New Wine in Old Wineskins (clergy/laity system)

[Vine Abider]

4 hours ago, Neighbor said:

No thanks, now that I know what the cause being promoted is, I am not at all interested.

What do you think the cause is that's being promoted?

[Vine Abider]

4 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

I, too, overlooked the attachment, just now reading and trying to digest the contents. There are several main topics (Ekklesia, the Holy Spirit, revival, democracy, wineskin, Judaism vs. Christianity, assembling as the body of Christ, and the building). I am confused about the content of the discussion, and I am assuming what the Ekklesia is and is not.

Reading the blog, Galatians 2:11-21 immediately came to mind, and the event(s) that transpired caused Paul to censure and openly correct Peter and the hypocrisy.

Specifically, what are we discussing, Vine?

So after I saw the movie "Jesus Revolution" last week, I had a better sense regarding how that revival developed.  Then I had an opportunity to communicate with a brother I've known since the west coast, back around the time of the Jesus People movement.  The communication was about another matter unrelated to the movie, but he sent me a copy of a blog he had just written.  When I read the blog, I saw he had the exact same realization I had when watching the movie - that new wine was often gets poured into an old wineskin!

As he says in the blog, this is not to disparage Calvary Chapel in any way.  I have enjoyed gathering with Calvary Chapel folks, and also frequently listen to Greg Laurie on the radio.  It is about the system most of Christendom has in place, which is often more like an organization (with a CEO, board, etc.) than the living organism the bible describes the ekklesia as being. In this system, a few members function at a high, but most others not so much.

Is that helpful? 

[teddyv]

@Vine Abider

Copied this paragraph that you posted from your friend's blog. I was never able to read the entire blog post, so I might be missing some context.

My thoughts below are a bit muddled and kind of stream of consciousness...

Quote

"A constant factor manifested among those in a revival is a breakdown and forsaking of church identity (viz. people don’t need to ask “What church do you go to?” but identify immediately with their relationship to Jesus Christ). They simply become a believer and a lover of Jesus and His people. There is an expression of loving one another no matter how different they are from each other. Distinctions are no longer a source of separation. It starts with love and is maintained by love. This is diversity in unity which is the Lord’s democratic assembly (ekklesia)."

I guess, my question would be is what happens after the "revival"? It's great that there is that sense of unity, but it will be temporal. Revivals tend to be heavy on the emotional investment and that inevitably will fade as one has to again get back to the business of ordinary living. In the NT, the apostles set up structures for maintaining the church in each city - elders, primarily - after a period of preaching and teaching the gospel. Paul even lays out an early service pattern (1 Corinthians 14:26-40).

In the recent Asbury revival, there were people streaming in from out of state as well. How would that factor into this analysis. These are not even people from this demographic area and they will have to go home eventually, back to their own denominations and their attendant structures.

I think if you went to most denominational churches and asked their identity you would probably get a pretty similar answer of a "relationship with Jesus Christ". I find the use of the word "relationship" is a bit fuzzy (probably a charismatic influence).

While the idea of a structureless church body seems nice, any social grouping of humans will inevitably end up with some form of hierarchical structure. If we are all loving each other, that truly needs actions to back it up this love and that will also need structure (that "loving each other" is rather nebulous in the quoted paragraph). 

[Vine Abider]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

@Vine Abider

Copied this paragraph that you posted from your friend's blog. I was never able to read the entire blog post, so I might be missing some context.

My thoughts below are a bit muddled and kind of stream of consciousness...

I guess, my question would be is what happens after the "revival"? It's great that there is that sense of unity, but it will be temporal. Revivals tend to be heavy on the emotional investment and that inevitably will fade as one has to again get back to the business of ordinary living. In the NT, the apostles set up structures for maintaining the church in each city - elders, primarily - after a period of preaching and teaching the gospel. Paul even lays out an early service pattern (1 Corinthians 14:26-40).

In the recent Asbury revival, there were people streaming in from out of state as well. How would that factor into this analysis. These are not even people from this demographic area and they will have to go home eventually, back to their own denominations and their attendant structures.

I think if you went to most denominational churches and asked their identity you would probably get a pretty similar answer of a "relationship with Jesus Christ". I find the use of the word "relationship" is a bit fuzzy (probably a charismatic influence).

While the idea of a structureless church body seems nice, any social grouping of humans will inevitably end up with some form of hierarchical structure. If we are all loving each other, that truly needs actions to back it up this love and that will also need structure (that "loving each other" is rather nebulous in the quoted paragraph). 

The synopsis of that blog, to me at least, is that some system got carried over from the old covenant that was too much of that form.  The old covenant was the shadow, and the new covenant is the reality of Christ living in us.  One was a legalistic system (aka old wineskin) and the other is freedom (aka new wine).

What Paul presented was a function, an outflowing of the Spirit.  Some would be gifted as teachers, deacons, etc., and this was an outflow of the life of Christ in them - not an office per se. An organic principle  - not a organizational system.

