Why the focus on just a few people functioning (up front) in our gatherings?

[Vine Abider]

16 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

Bottom line as I understand it and have read from their materials. Now I am gonna put this is my own words as we both share the same issue foundationally. We westerners do not understand the ancient Eastern Church. I do not say this to offend you, but to be as open as I know how. We (you and myself) do not understand because we ourselves are affected by our Roman roots. Have you ever heard the phrase "shaking off Catholicism"? I have and I have used it to describe my own spiritual journey. It is the remnant of Papal (Roman) Catholicism we yet keep that is the cause of this.

Martin Luther greatly respected the Eastern Fathers, and dialogued with one prominent Bishop. Martin wanted his support and unity against Rome. Finally this bishop cut off communication. Martin and the reformers had already been affected by the same self rule thy got from Romanism, to where this Bishop, seen reformers as the egg Rome had laid. Those are my own words and way of explaining this. IMO, history shows this has some merit. The reformers could not agree among themselves, denominationalism began, and it has grown to ridiculousness since. Every head being their own little Popes.

I really know very little of the Eastern side of the church.  My readings have been focused on small groups of Christians that left Romanism early on.  They wanted nothing to do with the pope or that whole system of things with the church fathers being the final authority, rather than scripture.  This is what I'm referring to.

Interesting about Luther having dialog with the eastern bishop . . .

However, it does seem to me that many systems and traditions were developed by the Eastern side too, right?  But as said, I know little about their practices or historical details.

[Anne2]

1 minute ago, Vine Abider said:

I really know very little of the Eastern side of the church.  My readings have been focused on small groups of Christians that left Romanism early on.  They wanted nothing to do with the pope or that whole system of things with the church fathers being the final authority, rather than scripture.  This is what I'm referring to.

Interesting about Luther having dialog with the eastern bishop . . .

However, it does seem to me that many systems and traditions were developed by the Eastern side too, right?  But as said, I know little about their practices.

Yes, the Eastern side too. And not all Eastern Churches agreed as the series of councils developed. These Churches still exist. I could become Orthodox myself if it were not for the council on Icons, which other ancient Churches did reject. So I cannot be Orthodox at this point. But, all, absolutely all of them were liturgical concerning the Eucharistic Assembly. I read one Orthodox theolgian that said the Eucharist was the very foundation of "CATHOLICITY". You go into any of the "Orthodox" churches and you will see a Eucharistic assembly. Luther, Anglican, maintained Priesthood, and Eucharistic assembly as a priesthood. 

The western Church has thrown that away. I cannot but consider it as having Merit.

But, I will say this. there were seven councils which were of the Church before the split. That is what Greece calls itself is the Church of the seven councils. 

No other councils have any authority since those that have the authority are no longer able to establish them together. The thing is here, this ancient Church believed and still does in Apostolic authority. And when one goes astray, they themselves are left without it as well. So, as scripture says, seek their restoration. That I believe is the position the Orthodox take with Rome. He has a seat, that they seek to restore. Now that to me is beautiful thing. We in the west do not hold to this too much. We disagree, we walk away, and start a new denomination and take no accountability to what we were part of before. So, these seek to not only come to repentance themselves if need be in dialogue, or seek the repentance of Rome, in love and respect. Some of them have gone so far as to look at semantics of East and West. But they do strive showing they firmly believe in seats of Authority even if it restrains their own personal authority.

 

 

[Yes, and]

Again, newbie here (but for the sake of an iota of context on my perspective, I'm 60 years old, and came to faith in 1981).

I find this discussion an example of what I have come to believe. I recently expressed this belief to a dear friend and brother, when talking about the tenets of a branch of Christendom I find completely incompatible with the Word. I said:

I wouldn’t even attempt to disprove a guy who espouses this view. I believe our worldviews change, our constructs get demolished and reconstructed, not because someone intellectually proved us wrong, but because of some significant influence bearing down via a crisis to which our worldview or construct has no answer. Hopefully at each point of crisis it’s the Holy Spirit doing the deconstructing and reconstructing.

