier comments to Jac about teachers and teaching. The simple answer I think is that what you see demonstrated in the early church is the recognition of elders within a body after they have been functioning as such. Eldership in that regard is a recognition of gifting and already present ministry. Eldership is not an office per se, it is a function and the title and recognition within that local body follows in the sense of greater responsibility (with accountability to God of the leader recognized.) Those elders so recognized will have greater sway in terms of their wisdom and input guiding the body but they are not elevated to the position over the body in the sense that their leadership is deferred to without the rest of the body actively engaged in consensus and determinative action on a collective level.

Viola does a pretty thorough job as I recall of going through all the NT references to elders and I believe his take is that eldership is not an office where authority descends from apostolic workers on any form of top down hierarchy. It is a recognition of function coming from within the body and function is the basis of that recognition.

In that regard, the change in the church historically from a primarily organic approach to an institution has flavored our view of the word and the function to where there's a form of eisogesis going on. It's exagerated to make a point perhaps, but I think Viola says something by way of analogy that the the comparison between organic and institutional uses of terms is akin to the difference between a vegetable garden and General Motors.

I'm reminded too from Wills answer above that I have to remember some things as well, and one of them is that well, I'm by necessity making a great deal of reference to Viola because he is the author of the book in the title of this thread and he's the primary point of contact that I have in terms of reading and seeking to learn about organic church, that he himself is not the de facto authority on every jot and tittle. I relate to him a lot because I'm wired that way. Being a teacher and someone who is at home with theory, abstraction and models, he scratches where I itch. For example, within the organic fellowship in DC that Will is a part of that I've visited a few times (and that by the way is a very tentative position for me to be coming from in describing what goes on there) I think I could tell you who the leaders and elders are, but I've never heard anyone take that title or be offered it. Maybe my contact is limited and that has taken place but if so, I don't know about it. However, there are some in that fellowship who have been there a long time and been constant in their participation (which I can't say yet).

So what would help further and for my part, I'll do some digging in the literature and outline what I find or if that's not what you're asking, then please clarify and perhaps Will or some of the others who might join in can clarify some things.

bart

[August]

Thanks Bart. Let me try to find the books, looks like that will clarify a lot. If I still have questions or observations after that, I will come ask.

One more thing, where do you stand on Christian scholarship? We would have had a lot less understanding, I think, without Christian scholarship, which was and is funded largely by institutionalized churches. How do you reconcile that with an approach that seems a little like "everyone" can be an expert? I know personally that I stand on the shoulders of some giants in theology, and while I don't know much of Viola's background, I would guess that he does too.

[DannyM]

All,

Second, Age, your concern about false teaching in the organic church is the number one concern I have encountered in my time discussing it with others. And here's my answer: you're absolutely, 100% right. Organic churches do offer an unprecedented opportunity for false teachers to come in and teach. And unlike the institutional church, which carefully tests those who teach, anyone can come in and teach anything in an organic church. I have often found myself offended, or annoyed, or tested by other brothers and sisters expressing things that I believed to be not Biblical. But here's the strange thing--I'm pretty sure I've said some un-Biblical things myself. I mean, let's face it--I'm a human being, right? I'm not infallible. There are, I am sure, many parts of my doctrine that are not fully accurate. Yet the Lord has offered me grace in those areas (that I am not even aware of). And I offer that same grace to others. And I hope you'll offer that same grace to me; I promise I will offer it to you.

Will

Hi Will. Thanks for entering the discussion. I hope you don't mind me focusing on this paragraph as there is not much else I contest as you wrote a very good post...Good thing huh?

Can you please go into some (at least small) detail for me on this false teaching that is allowed in the organic church...? I'll refrain from commenting until you clarify as I don't know whether you are talking of the usual disputes and interpretive arguments on the scriptures or downright heretical teachings...

God bless you.