But man's organizational system really began to take hold when the Roman's embraced Christianity as the state religion.  That's when things rapidly left the organic and evolved into the organizational.

There were some remnants of ekklesia that stood apart from that system from the dark ages.  They met in a simple way and held to scripture, not man's traditions and organization. (we talked about these ones over on the recent Pilgrim Church thread)  These ones predated Martin Luthor.  When the reformation came around, many reformed from the RCC.  But the remnant that had stood apart needed no reforming, since they had never adopted those practices.

The clergy/laity system is what much of Christendom now has, and has had since the reformation.  It is so much there that members of the body of Christ are often not even aware that it is there, nor how much it suppresses the free functioning of most of the members of the body.

 

[Dennis1209]

3 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Is that helpful?

Yes, it was, thanks!

I do not think as clearly as I once did, and it is worsening by the year.

[teddyv]

34 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

The synopsis of that blog, to me at least, is that some system got carried over from the old covenant that was too much of that form.  The old covenant was the shadow, and the new covenant is the reality of Christ living in us.  One was a legalistic system (aka old wineskin) and the other is freedom (aka new wine).

What Paul presented was a function, an outflowing of the Spirit.  Some would be gifted as teachers, deacons, etc., and this was an outflow of the life of Christ in them - not an office per se. An organic principle  - not a organizational system.

But man's organizational system really began to take hold when the Roman's embraced Christianity as the state religion.  That's when things rapidly left the organic and evolved into the organizational.

There were some remnants of ekklesia that stood apart from that system from the dark ages.  They met in a simple way and held to scripture, not man's traditions and organization. (we talked about these ones over on the recent Pilgrim Church thread)  These ones predated Martin Luthor.  When the reformation came around, many reformed from the RCC.  But the remnant that had stood apart needed no reforming, since they had never adopted those practices.

The clergy/laity system is what much of Christendom now has, and has had since the reformation.  It is so much there that members of the body of Christ are often not even aware that it is there, nor how much it suppresses the free functioning of most of the members of the body.

 

The method that seems to be the advocated for here will work for smaller groups like those in the early church (small house church(es) in a city. This does become more and more unworkable in larger and larger populations of Christians (any religion).

I'm from a fairly traditional Reformed denomination, and I would hesitate to say that our members are suppressed from from "free-functioning". But I would have to ask first- what does free-functioning mean to you? Is this implying the more charismatic manifestations? 

[Michael37]

11 minutes ago, teddyv said:

The method that seems to be the advocated for here will work for smaller groups like those in the early church (small house church(es) in a city. This does become more and more unworkable in larger and larger populations of Christians (any religion).

I'm from a fairly traditional Reformed denomination, and I would hesitate to say that our members are suppressed from from "free-functioning". But I would have to ask first- what does free-functioning mean to you? Is this implying the more charismatic manifestations? 

Some groups cultivate a free-wheeling style of fellowship, others prefer a predetermined order of service. 

Does the one of necessity render the other abhorrent?

I enjoy a blend of spontaneous and preset contributions to a service.

Wineskins are still wineskins whether they are new or old. They are both analogous to structures.

The exhortation is to know what happens if the new concepts provided aren't contained in the new structures provided.

[teddyv]

13 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

Some groups cultivate a free-wheeling style of fellowship, others prefer a predetermined order of service. 

True enough.

13 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

Does the one of necessity render the other abhorrent?

Nope. And there was intent of an implication on my part.

13 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

I enjoy a blend of spontaneous and preset contributions to a service.

OK.

13 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

Wineskins are still wineskins whether they are new or old. They are both analogous to structures.

Perhaps I am finding this analogy a bit poor, forcing a dichotomy when there probably is not one, but rather a wide range and evolving styles and structures.

13 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

The exhortation is to know what happens if the new concepts provided aren't contained in the new structures provided.

?

[Michael37]

23 minutes ago, teddyv said:

True enough.

Nope. And there was intent of an implication on my part.

OK.

Perhaps I am finding this analogy a bit poor, forcing a dichotomy when there probably is not one, but rather a wide range and evolving styles and structures.

?

Check out Howard Snyder's book "New Wineskins" which comes with the subtitle 'Changing The Man-Made Structures of the Church'.

The old structure contained Law, the new structure contains Grace.

[Marilyn C]

So, what do we have -

Leadership by voting or God`s direction through leadership.

`Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God.` (Eph. 1: 1) 

`For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you - ` (Titus 1: 5)

 

Leadership of organizations or discipling others in daily life.

`Paul, Silvanus and Timothy,....we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children....labouring night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you,.....as you know how we exhorted, and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father does his own children.` (1 Thess. 1: 1,  2: 7, 9, 11)

There we see plural leadership, who laboured to pay their own way, and worked amongst their disciples undergirding them as a mother and father. These leaders knew personally each disciple and laboured with them in their daily struggles. 

 

There is a big difference there and we wonder why things are not as they seem.