Pagan Christianity

[joanne]

Yep, Age, you are completely right. People will follow one person, and then another, that is human nature. So leaders then try to create ways in which they will be able to insure that they get to stay the leader. More human nature at work.

But let's talk about the sheep. The sheep is us. We are the sheep. So what should we, as sheep, do? What is to protect you and me from following false teachers? We do have some protections in place already, those being the indwelling Holy Spirit and the Bible. John the apostle said that those who went away from the faith were never really a part of the faith in the first place. If they were, then they wouldn't leave. So those who go to other religions, such as Mormonism, were not originally firmly anchored in the faith. You and I have to accept that the Lord Jesus is capable of hanging onto His own. We can't hang onto them for Him.

He did have strong words for those who would lead His little ones astray. What I infer from that is that He will, like the shepherd of the one lost lamb, go out and retrieve His little one, so we can rest assured in that. But the false teacher...God will deal with that one.

So overseers protect, but they are not really in a position to prevent. What happens in the heart is between God and that person, you and I have no jurisdiction there. However we do have jurisdiction when it comes to our own hearts, and that is what we must be careful of -- not to entertain false teachers (and Jesus said we would be able to recognize them) and not to stumble our brothers by the injudicious use of our freedom in the Lord.

Equipping the saints was one of the original purposes of the whole body of Christ, and that comes by the application of God's word to our own and each others' lives. In that way the whole church grows up, spiritually. That's the goal, not to keep people stunted in growth, perennial children dependent upon their pastor/father to do everything for them. But the format of insitutional church insists upon this very thing of sheepy dependence and pastor overlordness (as you vividly pointed out).

Small groups are not really organic church when they are extensions of the institutional church, however real body life can happen in small groups, and does. It doesn't appear to have happened in the small group you were in (though I have found that there are always two sides to a story; not to take away the injury you suffered, and yet maybe those people did not find you approachable? Is that possible? Maybe you are a very strong personality, and others found you intimidating? This has happened to me, to my astonishment, so I always think of this first in such situations).

The closest my husband and I ever came to experiencing true body life was in a Disciples of Christ church. It was very small, a hundred and fifty people were associated with our gathering, but really only about fifty to seventy people were typically together of a Sunday (including infants and children). We had church services, very traditional, but the real life of the church happened at Sunday breakfast, when we would read the word together and discuss it, and afterwards at our monthly pot lucks when we eat together, pray for each other and share our lives. The young couples (us) gathered on Fridays to study the Bible together and pray, and we all had our babies together. The church building was our other home, and we all pitched in to clean it, take care of it, fix the roof and so on. We had no money, so everything we did, we did ourselves and bought ourselves. Disciples of Christ recognizes men and women as capable of being elders, but we women just happened to want our men to elder us, as we eldered them. We enjoyed supporting them as they prayed for us, encouraged us, and became good shepherds of the whole church. Husbands and wives together would bring communion to shut-ins, together visited those of us in the hospital, or who were sick. I could go on. It was a beautiful experience, and one we have never since had. We had a pastor whom we loved, gentle wise man that he was. It wasn't a perfect match up to the New Testament model. But God was in it, nevertheless, and He blessed us.

in any case, the institutional model is no protection against heresy. Every single heresy from the very first one has been a poor interpetation of scripture promulgated by a strong leader who coopted the institutional framework to quickly infect many who were already predisposed to unquestioning obedience to their leader. If nothing else, the cell model is a better protection because only one cell gets taken over, and the other cells remain untouched. When gathered together, the others can see that one cell is sick, and intervention can occur.

[zoegirl]

or multip;e cells are mislead in multiple ways...???

[joanne]

Actually, the fascinating real life truth of it is that the organic church movement that has been happening in China for the last ten years or so -- millions upon millions of Christians -- did not experience discord or any real deviation from the truths of scripture and the experience of God at work in them until they began to receive help from American churches bringing in Bibles to them (they were so hungry for Bibles!) Along with the Bibles, different denominations were also sending in tracts about their particular doctrines. It caused such a dangerous growth of arguments among the house churches that the various leaders among them (and I use that word as they would, in the more Biblical sense of elder) sent a message back to American churches -- we cannot accept your Bibles if you send tracts along with them.