Dan

[Canuckster1127]

Danny,

No worries on the typos. I'm the king of that myself. I often put my head down and plough through something I'm trying to say and my spelling and grammar suffer for it if I don't go back and clean up and I don't always so no apologies needed.

Were there church locations before Constantine? I think there is evidence that there might have been. There's no evidence within the NT itself of any. In PC, Viola and Barna say that the first recorded use of the word ekklesia to the refer to a Christian meeting place was Clement of Alexandria around AD 190. In that instance though, he wasn't referring to a dedicated building. He was referring to a home.

According to PC, and it's extensively footnoted, there were no dedicated building for christians meeting until after 300 AD. It indeed didn't become common until Constantine and the reason is pretty obvious, in that there was persecution and many of the meetings were underground figuratively (and in the case of the church in Rome, literally.)

So, of course believers met in buildings and not in the open. The issue isn't that buildings are bad. They're tools. God doesn't dwell in buildings. I would even say that I don't think it's "wrong" necessarily for a body of believers to own a building. I think, and some of this is emotional for me because I've been personally involved in building millions of dollars of religious buildings, that in retrospect when the church (as a body of believers) becomes tied to a building that some very predictable and undesirable things happen. The ongoing expense requires that decisions be made to maintain that building. So, in order to justify the expense most of the meetings of that body then become tied to the building and the meeting in homes and more intimate levels of fellowship are bypassed and the body, I believe suffers for that. The focus shifts to numbers and efficiency in providing the programs and services based out of that building to generate by means of the offerings and the fees related to the activities needed to continue to support the building (and also the staff needed to maintain the building and the programs that attract those who are now consumers to the building.) Decisions made by the organizational structure based in that building are now guided by the elephant in the room at every meeting and in every decision that that elephant has to eat. It's subtle (although not always) but that explains the measure that begins to guide other decisions. Elders or whatever that particular tradition holds to in terms of polity, are now selected not just on their spiritual qualifications, but if there are people in the church who are known to be rich or contribute strongly there's a strong temptation to put them into positions as opposed to others because their contributions or their talents in managing business affairs are seen as very desirable and that elephant has to keep eating and so without even often stating those reasons, there's a hierarchy that can form based upon the ability of leaders to personally or by their business acumen to be placed into position that they may or may not be qualified spiritually to do. When conflicts arise within the body, that elephant sits in the room as well as to what actions the other leadership will or will not take to address and resolve issues.

Am I simplifying things? Yes. However, Jesus seemed to have a lot to say about deferring to the wealthy in giving them positions of honor at the table for instance, didn't He? I can tell you without hesitation that I've seen these dynamics at work, inexorably and undeniably in many contexts within Churches where the slightest suggestion that this was taking place would be met with indignation and vehement denial. It would very rarely ever be said openly in any meeting and especially not before the congregation at large. In practice however, I can tell you in several different contexts and organizations that as the treasurer or administrator, which I many times was, when positions of leadership were being vetted, I was asked quietly to check the giving records to report back whether the nominee was giving to the church and if the amount being given was indicative of a tithe. The reason given was that someone who was not tithing was not spiritually committed to the Church and should not be leading. Now set aside that perhaps this was a legitmate reason in the minds of some (and set aside that it's debatable that this is a purely Biblical standard for eldership or leadership.) One of the practical results in many situations is that leadership in asking me to do this (and I did it so I'm not denying my own complicity) was pushing right against the public declarations they made that giving to the Church was private and not looked at by Church leadership. Also, consider that this assumed that those giving anonymously through loose cash and who chose to keep their acts of charity between them and God (as for example, a certain Jesus encouraged acts of charity to be done to avoid doing them for influence and praise from men) and effectively disqualified some from leadership for causes which they themselves were unaware as they were never told that this was taking place. Do you see a problem with that? I do and I see it tied into the structre established which is driven in many cases by the need for a cash flow to pay the 80% average of most churches that goes immediately off the top of every dollar given for staff salaries and building maintenance.

