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

[WilliamL]

2 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

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

Agreed, that is what they believe/d. But then, that applied only among the Bishops of the various Eastern Churches and Rome; NOT among elders overall.

So the Eastern Churches did not succumb to the belief in a single Bishop over all churches, but they did succumb to that belief among the separate churches. So this is only a difference in degrees of hierarchicalism, not in hierarchicalism itself.

[Anne2]

10 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Agreed, that is what they believe/d. But then, that applied only among the Bishops of the various Eastern Churches and Rome; NOT among elders overall.

So the Eastern Churches did not succumb to the belief in a single Bishop over all churches, but they did succumb to that belief among the separate churches. So this is only a difference in degrees of hierarchicalism, not in hierarchicalism itself.

Thanks for your time

This is interesting. And I am not delving into this to offend. It is personally important for myself at this point. For them, Elders are also priests. They do not distinguish them. However I believe the distinction is the specific position of said priests. We know bishops are priests, of oversight. While I realize you disagree them on "priesthood", they see no distinction. I think if they are off with that, it is form only. But David had various priestly "offices" (i think) Musicians, others that kept the gates etc. But all were priests no matter what their specific function within the priesthood.

But I am mostly skeptical to take what a direct disciple of an apostle said, and apply it as error, because how men applied it?

 

[Sower]

2 hours ago, WilliamL said:

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

I understand and agree, for sure, and not legislating a qualifying meeting time/amount.

What I try to make known is the importance of each of us serving our part in a 'local body' of assembling believers as scripture has instructed, however regular, once a month, twice a week, or as in some countries, they travel for days at night on foot through jungle to just get together for one meeting of believers at night, knowing if caught they could face imprisonment or death.

Absence ( of opportunity)  makes the heart grow fonder, but here in the USA, to whom much is given, much is required. That is if we are actually actively serving in the army of God, and not AWOL. I have had my few short times of discontent and not attending, and could see/recognize the spiral of my fellowship shrink, and lack of enthusiasm for the things of God. And realized that old devil was pleased with taking out one more soldier from his duty.

I don't always 'feel' like going, but go and know when I get to our fellowship I'll realize what I could have missed, and our body would have been weakened even from the loss of the 'insignificant' part like myself. It's the encouragement given and received, another pit stop gas/spirit fill up needed. I miss it if I miss it.

 

 

[WilliamL]

8 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

But I am mostly skeptical to take what a direct disciple of an apostle said, and apply it as error, because how men applied it?

If you ever read extensively in the works of the Ante-Nicene fathers, including direct disciples of apostles, you would find that they taught a number of errors. They were not infallible.

[Anne2]

12 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

If you ever read extensively in the works of the Ante-Nicene fathers, including direct disciples of apostles, you would find that they taught a number of errors. They were not infallible.

I have not read them, I have read others concerning them.

But....this is why I am hopeful. I have become aware because of my person journey that is impressed upon me, There is a change here with Roman Catholics. I am actually reading a book by a dominican priest, that has been put in Charge of a specific group, to address both Judaism as well as Messianic Judaism. And the admission of what error has been handed down from some fathers, was not only admitted but scathing statements being made. This astounded me.. I see very willing change in this area. Not enough that I could think of being a member, but I think it's fantastic. Also the same sort of thing is occurring in the Orthodox. They are looking into covenant theology, admitting they missed the boat on that. As the reformers found this theology in the Church fathers very early on. They even admitted they missed it by immersing themselves in Greek philosophy. I think this is so positive. Pray for these men.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Anne2

[Sower]

2 hours ago, Anne2 said:

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.

So far it has not been an issue that I am aware of. Our body that assembles (church) is full of sinners of many sorts just like us. However there are not any 'out of the closet' types flaunting their perverseness/sin there. Our church requires a doctrinal class for new members lest a false religion proselyte gain membership.  

At my church bible study this topic came up this morning, the new' requirements mandates/laws/etc pertaining to this issue. What do Christians do when confronted with having to break the legal law vs not breaking God's law. It was clear that God's authority superseded man's laws. Do whats right in the sight of God, let the chips fall.
Maybe God has a better job for us.

Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm"
 

[Anne2]

On 7/9/2023 at 12:31 PM, Yes, and said:

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?

No, not really. I began trying to understand what someone said. I always do take issue with what people say about the third century, when they do not recognize what the Church was back then before the split happened 1050 ad (I believe). There was all one Catholic faith. But eventually the Roman bishop (much later 100's of years) asserted himself as "THE AUTHORITY" over the other presiding bishops (which many many bishops attended the councils for consensus on an issue) Finally it became so bad that a split occurred because of that. But often times that is overlooked, so the authority structure of Rome, is used to describe a structure that did not exist. The orthodox Churches that exist in the east were and are still churches of those very assemblies. They do not have the same authoritative structure. Interesting to consider neither have they had anything like a reformation. They remain as they were from 300 ad's era. When I said it is not helpful, I could not discern the differences being made between the structure of those remaining Eastern Churches and the structure/s these were promoting here.  So finally I asked asked if they knew what autocephaly meant. I believe that term means auto cephalous = self head? Meaning having headship to them selves distinct from other autocephalous headed bodies. I asked because if we do not understand their authority structure, how can they explain a difference between what they advocate and what this Church believes in similar fashion. I know various Churches have become autocephalous, self headship, in the ancient structure of the East. Such is the case with the Russian Church.

