For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the LORD, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel. (Ezra 7:10.)
For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the LORD, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel. (Ezra 7:10.)
|
Search
|
|
Questions?
Click Here to Send Us an Email.
|
|
Recommendations
Only Jesus (great song by Big Daddy) What Did Jesus Say? (2012) - 7 topics None above affiliated with me |
Books:
Jesus said there is not to be a single leadership authority among ANY of us except Christ Himself! Jesus is the "sole teacher" and "sole pastor." We cannot call anyone other than Christ our teacher, leader or pastor! All such roles of teacher, leader and pastor are Jesus's roles as the King of Kings. No individual Christian is authorized to claim any such role.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise AUTHORITY upon them. But IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your servant." (Matt. 20:25-26.)
"They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. "But do not be called Rabbi [i.e., teacher]; for One is your Teacher [kathegetes], and you are all brothers/brethren [adelphoi]. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. "Do not be called leaders [teacher][Gk kathegetes]; for One is your Leader [teacher][kathegetes], that is, Christ. "But the greatest among you shall be your servant [slave].” (Matt. 23:6-11, NASB)
[Note how both 20:25-26 and 23:6-11 have the identical phrase "shall be your servant," showing these two passages are linked. This proves anyone who takes the office of "leader," or "teacher" in place of Jesus over the brethren (Matt. 23:6-11) acts wrongfully -- acts improperly just as the "Gentiles who exercise dominion" over the people (Matt. 20:25-26.) ]
"And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd/pastor (Grk poimen)." (John 10:16.)
"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren...." (Matt. 23:8)(ASV)
"Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ." (Matt. 23:10, NIV)
Hence, Jesus told us we are all equal, as one family of believers -- brothers and sisters. There is nothing implied in "brethren" other than an equality among all church members. And there is only one "shepherd" (pastor) and one "teacher" -- Jesus Himself. As Amos Love said:
"After trying for 1700 years, 'clergy - laity' still doesn’t work. Jesus said we are 'All' brethren. Matt 23:8 -10." (Amos Love April 26, 2010.)
As Luther also wrote in 1523:
Among Christians there is no superior but Christ himself, and him alone. What kind of authority can there be where all are equal and have the same right, power, possession and honor, and where no one desires to be the other's superior, but each the other's subordinate. (Martin Luther, Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523) in 45 Luther's Works 75, 117 (Walther I. Brandt, 1956), quoted in Feldman at 311 fn 29.)
In agreement is Dave Lililgren's 2007 article entitled "Pastor Jesus" in which we read his valid comments on Matthew 20:25-26:
In verse 25, Jesus describes “secular” leadership by using terms “rulers of the Gentiles” and “their great ones.” This type of leadership is based upon one’s position (“rulers”) in government and upon their greatness (“great ones” could also refer to their credentials) in exercising influence over others. It’s all about control (“lord it over them”) and the exercise of authority. Secular leadership is hierarchical, from top to bottom, with a “chain of command.”
Tragically, Jesus in verse 25 is describing the leadership structure of many churches today. We have brought in “baggage” from the world (“the Gentiles” literally means “the nations”) and have organized Christ’s church after a pagan model, replete with “boards” and “chains of command” and CEO’s (a.k.a., “senior pastors”). But Jesus emphatically states that this type of church government is wrong: “It shall not be so among you” (Matt. 20:26a). This is not to be the way leadership functions in Christ’s kingdom. (Lilligren, "Pastor Jesus" (2007.)
What about if we simply call a single poweful-church leader a minister? A servant? A slave? Does this label change the substance of what we are doing, and thus avoid Jesus' prohibition? NO. That would be playing a word-game, raising form over substance.
Such nomenclature is simply a brazen circumvention of Jesus' commands. It seeks to create an office which represents a single powerful church-leader or teacher or pastor. An unequal "brother" who has taken Jesus' post among us.
The standard 'minister' position does not simply humbly serve with the rest of us as all his equal, as we all know from experience. Rather, the minister is always alone authorized to speak and teach. None of us can contribute during the sermon. No one can question or dispute the minister as he talks. We treat the minister as an oracle above us. Finally, no one but the 'minister' gets paid for his time in the service (except a few other church-leaders), thus giving the minister an unequal honor above the general members within the entire Church.
Thus, this isolating of one individual to hold power over us and command wages under the title of "Minister" is a completely dishonest skirting of Jesus' meaning.
It subverts Jesus' role. As Frank Viola and George Barna recently wrote in Pagan Christianity (Tyndale: 2008) at 75:
[T]he Protestant order of worship represses mutual participation and the growth of Christian community. It puts a choke hold on the functioning of the body of Christ by silencing its members. There is absolutely no room for anyone to give a word of exhortation, share an insight, start or introduce a song, or spontaneously lead a prayer. You are forced to be a muted, staid pewholder! You are prevented from being enriched by the other members of the body as well as being able to enrich them yourself.
Viola explains he was involved in a home church which was a weekly gathering and completely spontaneous in starting up hymns, prayers, readings, etc. Viola says when you operate this way, the headship of Christ emerges. When it is lacking, Jesus' role as leader is suppressed:
[T]he Protestant order of worship strangles the headship of Jesus Christ. The entire service is directed to one person. You are limited to the knowledge, gifting and experience of one member of the body--the pastor. Where is the freedom for our Lord Jesus to speak through His body at will? Where in the liturgy may God give a brother or sister a word to share with the whole congregation? The order of worship allows for no such thing. Jesus Christ has no freedom to express Himself through His body at His discretion. He too is rendered a passive spectator. Id. at 76.
To support our ignoring Jesus's command, many people complain that operating without a formal leader or pastor is impractical. One responds: "I couldn't imagine a church run without some order."1
But you can have order without a single formal leader / pastor / teacher aside from Jesus. And why would we scoff at our Lord Jesus's words without trying what He says? Here is my experience proving it can be done.