Forgive me for making this example the key as there are many other ways to look at things. I bring this up because it was at the heart and core of much that I did and my role in the church. I could tell some very more detailed stories of some horrific things that I just became jaded to over the years because my role and the needs of the organization dictated it and it went with the job. Does that make me emotionally involved and perhaps not completely objective? Perhaps, but then too, it also makes me very unpopular as a great deal of that elephant in the room requires a complicit agreement of all in leadership to not speak openly of it.

Sorry for that. That was quite a rabbit to chase based on what you say, and it probably says more about me than it does the issue to some but so be it.

blessings,

bart

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks Bart. Let me try to find the books, looks like that will clarify a lot. If I still have questions or observations after that, I will come ask.

One more thing, where do you stand on Christian scholarship? We would have had a lot less understanding, I think, without Christian scholarship, which was and is funded largely by institutionalized churches. How do you reconcile that with an approach that seems a little like "everyone" can be an expert? I know personally that I stand on the shoulders of some giants in theology, and while I don't know much of Viola's background, I would guess that he does too.

August,

I think Christian Scholarship existed in its context in its day before institutionalization but I understand the question. It's true that institutions were key in preserving learning from the past as well as building upon it and I, as well as Frank I am sure, have benefitted from learning and giants from the past.

I'm not against institutions in all cases. I believe there can be "Christian" institutions. Where I part paths is in the context of the church itself being an institution. So education, hospitals, outreach stations for the poor etc. are things I support and participate in and I don't intend to cease that in the context of pursuing organic church. What that might look like is open to conjecture. I'm inclined to wonder if specialized functions of that nature might not in fact benefit from ceasing to compete with the churches themselves who received the lion's share of charitable giving in the context of the US and consume 80% plus of it in infrastructure and staffing costs.

It's not a slam dunk, but while I think organic church ties into some of the history of anabaptism, as I see it, it's not about cultural and social isolationism.

Short answer on my part. We can pursue it more if you like. I think the organic movement non-institutional church revolution that is taking place today is taking place in the context of new technology that is changing the playing field in many different areas through things such as the internet more real time and closer communication. The institutions of the past are going to go through some pretty signicant changes in the furture in the context of many changes. I don't think the ways and insitutions of the past are going to be preserved even in the context of the institutional church itself, which while every evidence is that it is diminishing on an almost exponential curve in presence and influence is still going to remain around and not go away.

My crystal ball is a little fuzzy on what it all will look like in the mid to long-term future, but changes are coming and I suspect over time, while I fervently pray that the organic movement maintains its deliberate freedom from institutionalizing the church, I suspect there will arise coalitions and cooperative projects to assume existing institutions outside of the church body itself or form some of its own.

That's just my opinion. I don't know that all in organic works would agree with me, but that's fine.

blessings,

bart

[joanne]

Bart, I've read "Pagan Christianity," and "Reimagining Church." I've started reading "Frome Eternity To Here," and have "Finding Organic Church" sitting on my shelf, waiting to be read, along with "The Way Church Ought To be," which is, according to a number of sources, a very important book in this whole discussion of institutional church.

Family Room Media has put out a very interesting four-part documentary, now available on DVD, called "Church Outside The Walls" which also explores the roots and development of the Church as we know it today. I recommend this series to anyone who doesn't really have the inclination to do a lot of reading, but would like to know the scope of what's covered in these books. Each of the clips is about forty-five minutes long, a typical t.v. episode's length.

Some of the questions my husband and I have been asking God for answers to are:

1) How did the clergy/laity divide begin, and why did it begin?

2) What benefits have the institutionalization of church provided, if any? If there are benefits, how will those benefits be protected if we abandon the institution?

3) What affects would the deconstruction of institutionalized church have on society at large?