This belief of mine has been empirically derived over many years. The view someone holds who is in that particular branch is likely not going to change solely from hearing someone’s intellectual argument. And my view is itself a construct which would need to be demolished and reconstructed before arriving at a new view. If it is a construct founded on sand and not solid ground, if it does not itself comport with the “mind of Christ,” then hopefully the Spirit will do that work. Same goes with how I now see the Church (as opposed to the churches). Many other believers throughout the last two millennia have had the same understanding, including a number of believers I know personally. But I have also learned that there’s really no point in trying to argue into this view those who don’t see it. Those who get here, as I did, seem to get here through a crisis or a struggle brought about by simply reading the Word and comparing it to that which does not match. As my friend well said, "My bias about all things spiritual is the closer you get to Jesus that closer you get toward truth."

And so, here we have in this thread at least two mini-discussions which have so far taken place, one which seems primarily to be between Sower and WilliamL, while the other between Vine Abider and Anne2.

With the former, I would want to ask them both questions along the lines of, what do you principally mean when you use the word church? What do you primarily picture in your mind as you discuss this? How would you define it, and how do you think the Word defines it?

With the latter mini-discussion I would want to ask them both questions along the lines of, what do you mean when you use the term authority? What do you picture in your mind as you discuss this? How would you define it, and how do you think the Word defines it?

I'd be willing to bet as you dig into the weeds you will be able to see sharply contrasting views. And once these worldviews begin to clarify, then folks can fruitfully move forward, as without understanding that these contrasting worldviews are in play, all we're left with is a lot of talking past each other.

If the "authorities" of this forum want to push this over to a new thread, I would have no reason to object!

[Sower]

1 hour ago, Yes, and said:

And so, here we have in this thread at least two mini-discussions which have so far taken place, one which seems primarily to be between Sower and WilliamL, while the other between Vine Abider and Anne2.

With the former, I would want to ask them both questions along the lines of, what do you principally mean when you use the word church? What do you primarily picture in your mind as you discuss this? How would you define it, and how do you think the Word defines it?

With the latter mini-discussion I would want to ask them both questions along the lines of, what do you mean when you use the term authority? What do you picture in your mind as you discuss this? How would you define it, and how do you think the Word defines it?

"what do you principally mean when you use the word church?"

A common question here, regularly. No, it's not a building. I usually hesitate to use the no more politically correct 'church' unless I'm discussing with known members.

My definition is the believers assembling locally, to study/learn worship like as in my church, along with  the universal body of all believers. Saved People. I assume you understand my use of believers meaning those who have been forgiven, born from above.

authority; someone who has a right to; make decisions and orders, control etc.
That authority is given them from a higher authority, and spiritually as in God/scripture.

I join a (church ) body of believers and put myself/family under the shepherd that feeds the flock, the called one that is under the Good shepherd, Lord Jesus, who is the bread of life.

If I believe my shepherd has strayed from his calling, scripturally or morally etc, I would discuss with other trusted brothers, or leave from under his authority.

 

 

[Anne2]

12 hours ago, Yes, and said:

With the latter mini-discussion I would want to ask them both questions along the lines of, what do you mean when you use the term authority? What do you picture in your mind as you discuss this? How would you define it, and how do you think the Word defines it?

I originally asked concerning structure. What was meant by vertical vs horizontal. 

It seemed to me anyway, there was a blending of what Rome became on it's own, being used as an example which did not really exist at that time.

This is not helpful IMO, firstly to understand the difference. 

As for me, I am not attempting to demolish, or reconstruct. But to understand What the difference is between what is already present, and what is being constructed.

 

[WilliamL]

On 7/7/2023 at 11:04 PM, Sower said:

I guess I am just a bit sensitive hearing why people here have to use that excuse to not assemble together. You have been here a long time and I'm sure you have heard it.