When I lived in Costa Rica as a missionary in 1998-2002 (still technically a conservative Presbyterian but with Baptist-evangelical ideas as my predominant viewpoint), I regularly attended a Pentecostal English-speaking church on Sunday. Missionary work was something you did the rest of the week.
One of our church members was Gary. He told a group of us who lived near his home that the notion of modern pastors was unbiblical. Our sub-group who hung out a lot with Gary then read a book he offered that explained this. I was not fully convinced. However, I was willing to try out "Gary's idea." Each Wednesday, we met at a different person's home for communion, worship-singing and prayer. No one was in charge. Whoever's home served as host, that couple was responsible for making sure the communion table was prepared. Each of us brought food and gave it to the host couple for the post-service lunch. It was great and worked completely in an orderly manner.
Significantly, we always had an empty chair for Jesus. We believed Jesus was the sole teacher and sole pastor. That empty chair reminded us to never get carried away as an individual with speaking. We began every service inviting Jesus to be there with us, as He promised where "two or more are gathered together in my name, there I am among them." (Matt. 18:20.) And we also made expressions of submission to Jesus as Lord, recalling that Jesus told us what brings Him and the Father to reside among us:
If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him (John 14:23).
Then after worship-singing and initial prayers, men and women, including husbands and wives, asked the group about what a passage meant. Any of us could raise a question about a passage which they had been studying privately. We read it, studied it, and commented on it. Nothing was out of turn. It was spiritually dominated by the Holy Spirit's presence with us. God was moving among us.
Frank Viola in his chapter on the modern order of worship shared his similar experience in what he calls "open meetings under the headship of Chirst." (Viola, Pagan Christianity (2008) at 78.) He explained such a meeting "not too long ago" of about 30 of us "gathered together in a home...." Some spontaneously went to the center of the room and sang a song. Quickly the entire church was singing, arms around one another. Then someone began another song. They sang several songs sometimes repeating them. Some people turned the words of the songs into prayers. "On serveral occasions, a few of the members exhorted the church in relation to what we had just sung." Id., at 78. Then they all sat down. Quickly a woman stood up and shared what the Lord had showed her the past week. After she sat down, a man got up and shared a portion of scripture, and exalted the Lord Jesus through it. etc. Id.
Viola points out the same impact this had on myself in the home church we worshipped within in Costa Rica:
It was so..edifying that it became evident to everyone that someone was indeed leading the meeting. But He was not visible. It was the Lord Jesus Christ! His headship was being manifested among His people. We were reminded again that He in fact is alive...alive enough to direct His church. Id., at 79.
What is the cause of our misconceptions against this kind of church? It is our modern concept of the church as a structured organization like modern corporations that causes us to want 'leaders' and 'pastors' other than Jesus. However, a truly vibrant Christian community is one that does not need formally present leaders /pastors nor official buildings. The need for walls should not dictate a structure at odds with Jesus' words. As Jesus said of the Temple, one day it would be gone, but God wants those who worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:21-24.) Walls are sometimes useful. Teaching is useful. Pastoring is useful. But commanding figures called Teachers and Pastors and Leaders (aka Ministers) other than Christ Himself are contrary to Christ's direction.
The Church Multiplication Association at its website explains my own experience and their desire to obey Jesus's words in what they regard as the "most ignored" passage from Jesus.
In our own mission work we use only the terms "hermano" (brother), and "hermana" (sister) for everyone. We try to be very careful to not give the impression that some of us are somehow more important, or "more called" than others. In any of our meetings ANYONE is welcome, even those meetings of a sensitive nature. We don't want to do anything that would give an impression that some are more qualified or more important to deal with matters than others. As a result, our poorer, uneducated brethren are often used of God to accomplish extraordinary things as they are encouraged to use their spiritual gifting, rather than something they have been made to feel inferior about through no fault of their own. (J. Guy Muse, missionary in Ecuador, "The Most Ignored Words of Jesus.")
So where did we get the idea of multiple pastors, ministers, and other officers lording over us? Paul, of course.
Paul says "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors (shepherds, Greek poimenas) and teachers...." (Eph. 411.)
But Jesus said to the absolute contrary: "And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd (Greek poimen)" (John 10:16.). Jesus uses the same Greek word for shepherd/pastor as Paul, but the singular while Paul uses the plural. Jesus' point is there should be no more than one. Paul's use of the plural is to convey a contradictory idea that it is perfectly ok to have multiple pastors.
And where do we get the idea that anyone but Jesus can serve as a leader over us too?
"For though you have countless leaders [paidagogous, lit. leaders] in Christ ...." 1Cor.4:15
However, Jesus said: "Neither be called leaders [kathegetai, lit. leaders -- a synonym for paidagogous], for you have one leader, the Christ." Matt.23:10 AMP. (Other translations render this as "master" (KJV) or "director" (YLT).)
And where does the idea come from that these pastors/leaders can not only lord it over us, but also can expect wages from us? Paul again.
In 1 Tim. 5:17, Paul wrote: "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." Then Paul uses a verse about not muzzling an ox, and then by nebulous logic Paul reads it to imply that churchgoers have a duty to pay the elders for their service. (1 Tim. 5:18.)
But I thought Jesus said to His disciples to lay no cost on anyone they served? "Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give." (Matt. 10:8b.) This is intended to apply to all preaching and ministry works, for the words just before this were: "[7] And preach as you go, saying, `The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' [8a] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons."
Given the state of the church today, I guess Jesus' words are not important any more once Paul gave us the means of preaching for financial gain!
(Could this indeed be why Paul can never be let go by modern pastor-run churches? There is too much financial gain caught up in following Paul versus that of Jesus?)
Similarly, Barnabas who authored Hebrews (according to Tertullian) also contributed to the concept of powerful leaders and pastor-like figures in the church:
Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your
souls, as those who will give an account. (Heb. 13:17)
But Jesus said there were not to be "leaders" in the spiritual community. (Matt. 23:6-11, quoted above.)