One Bishop Rule
After much thinking, prayer and research, it seems clear that Ignatius really is the starting point for the clergy/laity divide as we see it today. A scant one hundred years after our Lord ascended, Ignatius made an edict that every church was to obey its "bishop" and do nothing without his express permission, and even presence. Ignatius saw several problems that were, in his opinion, spiraling out of control, and the biggest problem was Docetism, a form of Gnosticism that was particularly attractive to the wealthy, educated Christians of that day. He wanted to stamp Docetism out of the church.

Unfortunately, Ignatius' hardening of the one-bishop rule did not eradicated Docetism, which grew to voluminous size until it began to go away around 1000 A.D.

What was Ignatius' mistake? He applied Man to a problem that was really God's to deal with. He thought that by relegating believers to the role of children who had to obey their earthly father he could somehow control their minds and hearts -- for the Lord, of course. I don't question his desire. But his method was wrong.

My husband and I were bewildered by the fact that only a hundred years had gone by. John the apostle must have only recently died. How could those Christians go so wrong if the early church's ways were so right? We were skeptical of this whole "return to the New Testament church model" movement because it seemed to us that the early church was only too eager to abandon that very model. But then the Lord showed us another historical situation which very similarly echoes this very phenomenon. The U.S. consitution. A scant hundred years after the consitution was signed, President Lincoln and congress made it clear that states were, in fact, not free to leave the union. Laws concerning slavery were profoundly altered. We agree that was a good thing! But the importance of this example is how something can profoundly change in a hundred years.

It was also during this turbulent era that Christmas was instituted as a federal holiday (remember that the original founders of the colonies, the Puritans and even the Pilgrims, had outlawed Christmas). It was during this time that the whole "separation of church and state" mantra was invented, when both the Bible, and textbooks that used the Bible, were removed from public schools. New state constitutions began to omit what the original thirteen state constitutions had insisted upon: that all statesmen be Christians (yes! "Original Intent," a fascinating book by David Barton).

A lot can happen in a mere one hundred years.

In the spirit of humility, obedience, meekness, Christians willingly released their inheritance of every-member-participation to one-man, one-bishop rule.

That made it much easier for Constantine to co-opt Christianity as his state religion. He became the one bishop of all Christendom, more or less, the thirteenth apostle.

We have now come full circle, in my opinion. Protestantism/the Reformation sowed the seeds of growing up, as it were, and now many more believers desire to be grownups together, to shed the role of obedient children to an earthly father, and rather to be grownups on earth, and one with their true Father in heaven through their/our Lord Jesus, Messiah.

[WillyG]

Danny,

Thanks for taking the time to read my post. I'll offer two clarifications.

When I mentioned "false teachings," I meant to draw a distinction between those and outright falsehoods, like, "Christ was not the Messiah," or "God is not three Persons." When the sharing during the meeting addresses basic matters of doctrine, that sharing tends to focus on the nature, sacrifice, and resurrection of Christ. As I stated earlier, I have yet to encounter a situation in several years of organic church life where sharing contradicts the basic precepts of Christian religion. If we did have such a situation, I think the Body would handle it as I mentioned in my earlier post. Probably not much need to elaborate.

However, we all encounter the false teachings I referenced earlier in any church (institutional, organic, or otherwise) we might attend. We listen to a sermon that perhaps echoes the basic precepts of Christianity, yet it misses the point. The words grieve our Spirit. We want to get out of there. I am sure all of us have experienced this before. Nothing being said DIRECTLY contradicts any Christian creeds, but the spirit of the words invalidates what we know to be the truth of God in Christ.

An example might help. In most American churches, the teaching tends to focus on either 1) sins to avoid or 2) Christian disciplines to practice. The messages are works-oriented. They seem to convey the thinking, "If you [do/don't do] this [Christian discipline/sin behavior], God will be more satisfied with you." Yet we know that Christ is already fully-satisfied with us--there is absolutely nothing our finite lives and behaviors can do to add to or detract from the infinite nature of His sacrifice (do not take this as an endorsement of license). But the bottom-line point of this example is that a message about my behaviors seems to indirectly cast doubt on the perfect the work of Christ. To me, that is a false teaching.