Certainly. But I perceive them as the squeaky wheels; whereas the well-oiled wheels don't make themselves and their churches the focus of attention. So in my opinion, the latter are actually more likely to be in the majority here, although possibly not if strictly adhering to your call for weekly attendance as the definition of "assemble together."

In my own peculiar situation, we have a large, church-owned property with members spread across maybe 450 miles in NM and CO. So we meet twice monthly (2 consecutive days). But on the land we also have different groups meeting weekly; and not everyone attends the same meetings. And quite often those meetings get cancelled for one reason or another.

Which is why I said, "Each fellowship is unique; there is no formula for how often they should meet."

[Anne2]

On 7/7/2023 at 10:04 PM, Sower said:

 

Yes I made the claim based upon the fourteen years here so often defending the "traditional" church from  church bashers running down how ALL the churches do not meet their standards naming their many reasons. Research my post history and you can read it. That is why I ask for a poll.  (I do not know how) I guess I am just a bit sensitive hearing why people here have to use that excuse to not assemble together. You have been here a long time and I'm sure you have heard it.

And I usually always preface this with that I am aware that there are the sick and the infirm, and many without transportation etc etc. I get it.

No church is perfect. But God's body will prevail with all the warts and wrinkles.
Though I have heard some here, but not  much about the benefit of belonging to an assembly of believers (church) and everybodies 'good' experiences on the plus side. Edification. So why belittle churches, and point out the sins of others. Aren't we supposed to be edifying one another, to say nothing of Christ's body of believers?
                The glass is also half full........

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
 

 

Maybe this does not fit in this discussion but.....I am having a hard time due to the LGBTQ issue. And the added fact that it has become political, therefore supporting people being fired for not complying. Maybe that is not an issue where you assemble.

[WilliamL]

Getting back to Church history, and the development of hierarchicalism: from a past book of mine:

"  The exaltation of the [early] Church's leaders is evidenced by the following passages from the epistle of Ignatius, Bishop of Syria (Antioch), written in ca. 110 AD. Ignatius was am pupil of the Apostle John.

Ephesians 2:4 [W]e ought to look on the bishop even as we would on the Lord himself...

Magnesians 2:5 Your bishop presiding in the place of God...

Smyrnaeans 3:1 See that you all follow your bishop as Jesus Christ...

...this particular doctrine fostered an unhealthy attitude of essentially making the bishops intermediaries between Church members and Christ. Such an attitude proved to be a fatal mistake in later years...

...[The following] law was written into the [Roman Emperor] Justinian Code in 545 [AD]:

We order that the Most Holy Pope of ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of Ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all other sees.  Novella 131 (coll. 9, tit. 6, ch. 2)

... "Christ has set one man over the world," declared [Pope] Innocent [III, r. 1198-1216]. "In [the pope] alone is the right of making laws... He is to be judged by none." "The pope is of so great dignity and excellence, that he is not merely man, but as if God, and the vicar of God," proclaimed Boniface [VIII, r. 1293-1303]. "The pope alone is called most holy, divine monarch, and supreme emperor, and king of kings... The pope is as God on earth."  "

"A little leaven," and see what happened! This is why I avoid one-pastor churches. Church elders must be of equal authority, without any one considered to be preeminent:

Matt. 23:8 “But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren."  

This does not itself rule out one elder being designated as the presiding elder/pastor of an assembly. This is the standard for my church.

[Yes, and]

Anne2, I am very much trying to understand what you are saying (not your most recent post, the one before that, plus the others), so please allow me to ask a couple questions: Are you saying that a person's understanding of authority (within the Church—and note the capital 'C') does not have bearing in this discussion? Or that it's not important to understand what someone believes about it? And that in general you don't believe it important to find out where the differences are in folks' worldviews? This is how I presently understand your statement, "This is not helpful IMO, firstly to understand the difference," especially because you did make at least a few earlier statements addressing authority. Please correct this if it's a misunderstanding.