Somehow, counter-intuitvely I guess! -- the Lord had kept His church clean of doctrinal controversy until the American infiltration.

Another amazing real life story is happening in Great Britian and the U.S., written about in "The Rabbit and the Elephant," in which simple churches are springing up all over the place and are, for the most part, remaining what you and would call doctrinally orthodox. All they have is the Bible, the Lord and each other. And it's working.

I am over simplifying. I, of all people, a Bible teacher, would never downplay the importance of continuing education for all those who want to dig deeper. We need to keep our educational institutions healthy (and they're not, by the way. Many seminaries have strayed so far from orthodox doctrine as to be dangerously on the verge of heresy themselves), and make it possible for as many as possible to attend. We need to have continued ways for every person to have access to good Bible study. Nevertheless, consider that it is the Holy Spirit Who makes the understanding of scripture possible. the apostle John said that ultimately we do not need teachers because we have the Holy Spirit. We have to trust Jesus, at some point.

[ageofknowledge]

Joanne... it's not you were left to become a cripple by Dutch multimillionare family members that make Scrooge look like a saint and your brothers and sisters in Christ when you were most vulnerable (e.g. laid off after 25 years, loss of medical insurance but not yet eligible for MSI, etc...) and then kicked to the curb to deal with it yourself for the rest of your suffering life after working hard for almost three decades to be a part of the churches and Christian's lives that abandoned you once you were too sick to come around anymore: it was me.

You cover the ground so quickly and glibly but I have to live every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every month of every year until the channel FINALLY changes and I want it to change right NOW. What other side is there really? You mean I may have made someone uncomfortable deforming in front of them? I may have been not approachable as you said? Please. I ran IT for medium sized companies for many years. I'm an educated white collar professional who has taken all of the organizational behavior and communication classes you did and applied them in my life just as you have. I'm afraid my socialization may have suffered since enduring both the physical devastation and the willful ignoring of my pleas for medical help through all of that but certainly not before it. The pain of the way I was treated by family, "friends", and "fellow Christians" was far more painful and severe than the pain of my joints deforming.

How about instead of putting the blame on the suffering victim to justify the behavior of people like yourself you instead entertain the idea that people can make excuses that pass for a "side" to justify un-Christlike behavior toward suffering people that God brings into their lives resulting in permanent and serious consequences for the sufferer and someday judgement for them unless they repent. Sometimes there really is just what is right and what is wrong in a given situation.

The many rich people I was surrounded by while I went through that will be judged Joanne unless they repent. One of the things God spoke to me through that spirit-filled Pastor that day was that while he loved everyone the rich that act in that manner have to answer for turning a blind eye. Don't deceive yourself that it is all OK because I may not have been approachable in someone's estimation while asking them for help which I did and that excuses comprise a "side" which justify such behavior.

But really what do you care? You're in the God bubble and will never have to endure such callous rejection, refusal, and abandonment by those closest to you on top of such suffering yourself. You have the luxury of brushing it off with a glib "there are always two sides to every story."

Interestingly, I had a dream as a teenager that I was racing through a freezing mountain pass high up in the mountains with my closest friends and suffered a terrible wound. They left me to die on that freezing mountain top and I never saw them again. Then it happened in real life decades later only I didn't die. Just wounded, poor, and fat where I used to be strong and healthy and a good worker.

And I fully understand the devil was behind all of it and God isn't to blame for any of it.

Anyways i don't want to discuss it anymore right now. It's too painful emotionally, So we could start by assigning new believers to established proven believers in the churches using a standard methodology to disciple them and then empowering them when they are ready to take on that role for others. BUT that would require real sacrifice.

[ageofknowledge]

How does this organic church model align with the emerging church movement so critisized today?