Our response in the institutional/consumer model of church is probably to look for another church, because institutional churches are disposable. There are probably tens of thousands for me to choose from in the DC metro area, so I can go somewhere else that tickles my ears a little more pleasantly (or, in a more pious vernacular, that doesn't grieve my Spirit as much).

But in an organic church, the point isn't the goodness or badness of the teaching. The point isn't that the singing is great, that it makes me feel happy inside. The point isn't for me to personally grow into a spiritual giant. The point is for Christ's need to be satisfied. What is His need? He wants one Body, composed of many members. He wants one Bride, perfectly proportional and seamless. "Foxes have holes, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head." He wants a home. WE (not I) are that Home. We are His Body. We are His Bride. That's why His spends the last hours of His earthly life begging and praying for unity, that we may be one as He and His Father are one. When you hurt me and I turn the other cheek, or when you say something that is false and my Spirit says, "Let it be," even when the old man screams, "Strike him down! Falsehood!!!" THAT is the peace that surpasses understanding. That peace isn't some flaky emotion, meaningful to me but meaningless to US. The peace that means something to Christ is the peace in our relationship with each other. The peace He craves is His love, expressed in you to me and in me to you.

That peace expresses itself when I place His need above my "wish dream." The term is short-hand for a concept described by Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his book "Life Together." At this link (http://www.hiswayministries.org/fddisillusion.htm), there is a VERY short essay that encapsulates the whole message of his book. Bottom line: the false teachings we lash out against most in church are not central elements of Christian theology--they are minor disagreements blown out of proportion because they contradict our vision of the church. We ALL have a wish dream--we all want the church to look like the perfect image in our heads, and anything that contradicts that perfect image we call "false teaching." If you preach a social gospel, and I believe in conservatism, then I use the Scripture to tear you apart, and you do likewise. That is the whole, entire history of Christendom in a nutshell. Which is why we have 33,000 denominations and a history just as bloody and sinful as any false religion. What a testimony.

When I say we bear with false teaching, what I mean is that I permit others to trample my wish dream (in my more Christ-centered moments). Because I am human, sometimes I don't, and then they let me trample their wish dream. All of this is better known as the Cross. The Church is One Body, perfected in love, because you are my Cross to bear. When I permit your false teaching, I actually "take up the Cross and follow Him." He didn't respond to His accusers, either. In fact, as they insulted and murdered Him, He prayed, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they are doing." THAT is the peace that surpasses understanding. THAT is church life.

I apologize again that I have taken so long to describe a very simple concept: bearing with one another. "Though He slay me, yet shall I love Him." And when we hear the many members say that to one another, we see church life, whether it occurs in a building or in a family room. The life, not the location, make the gathering satisfying to Christ.

Love you all. Hope this helps.

In Christ,

Will

[joanne]

Bart, you touched on the theme of my second question:

Benefits of the Institution

from Bart: "I'm not against institutions in all cases. I believe there can be "Christian" institutions. Where I part paths is in the context of the church itself being an institution. So education, hospitals, outreach stations for the poor etc. are things I support and participate in and I don't intend to cease that in the context of pursuing organic church. What that might look like is open to conjecture. I'm inclined to wonder if specialized functions of that nature might not in fact benefit from ceasing to compete with the churches themselves who received the lion's share of charitable giving in the context of the US and consume 80% plus of it in infrastructure and staffing costs."

I agree with you here. In fact, I think that "privatizing" some aspects of institutional church would be beneficial to believers, and we have in fact been doing that (collective "we") As needs have arisen, believers have grouped together to form new institutions to address each need, and hence we have "ministries" within a particular church or denomination, and we have what are unwittingly referred to as "parachurch" organizations.