And Jesus said we were not to have rulers among us who rule over us like Gentiles do in their assemblies. (Matt. 20:25-26.)
Paul / Barnabas are at odds with Jesus. Whom do you follow? Barnabas or Jesus? Paul or Jesus? I choose Jesus.
Where and when did things change in the church? You would be surprised, but it took almost 400 years to erase laymen as the primary participants in church. Thus, Pauline thinking of pastors, leaders, etc., eventually caused "pope Leo [b. 400-d.461], in an epistle to Maximus, bishop of Antioch, [to tell] him that monks or other laymen, however learned, should not be allowed to usurp the right of teaching or preaching, but only the priests of the Lord [can teach/preach]." (Samuel Cheetham, A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (Burr, 1880) Vol. 2 at 1686.)
Hence, was born the laity v. clergy distinction in the 5th century, and the superiority of a few over the church was formalized in violation of Jesus's words.
PS. Sometimes 1 Peter 5:5 is used to teach that 'elders' in a church are proper and we must submit to them. However, read the verse again: "Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older." (NIV). Obviously, to say this is about a church organization is twisting the verse. It is simply a moral command between young and old. It is not an organizational teaching about church. It only applies in a church setting as reflective of a principle that applies both inside and outside of church meetings.
The early church had a member known as the OVERSEER - what we today call a bishop. The early role is much different than we imagine. It comported with what Peter speaks about in 1 Peter 5:3:
neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves examples to the flock
Peter, I believe, was talking about the charge given a bishop. It did not include routine solitary preaching or directing others in their behavior, as we shall see.
Sozomen and various scholars claim the early bishops of Christianity never preached a sermon for the first 400 years of Christianity. At church, you prayed, read the Bible, heard exortation to obey the word, and sang. That was it! "Sozomen [says] at Rome neither the bishop nor any other were known to publicly preach to the public up to this time (440 A.D.)" (Cheetham, History of Christian Antiquities (1880) Vol. 2 at 1687.) "Valesius...in corroboration of Sozomen [says] that no sermon by any bishop of Rome are extant before Leo the Great [ca. 440 A.D.]" Id.
Thus, you might read Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, but then Jesus alone gave the Sermon. Otherwise, there was no practice of any individual member of the church taking on the role of weekly sermonizing.
However, Cheetham found scattered evidence that bishops were said to give sermons from time to time, but in the same church others sometimes did so also. Id. While Cheetham questions whether Sozomen and Valesius are completely correct, such evidence did not mean one person routinely gave the sermon in a specific church. All were equal. Anyone could speak.
Likewise Viola and Barna in Pagan Christianity say that the first example of routine sermonizing in the church by a solitary person -- called the bishop -- came from Clement of Alexandria in the late second century AD. See Viola & Barna, Pagan Christianity (2008) at 89.
Even so, a sermon when mentioned in the early church was far different than what we are familiar with today. Around 165 AD, a passage of scripture was read with an exhortation to obey the word. Two readings from both the OT and NT were often read. "The sermons in these times were nothing else but exposition of some part of scriptures then read, and exhortations to the people to obey the doctrines contained in them, and generally upon the lesson last read, as being freshest in their minds." As a result of up to four readings, the exhortations were often several -- "sometimes two or three at the same assembly, the presbyters first and then the bishop." (Justin Martyr, First Apology (162 AD) at page 92 fn. 2.)
Thus, even with such minor exhortations sharing the name 'sermon,' they obviously are not the sermonizing with which we are confronted with today -- where someone with the authority of a title as pastor preaches a message where we are far from the text into commentary and one's own thoughts and ideas entering into the lesson.
Regardless, Sozomen and Valesius as well as Viola and Barna still make a good point about what was the general practice: no sermoniznig by a solitary individual. The exceptions are rare in the early church.
Viola and Barna say that "the sermon became a standard practice...by the fourth century." (Viola & Barna, Pagan Christianity (2008) at 89.) They point out that this copied the strikingly similar pattern of the sophists of paganism who recruited disciples and then gave speeches on topics for a fee. Id.
Thus, the fact the prevailing church practice did not have a bishop (and no office of pastor at all) who sermonized for four centuries raises an important question. Doesn't this reveal the early church thought it improper to give a bishop (or anyone else) a position of such authority whereby he alone would be preaching / sermonizing repeatedly week after week in the church, thereby controlling thought and content of discussion?
(Please note there was no office of pastor in the early church that survived Paul's mention of there being many 'pastors' in the churches which he promoted. See Viola & Barna, Pagan Christianity (2008) at 110. So the only possible early 'ruling' authority to study from post-Paul history is this position of 'bishop' aka 'overseer.')
Assuming Sozomen, Valesius, Viola and Barna are correct about general practices, this supports a narrow role for an overseer / bishop. It is a role that would not violate Jesus's commands, as apparently the more Christ-centric early church even understood.
If the role of the overseer aka bishop is like a modern church secretary, the overseer sets out what might happen in an assembly meeting. The overser has no authority to control the content of those speaking. That belongs to the Lord Jesus and the movement of the spirit during prayer and communion. The group listening should interact, and then correct the one speaking by means of Berean-like testing from the Bible.
In the home-church I mentioned above we had in Costa Rica, whoever's home was the meeting place would serve as overseer of starting off prayer, communion, making sure everything was prepared for worship, etc. But we all participated equally at all points in the worship time. It was completely liberating besides spiritually strengthening to each member of our small group.