[joanne]

Age, we don't know each other, we can't even see each other, so there is no way for us to know each other's backgrounds, experiences, connectedness with God, motivations and so on. I asked some questions I've asked myself in similar situations (not exact, I don't have a debilitating disease; but I too have suffered life altering events in which I should have been protected/rescued but was not). I have discovered that true freedom comes in not only forgiving those on the other side of the story, but also trying to understand their side.

Discipling can be a good model, but there are reasons why it isn't working - will come back to explain that.

The emergent church is still based on the insitutional model, though the missional aspect is wonderful

Grace and peace to you inour Lord and Savior, Jesus Messiah

[Canuckster1127]

This is a continuation of my reponse to Jac with regard to his questions and assertions with regard to the elders within the Church. I'm choosing to exegetically examine the 3 primary verses that he quoted in follow up to support his assertions as to what appears to him as the putting forth of a position of elder that resembles more of an office than a grassroots function.

I dealt with the passage from Hebrews 13:17 first because I think that one is the most relevant in terms of the discussion. Hebrews 13:17 was written to a church at large and that context adds weight, in my estimation (not that the other two passages quoted are not important to view).

The next verse I'm picking up is:

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. (1 Tim 5:17)

A few general comments; both letters of Timothy are part of a group of letters written not to churches but to fellow-workers of Paul, and in Timothy's case, it is evident that there is something of a mentoring relationship. These letters are sometimes referred to today as "pastoral" epistles although that is not a term that the Bible assigns them and it's a term that's only been used since about the 18th century. It assumes, I think, the institutional structure and also thus, again in my opinion, begs the question as to who Timothy was, what his function (or office if you want to go from that direction) was and what this verse meant to Timothy who was the primary audience and what was intended by Paul.

I'm glad that the translation Jac referenced here takes note of some things I'll try to point out. The KJV and NASB translate this verse more strongly than this rendering. They use the word "rule" instead of "direct". I believe that the use of the word "direct" is a better translation because it makes it clearer, in my opinion that what is being spoken of here is again, tied to function rather than position. What function however? The key word here and it's in other passages where this question comes up, is proistemi. It carries with it the idea of standing in front, superintending, guarding and providing care for those behind. Lest others might think I'm tap-dancing, I'll note that Robert Banks and F.F. Bruce both point out that this word isn't used in the context of an official designation. It's referring not to "rule" from a position over, but again, the ability to manage and facilitate from within at the same level. This is watching and participation in overall body life with respect and love accorded to them from the rest of the body on the basis of their function and to make their function a joy, an easier task which is miles away from mindless obedience to directive from on high based upon an office.

Again, the New Testament concept of subjection is radically different than typical human organizations. Subjection exists and it is precious and powerful when it is in accordance with the teachings of Christ, which portray a form of an inverted pyramid where each from a posiiton of love and forbearance elevates the needs and sensitivities of others above their own and seek to love and serve the other. The assumption is that we are individually and corporately subject first and foremost to Christ and then we are subject as well in the Biblical sense, not the human hierarchichal sense to known, proven and trustworthy elders and christian workers in our midst who sacrificially themselves serve the believing community.

There's been a lot of concern expressed about false teachers and prophets having access to the body and again, that's a legitimate concern. That's why the emphasis upon longevity, track record and knowledge from experience in examining those claiming to be teachers and leaders is placed with the body as a whole.

It boils down to Ephesians 5:21 in my estimation

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Eph 5:21)

I'll address the third verse and make some concluding statements in another post.

blessings,

bart

[cslewislover]

That's understandable to a point, about the Chinese churches. But, didn't the church start there with American missions? Probably other countries, too, yes. I guess I've never heard of that since the groups I know of that send bibles into countries are nondenominational ministries, like Voice of the Martyrs. To me, from my experience, some of this seems blown out of proportion. I've read of missions groups being very respectful of the culture and the church, and not placing any of our own cultural and historical burdens on others. There is always the problem, though, of these new believers placing their own pagan influences in their new church!! So there has to be a learning process there, too, and I wouldn't know if the Chinese themselves are doing that. There is the official Chinese church, too, that is a problem . . .