In fact, as an aside, one ought to really analyze that word "parachurch." It means being outside the confines of a particular denomination or instutionalized buidling/clergy group. But what it actually says is "outside the body of Christ," and that is exactly how many denominations and "churches" treat these organizations: as interlopers who steal away talent and money from the "real" churches. Can that attitude be, in anyway, from the Lord, or to His glory? Yet there you have it. "Churches" often view themselves as having to protect their turf against the competition of parachurch organizations.

We need to keep these organizations and support them. Every complex living thing is organized and has structure. We call them skeletons, and they are vital to the survival and function of these organisms. The church is no different. Hands should have specialized structures that maximaise their ability to function as hands (Catholic Charities comes to mind, as well has Pregnancy Centers, homeless shelters, Salvation Army projects and so on).

What about scholarship? Not everyone is interested in scholarly pursuits and besides, it's a very time consuming occupation. If all of us devoted ourselves to scholarship, then how would we eat? Who would take care of us? Therefore it seems sensible to keep such structures as schools and seminaries, and Bible studies (BSF, International is my favorite).

And so on and so on.

[joanne]

I like your concept of "bearing with one another," WillyG. I think it helps to see the difference, as you were alluding to, between truly false teaching that would go against the teachings of our Lord and God (and I would put all of scripture here), and what goes against our understanding of nuances.

Interestingly, we as believers are unique among most "democratic" groups in that we give a vote to those who have gone before us in the pursuit of Truth - the early church fathers, as they are most often referred to. Our current understanding of many teachings in scripture come through the filter of their hard work in prayer and study (trinity, for example, comes to mind). That is their portion, and we are right to continue to listen to their voices.

[joanne]

Effects of Deconstruction
Though Institutionalized Church is on the decline, it is still an enormous aspect of global society, particularly western society, but let's not forget that even North Korea has four institutional churches. The Eastern Orthodox church is experiencing a surge right now (many Protestant defectors are helping to make this happen, as well as the demise of socialism in eastern Europe).

When we think in terms of shedding the institution we need to be mindful of the practicalities involved. Bart, you touched on one: the re-tooling of those who bear the "collar." What else can clergy do? They will need jobs, but so will all the non-ordained personnel who have made their living in the institutionalized church ~ the host of support staff, musicians, directors, the companies which exist to service institutionalized church needs (all the physical property needs such as pews, dishes and accessories for various sacraments, bulletins, hymnals and so on on), the mammoth seminary cultures, the governing bodies and so on. It's exhausting to think of all the lists of people, companies and structures that now support and promolgate institutionalized religion.

What becomes of all this? The revolutionary says tear it all down and see what happens next. But is that really good? I don't know, but I think it's a question worth asking. As I thinkk about it,it actually seems very godly to quietly leave as the Lord taps one's shoulder, and follow Him out into the open, wherever that may be.

[ageofknowledge]

This is an important discussion. Thanks Will, Canuck, all for your comments. I really think the next great sweeping revival, if it comes at all, will have to come from a move of God operating in a different institutional structure than we have in place today; a structure that is currently overseeing the decline of Christianity in the world. The last great one occurred almost a hundred years ago in the early part of the 20th century. Several mini revivals followed (e.g. the 60's Jesus People revival for example).

I like this organic concept. But I still insist the problems of transience instead of deep community; quality Christian relationships instead of emotional self-fulfillment where Christians sit around praising the Lord watching their neighbors suffer and die without moving a finger to help them like I've observed and personally experienced as standard operating policy for decades in a variety of high level and well known institutional churches and small group fellowhips; an open door to false teachers and wolves in sheep clothing instead of accountability of teachers; etc... must be addressed and not simply left unattended. Nevertheless, if these problems can be overcome the ground may very well finally be fertile for the seed of a new revival.

Hopefully it will arise and be a sweeping revival that rocks to the very core the secular foundations laid by godless atheists and secularists since the last great revival swept the world almost a hundred years ago. Come Lord Jesus!