Bishop's Role in Settling Doctrinal Disputes Was Non-Binding
In Acts 15, the Overseer of Jerusalem (James) was called upon to resolve a question of doctrine. The answer was given after consultation with the Holy Spirit, and taking testimony and holding a hearing with the apostles. All opinions were heard first. The answer obviously had to conform to Scripture. James' goal was to find that answer after careful consideration of evidence and opinions. The conclusion was then placed in a friendly letter form. It was not an edict that threatened expulsion of anyone who did not agree. It did not say it was binding. The goal obviously was to let the probable view of God flow through the letter by asking for as much input from other believers as possible. In this way, the Overseer does not assume any authority above and apart from the Lord Jesus. But such an opinion-letter reflected that the bishop could serve as a peacemaker--a role Jesus would approve.
What importance is there that Peter and the other eleven apostles stay out of the dispute? They provide testimony but do not venture any imprimature above the bishop James's ruling. The answer is we must infer James simply rendered an opinion as an elder to try to quell disturbance in the church -- as a peacemaker. His letter's authority depended upon its reasonableness and spiritual correctness. James did not decree that it must be followed merely because James uttered it. Hence, this episode reveals a bishop could try to settle a doctrinal dispute by making what was hoped to be a persuasive non-binding decision. The apostles were not acting in a superior position above James when he acted as Bishop of Jerusalem. Hence, there is no example of hierarchy in Acts 15.
No Superior Bishop Over Other Bishops
A myth later developed that there was one bishop -- the one at Rome -- in Peter's line -- who was superior to all other Bishops. However, this had no foundation in the early church, as we will review here.
But we Protestants cannot criticize this speck in Roman Catholic eyes when we have similar beams in our own. For just as there was no bishop-over-bishops, there can neither be any authority of 'senior pastor' over 'junior' pastor, or elders over pastors, as we pretend is acceptably different within our Protestant church.
As proof there was no hierarchy in the early church among bishops, Reverand Jeremy Taylor from the 1600s went over the early history and concluded, citing Cyprian (died 258 AD) and Sylvius in support:
[B]y the law of Christ, one bishop is not superior to the other. ...Cyprian in the council of Carthage [in 257 AD] said: "It remains (saith he) that we all speak what every one of us doth think, judging no man, and refusing to communicate with no man that shall happen to be of a differing judgment:"..."for none of us makes himself a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror compels his colleagues to a necessity of complying : for every bishop hath a liberty and power of his own arbitrement, neither can he be judged by any one, nor himself judge any other; but we all must expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by himself and alone hath power of setting us over the government of his church, and of judging us for what we do."...
I [Rev. Taylor] only add the saying of AEneas Sylvius [died 1464 AD], who was himself a pope; "Ante concilium Nicenum, quisque sibi vivebat, et parvus respectus habebatur ad ecclesiam Romanam;" " "Before the Nicene council, every man lived to himself" (that is, by his proper measures, the limits of his own church), "and little regard was had to the church of Rome." (Jeremy Taylor, The Whole Works of The Right Reverand Jeremy Taylor (Ogle Duncan 1822) Vol. 14 at 71-72.)
For further research on Cyprian's quote, it is at Cypr. Op. "Council Carth.," p. 229. See this link.
For further research on Aenaes Sylvius's quote, it is Aen. Sylvius Op. Basil 1571, Ad Mart. Meyer Epistle cclxxxviii [288] p. 802. See this link.
Also Cyprian wrote in the early church of the 250s of its bishops serving as all equals under Christ as the sole head:
"There is one church, divided by Christ into many members throughout the world; likewise one bishoprick, poured far abroad by the agreeable multitude of many bishops....[And] although bishopricks be divided and sundered by distance of place, yet were they ever knit together as with a garland, and ever ruled by one advice. Indeed the people was ever mingled together; but the bishops were also joined in charity, that every of them was content to be taught and to be led by other. " (The Works of John Jewel id., Vol. 3 at 301, citing Cypr. Op. Antonian Epistle lv, p. 112.) [Also quoted by Catholic Encylopedia at this link.]
Further testimony of there being no superior bishop among bishops initially, at the Council of Constantinople of 380 AD, it was even "decreed that the bishop there should have even and equal authority to the bishop of Rome." (The Works of John Jewel (Cambridge University, 1848) Vol. 3 at300.) Jewel found much evidence for camaraderie among bishops in that early period where none sought to claim any superiority. (Works of John Jewel, Bishop of Salibury (University Press, 1845) at 386.)
But can we have one pastor over another? or elders over pastors? Again, to repeat, there was no office of 'pastor' in the early church. Nor were elders an office; they were the older members of a church. (See "What About Elders?" below.) The only mention of pastors and elders in a church setting was by Paul but these references were apparently descriptive of a role, and not an office because such offices were unknown for over 1000 years of early Christianity. So once we created such an office of pastor in our modern era, we have to accept the fact that (a) his superiority over us is baseless; and (b) having a senior pastor over a junior pastor in authority, or elders over a pastor, is contrary to Christ's words as well as the historic features of the office of bishop -- the only office in the early church. But again, the office of pastor was non-existent in the early church. We need to return to the office of bishop which was a very limited role without sermonizing and control.
Incidentally, later, when individual sermonizing became a standardized practice after the 400s, the talks employed "rhetoric" which "speedily passed into mere unreal and factitious artifice;" the talks in church became no more than "intellectual exercise." (Cheetham, History of Chiristian Antiquities (1880) Vol. 2 at 1689.)
Church then becomes about admiring the clever rhetoric and even the skill in sophistry of one pastor over another. Then church can descend into absorbing itself in silly issues like predestination, eternal security, and other things that do not promote godliness at all! These discussions clearly promote relaxation and lack of concern about sin. When we take our eyes off Jesus, and focus on textual issues on these topics in Paul's writings, we fall away from Christ. These modern intellectual interpretations of Paul are at total odds with our Lord's words that try to stir our concern about sin by threatening our salvation for a "praxis" (practice) that is sinful. See Mark 9:42-47 (heaven maimed or hell whole); Matt. 16:27 (Son of Man "shall give every man according to the praxis /practice of each.")
Good preaching is instead about exhortation to obedience and love of the Father and His Son Jesus Christ in whom He dwelled.