Sower, I appreciate your response because it does give a great deal of insight into what you believe. For example: "I join a (church ) body of believers and put myself/family under the shepherd that feeds the flock, the called one that is under the Good shepherd, Lord Jesus, who is the bread of life." To "join a body" very much implies a specific notion about the church, as does "the shepherd," by the use of a definite article and a singular noun, and the notion of authority expressed by the phrase "put myself/family under."

I'm of the opinion/view/belief (and that's all it is, even though admittedly held strongly!) that we fallible humans tend to think that everybody should be able to see what we see, and if they don't, they're blind, stupid, misguided, or even just plain evil. I have to check my own spirit regularly when I fall into this mode of being. I have found life more enjoyable when I try to understand how another person sees things completely differently (so long as the different views don't lead to personal attacks).

A question which arises in my mind when I see the phrase "church bashing" applied to people who point to the problems they see is, what might the difference be between them and say, Jesus, when he warns he will spew the Laodiceans out of his mouth, or remove the Ephesians' lampstand out of its place, or when he overturned the moneychangers' tables? Or Paul, when he "opposed Cephas to his face," or grieved and railed at the incipient denominationalism* he found in Corinth (1 Co 1). Or James in railing against elitism, favoritism, selfish ambition, and the love of money, within the assembly? Or Jude, in calling out the doubly dead, the hidden reefs, again within the assembly? Or even before Jesus' advent? Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elijah. And on and on. Are the church-bashing squeaky wheels in every case and always of a wholly different category? Are they blind, stupid, misguided, or even just plain evil? Would it be better for the well-oiled machine to not have to listen to them?

The screen name I chose, "Yes, and" was of course deliberate as it reflects a belief that the principles of dramatic/comedic improv bear a strong correlation with how God intends for his children to live with one another, being willing to find His story being written as we follow along with His script, rather than trying to write our own. Improv requires understanding the other actors and who they are at heart. All that to say, my questions are probably motivated primarily by a desire to jump into this tiny little scene of this particular thread of this particular forum, simply to see where it goes. As I said from the outset, my motivation is not to argue anyone into anything, even while still feeling the liberty to ask my questions and say what I see.

*This was added here as a direct response to Anne2 suggesting that denominationalism only appeared at the time of the Reformation ("The reformers could not agree among themselves, denominationalism began, and it has grown to ridiculousness since. Every head being their own little Popes.") Totally agree, Anne2, it has grown to ridiculousness since! It just started way, way, earlier than that.

[Anne2]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Getting back to Church history, and the development of hierarchicalism: from a past book of mine:

"  The exaltation of the [early] Church's leaders is evidenced by the following passages from the epistle of Ignatius, Bishop of Syria (Antioch), written in ca. 110 AD. Ignatius was am pupil of the Apostle John.

Ephesians 2:4 [W]e ought to look on the bishop even as we would on the Lord himself...

Magnesians 2:5 Your bishop presiding in the place of God...

Smyrnaeans 3:1 See that you all follow your bishop as Jesus Christ...

...this particular doctrine fostered an unhealthy attitude of essentially making the bishops intermediaries between Church members and Christ. Such an attitude proved to be a fatal mistake in later years...

...[The following] law was written into the [Roman Emperor] Justinian Code in 545 [AD]:

We order that the Most Holy Pope of ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of Ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all other sees.  Novella 131 (coll. 9, tit. 6, ch. 2)

.

As the Eastern Churches maintain  first among "EQUALS".......

Do you understand these things suffciently to say

They were properly applying the above doctrine. Of the direct disciple of an apostle?

The rest concerns the roman Church hundreds of years later.

Or that this was a doctrine of a direct disciple of an Apostle? Or a distortion of it?

What did they mean by first or precedence? And why did that meaning continue maintain equality? Autocephalous, what does that mean?

Just looking for the difference you are making.