[WillyG]

Age,

You'll certainly hear no disagreement from me regarding the need for a Shepherd to tend to His flock. But if we usurp that role, or give in to the temptation to institutionalize it, we risk making ourselves the head of the Church rather than allowing Jesus to be the Head. In such circumstances, I often think of Uzzah, who "reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God." I think we can all relate to Uzzah. He saw the Ark of the Covenant in danger, and he reached out to steady it. But his act treated God like God didn't exist--like He was powerless to care for the Ark Himself. He acted on a human, not a divine, impulse. We should avoid Uzzah's mistake. If God tells us to steady the Ark, we are His instrument in steadying it. But if we simply look around and see that the Ark is falling with nothing to steady it, and we take it upon ourselves to remedy the problem, we walk where angels fear to tread.

God is there. God is the Good Shepherd, and He can tend to His flock. As Christians, we worry too much. God is in control. He doesn't need us to steady the Ark. He can bear it up on angels' wings, if need be. As John said, "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." As Bart has already amply explained, the Lord has given gifts to the Church (preaching, teaching, shepherding, etc) not in the form of offices, but in the form of people given by God to the Church to satisfy Her needs. We have people in the church in DC whom we respect and listen to--some would probably call them "elders." We don't offer them any title (or compensation), and, praise God, they don't ask for either one! They don't "lord it over us like the Gentiles do." They are brothers and sisters, meeting a need. Likewise, I am sure God has shepherded me many times using the encouragement and teaching of other brothers and sisters. These things happen naturally; no one has (yet) printed up business cards.

What I am trying to say is we should give God a little bit more credit. If He isn't capable of doing these kinds of minor things when we trust in Him, how did He ever raise a Man from the dead? But He did raise a Man from the dead. Let's not forget this cautionary story: "Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. 'Where did this man get these things?' they asked. 'What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at him. Jesus said to them, 'Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.' He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their lack of faith." Nor should we forget His admonishment: "And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?" I hope He will find faith on the earth.

Love you all. Hope this is edifying--if not, please let me know, and I'll be happy to listen more and talk less.

In Christ,

Will

[Jac3510]

Bart,

Thanks for your comments wrt teachers. I'd be interested in the the ideas you mentioned to August about elders, as the two issues are very much intermingled.

On, then, to specifics (and anyone else who is familiar with the organic church is more than welcome to respond as well!):

First off, I think everyone can agree that it is the job of everyone to teach. Just because someone doesn't have a particular spiritual gift doesn't mean they aren't to involve themselves to some extent in that ministry. The GC, after all, is to make disciples, and discipleship requires learning, which requires a teacher!

Second, I think everyone can agree that there are some who are specially gifted in the area of teaching. Whether they are elders or not, the question of how they are to function in this "organic church" (I appreciate the sentiment in the phrase--I just really don't like it, but labels are what they are). One of the nagging questions I had while reading PC was why the heavy emphasis on "the meeting"? Is a teacher (or teachers) to teach at every meeting? If not, what must be done at every meeting? What if there is no singing? What if there is no exhortation? What if people just meet, have a good meal, and leave? Viola seems to think that isn't "really" church. This, I think, may be an issue that needs serious clarification--when you promote non-organization as your organization, are you not bordering on self-contradiction? Just as "non-denominationalism" turns out to be its own type of denomination, so "non-organization" turns out to be an organization in and of itself.

I realize in the above paragraph there are actually two issues . . . one just flows into the other. I'm just sort of "thinking out loud" . . .

Anyway, third, I think we should probably stop using the word "office" with respect to the elder/bishop/pastor. That word doesn't have a definitive enough meaning, it doesn't have clear enough boundaries, to be more useful than if we were to just stop using it. After all, everyone agrees the elder has a specific function. But we should all be able to agree that the elder has to be able to teach. We all agree there are certain qualifications one must have if he is to serve in the capacity of elder.

In that case, I have a specific question about a particular function of the elder. In what sense is he to be obeyed?