But instead, modern preaching often turns into divisive intellectual discussions about nonessentials in writings that are not truly apostolic.
And this leads to campaigns to exclude heretics which Paul mandated (Titus 3:10, 11). But Jesus said no. Instead, leave the tares in the congregation. (See our link for further discussion.)
The single pastor system fed by debates over non-essential doctrine destructive of concern for our salvation once 'accepting Christ' has led to nothing but divisiveness in the church for centuries. It also resulted in millions of deluded but reassured so-called 'Christians.' The time is now to proclaim only Christ and His Word, which will have the effect of restoring the true Gospel of "heaven maimed" or not at all! See Mark 9:42-47.
When Jesus preached to crowds, I don't think He ever asked whether someone was qualified to listen. There was no checking of membership status in any sense. This continued a long time after Jesus' resurrection: "Not until the second century did the Roman church develop an organization capable of expelling those viewed as 'heretics.'" (Richard I. Pervo, The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (2010) at 351.)
Regardless, if the church is supposed to be about evangelism first, and fellowship second, how can we create formal tiers of people who can and cannot come to church. (There is such a thing as 'shunning,' but that does not require any membership formality, as explained below.)
There is a second reason that no formal membership is necessary for church. Participation cannot lead to expulsion. Jesus taught us against the Roman Catholic principle of excommunication of heretics. Jesus taught this in the Parable of the Wheat & The Tares. He told us to leave tares (heretics) in the congregation. See this link for further discussion. Carlstadt, the co-founder in 1517 of the Reformation with Luther, wrote in 1520 in Canonicis Scriptoris that "the threat of excommunication had no biblical foundation." (Saebo: 578.)
So some might speak out whose ideas are wrong. Jesus says, 'let them fellowship.' It happened to our group in Costa Rica. We listened. We showed love, as Jesus commands. It worked itself out. (Well, some wanted to excercise Pauline exclusion, and this Pauline-command disrupted the peace of our little group. Our group was not attune to the problem of Paul at that time.)
The concept of shunning in Matthew 18 of wrongdoers is different. Those who do moral wrongs are to be confronted one-on-one personally first, and then by two or more witnesses. If no reconciliation is possible, then Jesus teaches to shun them. Jesus did not say exclude such a sinful person from church -- a place where perhaps God's word would pierce his/her heart and cause repentance. The shunning, in fact, likely had the impact of making someone want to come to church for social acceptance, and would upon entry lead quickly to reconciliation with the person he or she offended. Excluding them from church is thus unnecessary and counter-productive; shunning can be done effectively without and within church meetings. It is not intended to exclude one entirely from church meetings.
One of the struggles in having church like this is the issue of prayer. Jesus taught:
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matt: 6:5-6.)
Jesus identified it as a wrongful practice to stand publicly in the synagogue or in the street and pray (even apparently quietly to oneself). This praying-on-corners is still done in Israel today. The defect was obviously that the penitent's prayer was to be seen by men to be penitent. You were praying on a street corner or "standing" at an assembly evidently to be recognized for such wholesome behavior. Hence, it is important to understand such practice to see the fault Jesus was condemning.
The cure to this fault is to pray at home in private.
Does this principle extend to worship time? Yes but only as to a single individual's efforts to pray. Only then is the risk of self-promotion present.
For example, notice the Psalms are songs which are also prayers. If done in a corporate way, a public prayer was certainly legitimate in the Bible. Thus, a joint prayer is clearly appropriate. The Lord's Prayer even appears to imply a corporate usage was intended, "Our Father," forgive "us our" sins, etc.
Hence, Jesus was not saying only to pray at home. He was saying do not stand as an individual and pray to be seen. Individuals who pray to be seen or heard are taking the risk of self-promotion.
How do we avoid the risk of self-promotion when individual prayer in the most wholesome manner seems also to be possible in a church setting?
My suggestion is that it is needful to keep the prayer rotation in the church from one individual to the next so that no one violates the spirit of Jesus's command. If someone is praying to appear more important and sanctified, then there is a problem.
There is no easy answer to this except the Fear of God -- when people are present talking to God, one would hope that people are mindful of God's displeasure of using prayer as showmanship.
The NT talks about elders. Elders are just that -- older men and women.
We are never told that they are an office in the church or hold any formal power at all. As one modern evangelical author Benjamin L. Merkle (Baptist seminary professor) explains in Why Elders?: A Biblical and Practical Guide for Church Members (Kregel Academic, 2009):
The New Testament does not tell us precisely how much authority the elders of the local congregation should have. Id., at 35.
We just imagine it is the same authority being excercised in the church we attend today. But this is notevidence of what the reference meant in the early church.
Carlstadt, the co-founder of the Reformation with Luther, had the opinion that the only two offices that existed in the early church were that of bishop and deacon, basing this on Titus 1:5, 10. See Ronald J. Sider, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: the development of his thought, 1517-1525 (Brill, 1974) at 138. Implicitly, there was no office of elder.
Thus, an elder is indeed simply an older member of a church, and whose years in life give him or her a presumed greater wisdom. Teach respect for elders generally, as the Bible commands. This applies inside and outside of church. Because all older members are elders, you can have an elder board, but then it is made up of everyone over a certain age, without any exception. There are no formal hierarchies in a true church of Christ between men and women of the same age.
Before going to Costa Rica, I was always part of church leadership because I was their legal counsel. I saw the sad tragic inner workings. One pastor was told by the elder board that if the pastor did not increase offerings, he would be replaced. Imagine that!
I saw how building costs, nursery staffing, activities to entertain, etc., ate up budget after budget. I saw how charitable giving by the church-entity was a tiny percentage of the church-tithe back to the community. We were forced instead to fund the para-church organization with most of our "tithe." I saw evangelical opportunity after evangelical opportunity passed by in favor of these other expenses. I saw widowed women and divorcees in shame and distress ask a deacon board for money whose requests were tabled until their sons or daughters (who had no Christian belief) could explain why they were not helping their mom.