[ageofknowledge]

I'm not sure why Americans would long to lose their religious freedom and freedom of speech believing it is more desirable to live in underground churches living mean persecuted existences in and out of prison. This really is a highly stylized idealistic view. The reality is very different. That said, read this:

http://www.sjtosa.org/groups/Chinese/20 ... ligion.pdf

Interesting. The author asserts, "Historians of Chinese church history find resistance to Christianity among Chinese people. The
main source of conflict is the difference between Chinese culture and Christian beliefs" explaining how Buddhism did not conflict with Chinese culture and so was accepted.

And pseudo-Christian cults are exploding in China.

[joanne]

Bart, am really enjoying your working through these verses. Thank you for applying all that you've learned of Greek to this, I am really learning from it. I keep on being reminded that everything goes back to what's happening in the heart. behavior that is enforced from the outside may be efficient and practical, but it misses the one thing the Lord focuses on -- the inner being. Therefore, genuine heart transformation, seen in the outflow of behavior and words, is always the goal for those who are the Lord's.

In such a case, then, we would see joyful willingness to make the elders' work among them a tangible blessing to the elders; who would, in turn, have a joyful desire to lift up and build up all those around them. Yes, Bart, it makes so much sense that the church would begin to recognize their elders over time as those who are already eldering among them, with the good fruit borne out that being the maturing of those within the body, as all become ever more close to the Lord Jesus.

csl, most of what I know about the Chinese simple/house church is from Brother Yun, who wrote "The Heavenly Man," published about six years ago. He wrote another book last year, but I haven't read it yet. In any case, he wrote that the official Chinese government-sanctioned church, the "Three-Self Patriotic Church," got started in the early eighties. Three-self stands for "self-propgating, self-supporting, self-governing." According to Brother Yun, any ministry of the church must be first approved by the governemtn. Evangelism is discouraged -- and those of our own church who go to China through a particular mission know that they are not allowed to evangelize, though they may speak in a general way about their faith when questioned.

Outreach to children is strictly banned, certain parts of the Bible may not be preached (for instance, the Book of Revelation is banned), and some topics may not be discussed, for instance the Second Coming of our Lord, divine healing and the deliverance from demons. I hope at least some of these things are changing, as in recent months the Chinese government is allowing more freedom to study the Bible within the Three-Self Church.

Those in the simple/house gatherings do not feel the church should be restricted in these ways, so they are willing to suffer the consequences of meeting secretly. Brother Yun's story is gripping and actually continues to be a seminal book for me in my own growth as a believer.

A really interesting book that discusses the difference between mechanical and organic structure is "Organic Community," by Joseph R. Myers. He believes that the institutional church model can be retooled with organic structures, and I am both intrigued and hopeful. In chapter 8 he discusses "Partners," healthy aliances, moving from accountability to "edit-ability.'

Myers' premise is that accountability groups (and discipling in general), can often degenerate into a relationship where one person holds the other person responsible for his or her actions. This may not sound like a bad thing, but what Myers points out is that this method is still heirarchical in that one person is required to be obedient to the other. It can be abrasive in that the the discipler, or accountablity partner, practices a kind of "tough love" in order to affect behavior. It can be unhelpful in that the progress to an integrated life (of belief, faith and practice) is impeded amd can be even harmful depending on what psychological or spiritual repercussions there are.

What Myers writes about (and quoted William Hendricks in this section of his book) was that these relationships ended up being legalistic, freighted with impossible-to-satisfy demands, leaving people feeling guilty and burdened without a sense of God's grace, forgiveness and pleasure.

In his suggestion for a different kind of model compares the accountant with the editor. The accountant keeps track of errors, covering all the bases. The editor's function is to help the author toward richer communication (I'm using Myers' words), free of encumbrances. Accountants keep records, Editors wipe away errors, while keeping the voice of the author.