Full disclosure: I'm pretty sure Viola and I will have strong disagreement here. I do not agree with a congregational style rule. I believe firmly in an elder rule. I wouldn't call the elders a distinct class of Christians (i.e., the laity/clergy distinction), but I would say that these are people who are operating in a very specific capacity within the local church. That is, I think they have real authority, not just more influence. I do realize that Viola doesn't like authority in human realms, especially as it relates to Christianity. That's just a standard theological position (egalitarianism) that I firmly disagree with (which goes back to our debate over The Shack and the egalitarian view of the Trinity, which I openly call heresy).

I'm getting ahead of myself, though. So, bottom line here, how do you view eldership with respect to authority? What kind of authority do they have? What does it mean that we are to obey them? How does this play out in a practical way, whether in "the meeting" or in day to day life?

Thanks again for the discussion.

[joanne]

Jac, you bring up some interesting thoughts on the role of elder. In reading what are called the pastoral letters, there is a sense in which Paul is instructing Timothy and Titus about what seem to be roles of leadership within the church bodies then meeting. It seems as though there wasn't clear understanding yet about the relationship between elders and the rest of the church members, as there were already governance models, both pagan and Jewish, which had already laid down a template for behavior.

These templates were based on a clear authority/obedience paradigm. But the introduction of gospel thinking had brought with it this intoxicating, exhilarating liberation! And boy, were those who had otherwise lived lives under the heavy hand of master/servant (such as slaves and women) enjoying their new freedoms. You'll note throughout Paul's writing the delicate balance between enjoying the liberation of the gospel and being meek and humble to all the brethren ("submit one to another out of reverence for Christ." Ephesians 5:21)

Paul's instructions, and Peter's as well, bind on Christ's teaching about leadership. Lead from underneath by lifting up, by sacrifice, by wooing, by serving. Lead from underneath by promoting, building up, giving to others. Such leading is not putting oneself in front and saying "follow me," for that position belongs to the Lord alone. Such leading instead says "watch how I do it, then I will step aside so you can do it."

In organic church there is the understanding of structure ~ bodies have structure. There will be those who are good at facilitating, those who are good at working and organizing, those who are good at writing songs and inspiring others, those who have a wonderful way of explaining things, and so on. Everyone will "take the lead" at some point, and give others the floor, so to speak, and so the Lord, by His Spirit, will give everyone a portion to share with each other that is from Him to edify, build up and encourage; to inspire, lift up and also to convict and deepen.

Egalitarianism can mean a host of things. The recognition that God can speak to and through whomever He chooses is exemplified throughout scripture. Just because, for instance, God chose a high priest as His prophet (Isaiah) doesn't mean He won't pick a fig picker next (like Amos), or a woman (Huldah). God can lead through whomever He chooses, at that moment, whether through a member of the Sanhedrin, Jew of Jews (Nicodemus) or through terrorist (Simon the Zealot) or through a woman, the only person who really "got it" at that moment (Mary). if you look at movements during the time of their pioneering, you will usually find a rather motley crew, and Jesus' movement was no different. There is quite a cross section of Jewish society represented among the disciples and the women and men who supported them (if it weren't for some of those women, there would have been no funding! Joanna is one of my favorites, wife of Herod's bursar).

What's better? To make rules that force behavior, or to pray that God will so conform hearts and minds to His own, that godly behavior results? To enforce "obedience" to a body of rulers is to go the way of Ignatius, and I think it's applying a human, person-centered, solution to something that is really God's to resolve.

I find the doctrine of "eternal subjection" of God the Son to God the Father very, very troubling. I understand that it has, in the last thirty years, become a very popular doctrine, and is currently being widely taught through a DVD series called "The Truth Project," through Focus on the Family. This doctrine is being used as the foundation for a heirarchical approach to human organizations, most notably the family and the church, where people are locked into roles that require certain behaviors.

My response to this heirarchical approach is Galatians and Colossians.