A church today runs on money. And the expenses are not evangelistic or charitable in the majority. It is a sad state of affairs.
If the church returned to Jesus's structure for the church, the support for missions and charities both personally and financially would grow. This is because we would focus on the person in the empty chair --- JESUS -- and Jesus's words. The emphasis radically changes for Jesus taught us:
An important step of reform would be to resolve to get rid of church buildings. That is, a place used as a worship center which is not a normal home. First, church buildings financially drain the church of money to do good works among [A] non-Christians (to help lead them to Christ as Jesus instructed in Matt. 5:16) and [B] Christians. Second, modern church buildings perpetuate the system of passive audience-oriented Christianity without true life under Christ.
Most important, the modern church building is totally unbiblical, and even Philp Schaff admits this. Here is an amazing quote from Philip Schaff, the premier modern historian of the church, and himself the product of modern church buildings and systems. Yet he condemns the notion and the costliness of official church structures as unbiblical and without precedent in the early church!
That the Christians in the apostolic age erected special houses of worship is out of the question....As the Saviour of the world was born in a stable, and ascended to heaven from a mountain, so his apostles and their successors down to the fourth century, preached in the streets, the markets, on mountains, in ships, sepulchres, caves, and deserts, and in the humblest private dwellings. But how many thousands of costly churches and chapels have since been built in all parts of the world to the honor of the crucified Redeemer. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Scribner: 1859) at 127.)
The first mention of 'to go to church' appears in 190 AD -- in a letter by Clement of Alexandria. (Viola & Barna, Pagan Christianity (Tyndale: 2008 ) at 12.) But even then it "refers to a private home that the second-century churches used for their meetings." Id.
New Testament scholar Graydon F. Synder explains why we can affirm there were no church buildings until under Emperor Constantine in the 300s:
"There is no literary evidence nor archaelogical indication that any such home was converted into an extant church building. Nor is there any extent church that certainly was built prior to Constantine." (Snyder, Ante-Pacem: Archaelogical Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (2003) at 128.)
Thus, Synder concludes in Ante-Pacem: Archaelogical Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985) at 67
The first churches consistently met in homes. Until the year 300 we know of no buildings first built as a church.
Besides homes, the early church also met in "open places, markets and hired halls." (Id., 2003 edition, at 128.)
Thus, if we had Jesus' concept of church, I bet every week-end we would worship outdoors or in a home as a step toward different afternoon opportunities than we do now. Our money we collect would be used to gain friends for the kingdom. See Luke 16:9 ("I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves...."); Matt. 5:16 ("In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.") We would help widows and orphans, as was a main purpose of offerings commanded to Jews in their tithe. (See our PDF article on the tithe at this link.)
As a result, we would more often end up at a food dispensing service run by Christians for the poor. Or do some charity work where we could meet people who don't know Christ, but due to our charity, will give thanks to God and want to know about Jesus whose example we claim to follow. They will then be open to hear about God and the Lord Jesus's payment for their sins if they turn in repentance and fully trust Him as Lord of their lives.
Maybe that mobile triage unit is what Jesus actually had in mind when He spoke of His church. Consider Jesus' own example. Did He start any building projects? Wasn't the only money handled by the 12 a money bag for the poor? Was this ever spent on administration costs of staff and a music team? Did Jesus stay in one place and show up week after week at the same synagogue to speak, or instead did Jesus largely give itinerant missionary messages to strangers in open fields? Jesus said He had no place to even lay His head.
This supports a minimal role for a church structure as the central hub of our attention. It does not erase it entirely. Jesus did several times attend synagogue services, and once He participated in the reading from Isaiah at one.
This topic disturbs modern Pastors who are enriched by Pauline principles of church leaders, pastorates for pay, etc. But it is time that followers of Jesus speak out for a different way -- the WAY Jesus taught.
Frank Viola in my view goes too far in Pagan Christianity to think the right choice is to have absolutely no order of worship. Instead, what you need are two things (a) equal treatment and position of all; and (b) no superiority of any single individual except the King---Jesus. But you can have such a spirit within the framework of a service order. Within it, you can incorporate all the spontaneous contributions from members that arise. So rather than invite chaos, here is what we did in Costa Rica for four years before we left, and it worked great:
1. Form a circle so no one person is the center of attention. Invite Jesus to participate, and ask Him to take His throne in the room. If it helps your group focus on Jesus as leader and pastor, place an empty chair near the center of the circle or within the circle.
2. Open in Prayer to God (Yahweh / the Father) in Yeshua's name. (Yeshua is Jesus's true name. It is preferable because in Judaic thought the sound of a name is the name, not a translated pronunciation.) Sing a hymn or two.
3. The host family (rotate weekly if possible) asks for individuals to express thanks to God for small and big things of each individual. This is Praise time.
4. The host family asks for expressions of sorrow for having done an individual wrong, especially another participant/spouse/friend. Such a step helps group unity if sins expressed by one participant toward another are made in public, e.g., "I am sorry I snapped at Bob." But some confessions should be done in private, especially if children are around.
5. The host family invites prayer requests -- for others to hold up in prayer.
6. Inviduals pray based upon the prayer requests.
7. Read a passage of Scripture -- about 12 verses. Then the reader starts over one verse at a time. The reader asks the group what do you think this verse means? The reader does not contribute. When all opinions are canvassed, the reader goes to the next verse. And this repeats itself until all 12 verses are discussed. No one has to have doctorate to comment! You would be amazed about the richness of spiritually-motivated ideas among the faithful. It is far richer experience than listening week-after-week to a 'pastor' teach. We did accept prepared studies to be discussed but kept to 5 minutes or so, yet everyone was free to comment and critique the thoughts as they were expressed. A true discussion format where Jesus / the Spirit was trusted to be the leader and teacher. (You can repeat this several times with different members reading off a verse that the Lord showed them the past week or during the worship time.)