I'd like to think this kind of discipling is already happening! And yet if the (institutional) church I currently attend is typical of what's out there, setting up a discipling program ends up being more complicated then the "Ten Easy Steps" books would make it seem (and Myers devotes a whole chapter to his book about church programs, as does Robert Lund in his book "The Way Church Ought To Be").

Spiritual maturity is not necessarily connected to age. There are those who are otherwise "older" and even "seasoned" who lack the maturity that younger, less seasoned believers have. There are new believers of every age. There are those who are very religious, but actually are far from the Lord in their hearts, of every age. Chemistry is a real factor. To randomly match two people, like a blind date, is not always successful, and sometimes even harmful. Expectations for what such relationships should/would/could provide are all over the map. It's tougher than it sounds to do this. But it still a very worthwhile thing to do, and scriptural. I am only just beginning to wade into this subject, as I see its value.

[Canuckster1127]

Joanne,

I'm glad you're finding it helpful. Just to clarify, while I am using my background in greek to check and verify what I'm saying and I'm tying in some of my own insights, I'm also referring to and summarizing materials from Viola in his book Reimagining Church, so this isn't all original work with me.

I've got one more verse to go and then I'll try and end with some general observations.

blessings,

bart

[ageofknowledge]

I'm not sure how imprisoning and beating on people makes their hearts better. If that were so it seems abused children who were also abused into adulthood would have the best hearts of all proportionate to the amount of abuse they receive. Of course, statistics show they are the prostitutes and criminals.

Again, very stylized and idealistic perspective to think that being starved, beaten, and imprisoned is what we should be aiming for, over building real organic loving communities, because through gross suffering we become Christlike (as if we didn't simply by following Christ and letting God do His work in us).

If that's the case, you all need to get over to a closed Islamic country and start preaching the Word so you can get throw in some irons and get the process started. But I notice you aren't doing that. Instead you're idolizing a couple people that managed to make it through and wrote a book. The Richard Wumbrand or the <fill in the blank>. You take one person who managed to work their way through intense difficulties forgetting the hundreds of thousands of Christians that were actually damaged or destroyed in the pogroms. Those left walking in circles on medicine muttering to themselves for the rest of their lives are excluded entirely from the discussion.

All of this is falling on deaf ears because the whole reality is not politically correct in Christian circles. Only small parts of reality and truth that support the popular stylized idealistic view are accepted and then emotionally discharged. But those intellectual Christians that look at the stats and say OK look at all the Christians that lost their minds in the pogroms. Hmm.... their stories are the dough the cookie cutter Christians threw away because it didn't bolster their own preferred view. Same went for the gang churches. Most failed in the Victory Outreach men's homes and returned to the streets. Only a minority made the change and graduated. I saw it with my own eyes. High turnover. No books about them though. Just a few books about the people of note from the million or so that went through. I say its unacceptable to operate like this. Better results are needed. Reality in these closed countries and dark subcultures is a lot dirtier and harder than the one suburban Christians and Catholics believe in. Hence the discussion. How do we get better results? It's OK to look at what worked for the few that come out the other side but the ones that didn't make it need to be studied as well lest we damn ourselves to NOT changing and endlessly repeating a paradigm that only produces some favorable results.

[Jac3510]

Bart,

I do appreciate your take on the verses provided, but I expect we are going to come to an impasse here. With regard to Heb 13:17, allow me to offer the following:

1. Peitho is not middle. It is passive, so your rendering is probably not appropriate;
2. The meaning "to obey" is well attested to, both in secular literature and the NT. See, for example, Rom 2:8 and James 3:3. We have to be very careful here not to read our theology into our translation. In other words, we have to try very hard not to base our translation on our theology. What evidence, then, do we have in the text itself that the intended idea was either obedience or persuasion? Concerning the former, the meaning of obedience is never far from that of trust (which, by the way, is why the standard word for hierarchical obedience is not used--we are to trust our leaders; obedience flows from that). The context fits very nicely with an idea of trusting someone (and thus obeying), but there is nothing propositional that begs to be persuaded of. So, from a purely semantic perspective, there is little reason to take this as persuasion beyond, I think, a personal theology.
3. The word for "leader" means very much "to govern" or "to rule." In the immediate context, these "leaders" are the ones whom we are to imitate. They are the ones we are to peitho.
4. As for hupeiko, I'm not sure where you got the meaning "to yield, retire or withdraw like a surrender after a battle." All my lexicons simply have "obey" or "submit." The fact that it is prefaced with hupo is important in and of itself, as that preposition is used to connote being under something else (as in hupakuo).
5. These leaders "keep watch over" the church. The word here conveys the idea of sleepless nights as one watches out for dangers. Again, notice that these leaders are over the church, which is under them and to obey and submit to them.

Finally, a word about the entire context of Hebrews is in order. The book is written to warn Jewish Christians who were considering returning to Judaism so that they would continue to hold their faith. They were already persuaded. The issue was whether or not they would remain obedient to the faith. Their leaders, the ones who first proclaimed the gospel to them, had real, God-given authority that He expected them to obey.

Concerning 1 Tim. 5:17, my comments are much briefer.

I agree that the idea of the word is "to direct" and not "to rule." Yet pointing that out doesn't change the first thing I actually pointed out, which is simple: who is commanded to direct the affairs of the church: the elders or the church as a whole?

Plainly, it is the elders. Now, I fully agree that the submission the Bible demands towards these people is voluntary, but that doesn't change the fact that the flock is to allow the elders to direct the affairs and not claim that prerogative for themselves.

Now, Bart, I'll close by saying my own view of elders is far from what is practiced today in the modern church. I think the CEO-styled pastor is a terrible shame. I would not consider the proper view a "hierarchy" in any sense of the word. Is their a hierarchy of parts in your own body? Of course not, nor is there in the body of Christ. Yet that does not mean that there is no headship within your body. In the same way, there is headship in the church (and in the Trinity, and in marriage). The great irony, I see, in Viola's position is that he is doing the very thing he rails against: creating a caste of Christians. For him, leaders with authority are of a separate caste, which is a shame indeed, because that's not the biblical view. Our view is that authority is inseparable from service, and yet Frank's view disallows such service . . .

I'll say the same thing AGAIN which I have been saying all throughout this thread. This is the main area I disagree with Viola on. However, I am broadly sympathetic to his views on the sermon, on church buildings, on discipleship, on the meeting, on the Lord's Supper, etc. My interest in his ideas are strictly practical. Theologically, he makes, I believe, too many errors (considering the church the New Israel, his denial of dispensational truth, his views on the relationship between philosophy and theology, and his egalitarianism, just to name a few). But AGAIN--I cannot emphasize this enough--I am fundamentally in agreement with his "program" for the church. THAT is why I asked you to start this thread: not to decide if his views were RIGHT or not, but to find out how they worked out in practice. He can be wrong about elders and still have the right view about what the church is to do.

Thanks again for the discussion. I don't know about everyone else, but this is helping me quite a bit.

[joanne]

I don't have Greek or Hebrew, so I have to trust the scholars I go to for the meanings. Even if I were a native Greek or Hebrew speaker, I think I would still need to trust the scholars who have made a study of the ancient variants of these languages as even in my own native toungue, English, I find that the KJV can be inscrutible, and that's only from a few hundred years ago, not two thousand years. In fact, the various ages represented in the Bible actually verify themselves for the archaic uses of ancient Hebrew words represented in their texts (to the consternation of those historians who would have liked to render them later writings).

But when I go to scholars I have to remember that they, themselves, also relied upon scholars to teach them. And so on, back through the centuries, to the first scholars, the early church fathers. When we read the early church fathers we discover that they were writing into their scholarships theologies that they had already developed, so even their scholarship is, so to speak, colored by what they read into the texts. At some point we have to accept that we may not get exactly right the nuances that Paul, Peter and the writer of Hebrews intended in their writing ~ thankfully, we have the Holy Spirit to help us.