We need to have the facts of things to be helpful in the facts is all. I don't have a real full understanding of any of it. But I do know some very basic facts. The Roman authority structure did not exist in 300's ad. So what did?Honestly I was only attempting to understand what others were saying. Lord knows I am not even attempting to advocate so much for my own structure. Many more here much more called to that than me. nor is it a complaint or anything over doctrinal issues either. I lean on the side authority structure is only as good as the hearts of those in it.

So to your statement, denominationalism began way way before that, not to be rude or confronational, but Can you explain some of these terms and how they function in the eastern Church. If you cannot then how can you make a comparison? Maybe you can, I just do not see how without a full understanding

First among equals

First meaning primacy, not authority

Autocephalous self ruled equal to other self ruled?

Edited July 10, 2023 by Anne2

[Vine Abider]

16 hours ago, Anne2 said:

No, not really. I began trying to understand what someone said. I always do take issue with what people say about the third century, when they do not recognize what the Church was back then before the split happened 1050 ad (I believe). There was all one Catholic faith. But eventually the Roman bishop (much later 100's of years) asserted himself as "THE AUTHORITY" over the other presiding bishops (which many many bishops attended the councils for consensus on an issue) Finally it became so bad that a split occurred because of that. But often times that is overlooked, so the authority structure of Rome, is used to describe a structure that did not exist. The orthodox Churches that exist in the east were and are still churches of those very assemblies. They do not have the same authoritative structure. Interesting to consider neither have they had anything like a reformation. They remain as they were from 300 ad's era. When I said it is not helpful, I could not discern the differences being made between the structure of those remaining Eastern Churches and the structure/s these were promoting here.  So finally I asked asked if they knew what autocephaly meant. I believe that term means auto cephalous = self head? Meaning having headship to them selves distinct from other autocephalous headed bodies. I asked because if we do not understand their authority structure, how can they explain a difference between what they advocate and what this Church believes in similar fashion. I know various Churches have become autocephalous, self headship, in the ancient structure of the East. Such is the case with the Russian Church.

We need to have the facts of things to be helpful in the facts is all. I don't have a real full understanding of any of it. But I do know some very basic facts. The Roman authority structure did not exist in 300's ad. So what did?Honestly I was only attempting to understand what others were saying. Lord knows I am not even attempting to advocate so much for my own structure. Many more here much more called to that than me. nor is it a complaint or anything over doctrinal issues either. I lean on the side authority structure is only as good as the hearts of those in it.

So let me see if I can summarize this considering the topic at hand: Why so much focus on a few functioning ones up front in Christian gatherings?

Here's the basic steps I see the church undertook over the past two millennia:

1. The ekklesia starts in a simple way, gathering from house to house.  Things were simple and highly lead of the Spirit, and with the apostle's guidance.

2. As things progressed in time and numbers grew, so did organization and hierarchical systems.  It just seemed necessary.

3. Christianity was made the official state religion in the 4th century.  The structure, organization and hierarchy took firm root. The authority of the church to interpret scripture and man's opinions began to be primary.

4. Around this general time, many who didn't agree with the official state religion, began to separate themselves so they could return to a simpler practice (as in step #1)

5. From around 500 AD the Western & Eastern Catholics were also slowly growing apart.  They officially split by excommunicating each other in 1054 AD.

(What I see are two basic branches here - 1) the church system originating and organized from Rome (which initially included the Eastern Orthodox branch), and 2) the so-called privative church which completely separated from the Romanic influence and moved into the mountains.)

6. The reformation "officially" started in 1517 and dumped many of the unscriptural things the Roman branch had started.  However, the reformers kept the basic clergy-laity system in place . . . which promotes the focus on a few functioning up front, and the rest therefore have their functioning systematically suppressed.

Again, there were groups of Christians who were not participating in the clergy-laity system for many, many centuries.  Records of them are fairly scant, as whenever they got on the radar of religious officials, they were often persecuted.  This means their books, records and other historical items were usually disposed of and not very much survives. Fortunately, some historians have found solid evidence of these groups - even in the records of their persecutors.

So in my estimation, Luther did a good job in starting to break away from the unscriptural practices of the RCC, but modern Christendom still inherited and retains certain erroneous things (e.g., clergy-laity system), which people these days don't usually question even a little.  A  number of smaller groups today do endeavor to retain the fuller functioning of the body, and therefore reject the clergy-laity system, and this includes many of the home-based gatherings (and where 2 or 3 gather in His name).

Hopefully this does an adequate job of summarizing the salient history, and tying things back to the OP.

So how does that mesh with your understanding of these historical things (and maybe that will give us a better basis for more discussion)?

Edited July 11, 2023 by Vine Abider
Clarity

[Marilyn C]

31 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

  A very few number of small groups today do endeavor to retain the fuller functioning of the body, and therefore reject the clergy-laity system.

Hopefully this does an adequate job of summarizing the salient history, and tying things back to the OP.

So how does that mesh with your understanding of these historical things?

Hi VA,

Good summary there. Just one thing, I would say that there are many more than people realise of those not gathering in the `formal meeting,` style.

Jesus the Head of His Body is quite able by His Holy Spirit to meet with believers in the 2`s and 3`s wherever and whenever.

[Vine Abider]

12 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi VA,

Good summary there. Just one thing, I would say that there are many more than people realise of those not gathering in the `formal meeting,` style.

Jesus the Head of His Body is quite able by His Holy Spirit to meet with believers in the 2`s and 3`s wherever and whenever.

Thanks and yes . . . I went back and amended that summary to reflect this thought!