8. Praise God for His Word.
9. Sing a hymn or read a Psalm. Try to pick songs about God and His greatness. (Many songs are about our pathetic weaknesses and needs. But this is WORSHIP. It is not supposed to focus on us. This is my wife's pet-peeve with the choice of music at most churches. It is not worship on the greatness of God and praise, but commenting on our experience, our needs, etc.)
10. Offer bread (unleavened) and wine to all. Grape juice if you insist.
11. Do the communion with the words of invocation from Scripture (e.g., Luke). The host or some volunteer should read the Scripture to all.
12. Sing a hymn or two that are WORSHIP oriented.
13. Close in Prayer.
14. Have a lunch or dinner together.
15. The most important rule: don't make the rules of order more important than the Spirit of God who you always allow to change what you do.
Marsilius was the first thinker in Roman Catholic Christendom to deny there is any right to hierarchical authority within the church. Marsilius also contended there was no right within the church to punish heresy. And he said that the church has no right to establish an orthodox viewpoint on any doctrine so that it is then becomes beyond dispute. None of those powers were delegated by Jesus to the church. (See Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, editors, History of Political Philosophy (2d ed.)(Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing, 1972) at 251-53.)
Strauss/Cropsey's famous text explains:
but he denies that the ecclesiastical hierarchy is divinely established. According to him all Christian priests are essentially equal in all respects as far as divine right is concerned. He also denies that any priest, even if he be bishop or pope, has by divine right any of the following powers: the power to command or to coerce; the power to decide whether and how coercion is to be exercised against apostates and heretics, be they subjects or princes; and the power to determine in a legally binding way what is orthodox and what is heretical. Id., at 251.
"Marsilius argues that Christ came into the world not to dominate men, nor to wield temporal rule; and he excluded himself, his apostles and disciples and their successors, bishops and priests, from all coercive authority and worldly rule," says Kilcullen, R.J. Kilcullen in "Tape 8: Marsilius of Padua," Macquarie University POL167: Introduction to Political Theory (1996) citing Marsilius of Padua, In Defense of the Peace (trans. Alan Gewirth)(N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1956) at 114.
Specifically, Marsilius said "That Christ meant to exclude his apostles from worldly rule is proved by: 'The kings of the gentiles lord it over them... But you not so." Id., citing Marsilius, at 113-40.
For more background, see also "Marsilius of Padua" Knol Encyclopedia.
Incidentally, Marsilius's work In Defense of the Peace was the first book that used Christ's principles to say all sovereignty rests with the people who have the right to replace temporal rulers. Marsilius said all political power vests with the people. Five hundred years later, the American Revolution took these principles seriously for the first time. See Fritz Berolzheimer, The world's legal philosophies (Boston: 1912) at 109. )
A Presbyterian pastor in Edinburgh, John Glas, in 1730 started up a church that did not have a single pastor, and tried to have all the church members treated as equal brethren. He started well for a long time. Glas's original writings from 1725-1729 echo many of the same points we found above from Jesus's words. Glas's good beginning -- known as the Glasite movement -- is summarized on our website at this link.
However, because Glas eventually and gradually incorporated Pauline views on pastors, elders, and Paul's doctrine to exclude "heretics" on two warnings, the system degraded into an unbearable tyranny of many equal pastors, rather than the few, who forced all members to submit to these pastors. Total unanimity of opinion on all sorts of matters were required on pain of excommunication (which Paul alone teaches) (Jesus taught tolerating heretics in the Parable of the Tares, and only taught the shunning of moral wrongdoers in Matt. 18.)
Thus, the ultimate failure of the Glasite movement to create a true Christian fellowship underscores that Christ's true church cannot flourish as Christ intended it until the authority of Paul is rejected. Paul's words sow divisiveness and the need for a domineering human controller or controllers (e.g,. a person / persons to enforce exclusion on those regarded as heretics on doctrine after two warnings, as Paul taught).
We have all been told the Reformation changed everything for Christianity. Supposedly, true Christianity was reborn. Not quite. What happened is that Catholicism's stranglehold was loosed, but a new one was attempted to be put on the followers of Jesus -- Paulianity similar to old Marcionism was reborn. Yet, some true Christianity emerged but it was quickly quashed by the new Paulianity.
Carlstadt co-founded the Reformation with Luther in 1517. He tried to take the church in the direction of relying only on Jesus' words, and held they were superior to Paul's. (See "Carlstadt Research.") Carlstadt "granted laymen the right to perform all tasks previously reserved for the ordained." (See Ronald J. Sider, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: the development of his thought, 1517-1525 (Brill, 1974) at 137.) Carlstadt insisted upon the "layman's right to judge theological disputes and attend general councils, ... to celebrate the eucharist privately...." (Id., at 137-38.)
However, Luther by 1522 diverged from Carlstadt, and was angry with his positions on the book of James and handling the eucharist, etc. Luther called Carlstadt the "New Judas," and had him banished from Germany. (See "Luther Destroys JWO Movement in Reformation.")
Luther could do so because he had esconced himself in the favor of several key rulers of Germany. Thereby, Lutheranism became the official church in many parts of Germany. Luther then refused to allow any independent church as a violation of Paul's commands to obey our rulers (Romans 13:1). Any home church would necessarily be in violation of the new state Lutheran church. In fact, any private preaching one-on-one was prohibited. Luther said:
What I say about public preaching, I say even more even more emphatically about private preaching and secret ceremonies. These are not to be tolerated at all. For the rest, anyone may read what he like and believe what he like....[This rule] puts a stop to the knavery of the fellows who preach in corners, who sneak uncalled and unsent, into people's houses, and emit their poison there, before pastors or rulers find them out. These are the thieves and murders of whom Christ speaks in John 10. (Luther, "Commentary on 82d Psalm," Works of Luther (2007) Vol. IV at 312; official cite LW 1364; WA 31.1:210,11-12 (citation referenced by MacKenzie: 20).