But that brings us to what I have heard some call forensics theology: Examining what theologies are producing "in the street." That brings us to what a healthy life of faith would include. Orthodoxy, which would be right thinking, orthopathy, which would be right feeling, and orthopraxy, which would be right practice. To over-emphasize one or another of these three things is to skew the other two. So what would be the right practice of the three verses we're discussing right now?

If the practice degenerates into who's got the power and who must be obeyed, then somewhere along the line something has been over-emphasized to skew something else. True elders would never wish to have their authority and their power firmly secured in laws that forced obedience. Instead, true elders would want to pray together with those whom they were shepherding, to study together and to come together to realizations of what is good practice. If you look at the appeals for unity that both the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul called for, then you would see that to have a community obeying a group of rulers misses the point. The community, if they have the Holy Spirit, can reach consensus time after time, agreement in what is good and right which would follow in right feeling and right doing. No need for laws that insure obedience.

This means that the elders do not meet in closed meetings, make decisions for the whole group, then emerge with edicts that must be followed. They meet toegther with the community, discuss the issues, pray about them together, listen carefully to what everyone has to say, and finally, a decision can be reached.

Too messy, you might say. Too inefficient, too slow. And the fact is, this process can be all these things, maddeningly so for those who want action and efficiency. In a large organization such a practice becomes magnified in its messiness and inefficiency. Yet I am convinced that God's first priority is always the conforming of His people to His own character, and transforming His people into a holy people. His first priority is not going to be an efficiently run juggernaut that gets the job done. Think about it. God can do everything without us. He doesn't need us at all. But He has chosen to include us in His work for His own purposes, one of which is that it gives Him pleasure and happiness. To please Him, then, should be our first priority, and to join in His pleasure and happiness. And what does God want, then? Read John 17. For us to see His glory. For us to be one as He is one. For us to love Him and love each other. For us to have joy. We do that by submitting one to another, and by building each other up in the faith.

Pagan Christianity, at its core, is trying to show that all we have adopted in our current form of church is not from the Bible, it is from our own customs, beginning with Ignatius, who was concerned about Docetism and a trend in the churched around him to entertain nonscriptural ideas. Ironically, his solution was in itself nonscriptural and bordered on the heretical (to view one elder as God to them).

Pagan Christianity, as it were, tears down the temple. By the end of the book, one has this bereft feeling that a giant earthquake has occurred and the beautiful marble edifice is now in broken blocks all around one. It must be followed up by Reimagining Church, which etches crosses on every tumbled block of marble (what the early church in fact really did in ancient Greece), for the Lord's use, and rebuilds using living stones.

[Jac3510]

If the practice degenerates into who's got the power and who must be obeyed, then somewhere along the line something has been over-emphasized to skew something else. True elders would never wish to have their authority and their power firmly secured in laws that forced obedience. Instead, true elders would want to pray together with those whom they were shepherding, to study together and to come together to realizations of what is good practice. If you look at the appeals for unity that both the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul called for, then you would see that to have a community obeying a group of rulers misses the point. The community, if they have the Holy Spirit, can reach consensus time after time, agreement in what is good and right which would follow in right feeling and right doing. No need for laws that insure obedience.

I have no problem with this, but we can also rightly say that "true disciples would never wish to assert their own authority and their own power." Whatever "true elders" may or may not do, it doesn't change the fact that the biblical mandate is that there be a plurality of elders within each church that is to direct its affairs, to whom the congregation is spiritually accountable. It is much the same in a husband/wife relationship. Just because the husband is the head does not mean he ought to "boss" his wife around, nor does it mean that she is his door mat.

There is headship, my friend. That headship is to be properly practiced and kept in proper perspective, with Christ being the supreme example, being, as He is, the Supreme Head.