On peril of body and soul, no one should listen to such a man but should report him to his pastor or ruler. (Quoted from same passage by James Martin Estes, Peace, order and the glory of God (Brill: 2005) at 188.)
If true, then what about Jesus's evangelism and His sharing bread in private ceremonies, and telling his apostles to do likewise and visit people in homes? Luther admitted the apostles were commanded to go into people's homes in Mark 16:15, but Luther claimed this was a "special command" only applicable to the apostles! "Since then, no one has had this general command," as Estes summarizes Luther's silly argument. See, James Martin Estes, Peace, order and the glory of God (Brill: 2005) at 188.)
Luther took this unbiblical position to the point of killing people! Luther promised and delivered a death sentence upon members of independent congregations like the Anabaptists founded. Their independence, by itself, was a basis for Luther finding them guilty of sedition, and subject to a death penalty. While Luther in this quote below highlighted the Anabaptist opposition to infant baptism -- the Anabaptists instead insisted upon a knowing faith-based confession, Luther justified executing Anabaptists simply because the Anabaptists sought independence from the state church now led by himself. This supposedly proved their seditious nature. Luther wrote:
That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it. ... Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine ... For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? ... Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches ... and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound ... to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders ... Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then ... we conclude that ... the stubborn sectaries must be put to death." (Dave Armstrong. "Pamphlet of 1536" in Martin Luther and The Protestant Inquisition (Janssen, X, 222-223; pamphlet of 1536.)
For the same reason, Luther likewise prohibited anyone serving the role of pastor who was not authorized by the state church. These men should be arrested as likely to stir up rebellion. MacKenzie in the Lutheran Concordia Journal excerpts these passages and comments where Luther refuted Jesus's view that all believers are equal. Instead, Luther created a superior class known as the 'pastor.' (Other than Paul's writings which mention the office of pastor, no early church-history documents reveal any such office of 'pastor). Luther wrote:
"All Christians are priests," Luther said, "but not all are pastors. For to be a pastor one must be not only a Christian and priest but must have an office committed to him. This call and command make pastors and preachers." Those who preach without such authorization are "sure emissaries of the devil." They should be turned over to the authorities for, in Luther's thinking, their purpose is "to start a rebellion, or worse, among the people."
Source: MacKenzie in "Luther's Two Kingdoms," from the Lutheran Concordia Journal (2007) No. 71 at 22 (PDF). MacKenzie cites for these three quotes respectively (1) LW 13:65; WA 31.1:211,17-20; (2) LW13:65; WA 31.1:211,26-27; and (3) 65 LW 13:66; WA 31.1:212,4-5.
As Luther's command explicitly prohibited private evangelism, how would a non-Christian hear the word? Luther's solution was simple. Luther justified forcing non-Christians to attend the official state church on pain of banishment:
"It is our custom to affright those who ... fail to attend the preaching; and to threaten them with banishment and the law. ... In the event of their still proving contumacious, to excommunicate them ... as if they were heathen." (Dave Armstrong, Martin Luther and The Protestant Inquisition (Grisar, citing LW VI, 263; EN, IX, 365; letter to Leonard Beyer, 1533)
"Although excommunication in Pope-dom has been shamefully abused ... yet we must not suffer it to fall, but make right use of it, as Christ commanded." (Dave Armstrong, Martin Luther and The Protestant Inquisition citing Durant, 424-425.)
"The spiritual powers ... also the temporal ones, will have to succumb to the Gospel, either through love or through force, as is clearly proved by all Biblical history." (Martin Luther, Letter to Frederick, Elector of Saxony, 1522 (Janssen, III, 267; letter to Frederick, Elector of Saxony, 1522)
Having crippled Christianity from private preaching as Christ practiced and Jesus encouraged of his 12 apostles, Luther intended Christianity should now only spread by the sword and war, not by voluntary witnessing:
To prevent any private preaching further, and any private discussions on what doctrine might mean, Luther gave the state the sole authority to adjudicate church doctrine. Luther directed:
"Let the rulers take a hand. Let them hear the case and command that party to keep silence which does not agree with the Scriptures."
MacKenzie in "Luther's Two Kingdoms," from the Lutheran Concordia Journal provides this quote with citation, and then comments this means that "the temporal authorities will actually adjudicate a doctrinal dispute." (See link to MacKenzie's article online at this link to PDF at page 21; MacKenzie cites LW 13:63; WA 31.1:209,24-26.)
Hence, the Reformation removed one collar and gave us another one. Part of our continued antipathy to home churches arises from the ingrained belief from centuries of torture and persecution of those who practiced what Jesus endorsed. It is time to break free, and courageously stand for Christ's Way! Now we must remember that we have Jesus's words to serve as our sole pastor.
Of course, there are many pastors and ministers who labor for little pay. But the top tier pastors get paid 100s of thousands of dollars. And the televangelists get paid close to millions of dollars.
For a website that is dedicated to documenting the wealthy lifestyles of prominent pastors and televangelists, see http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-evangelist_lifestyles.html
A congregational leader did not have a speaking role in Moses's contemplation. He led the people in and out of the congregational assembly, much like we suggested the bishop's role was in the early church:
And Moses spake unto the LORD, saying, 16 Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation, 17 Which may go out before them, and which may go in before them, and which may lead them out, and which may bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD be not as sheep which have no shepherd. Number 27:15
Clergy-laity distinction is unbiblical by Reason to Stand
I was reading ( and printed out) your article on church structure and thought similar as to what you suggest here. Many thanks for the encouragement and links, I really appreciate it and feel supported.
I feel within my spirit and have for many years that we must hold NT church meetings and your guide helped me very much !!! THANKS Blessings and Shalom Stella (June 24, 2011)
