Simple Church Minute 4--ordination (revised)

            As I wrote a period of time ago, I am going to attempt to republish the first blogs I did, the two minute versions of Simple Church Minute, with improved footnotes for anyone wishing to review where I got these ideas from.

This is read at a really fast pace to get into 2 minutes.

4—ordination
My name is Tom; this is Simple Church Minute.
            In the early church, elders came about through time.  In the world, an elder meant one of the older, experienced persons.  In the church, it meant one not just physically older, but experienced as a believer, who had grown to spiritual maturity.  It was not a title as used today.  There are three places where elders were recognized, and in one, First Timothy chapter 3 verse 1, there had been 14 years between the time of the founding of the church and the recognition of elders.  This recognition was only recognizing seniority and godly service these persons had been doing in all those intervening years.  A believer should be growing day by day into this role from the day of first believing on Jesus to the day one passes away, without regard to whether there is any person to comment on it.
            The word “ordain” did not mean to place into an official position.  In the early church, there was only one office—head of the church, occupied by Jesus.  Ordain meant to recognize and endorse what was already taking place, insofar as believers desiring to serve Jesus.  How did ordination get its meaning of placing a person into an official position?  The ordination ceremony was borrowed from the Roman ceremony for appointing civil servants, even to some of the words used in it.  By the 3^rd century, ordination became a ritual that marked a person passing from laity to clergy.  After the Edict of Milan, which made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire, church leadership became interconnected with the societal structure of Rome.  Gregory of Nyassa said the priest, as was the title at the time, by ordination was (quote) invisibly but actually a different, better man. (unquote)
            That was far from what the apostles taught the early believers.  First Peter 5 verses 2 and 3 directed, which commands, “shepherd, serve, willingly, not dishonest, eagerly, not as lords, examples.”  This is not to be critical of traditional church pastors; almost all honestly desire to see the church of Jesus go forward.  Its just that there isn’t solid scriptural precedent for our traditional structure.
            You can email me at simplechurchminute@gmail.com.  For more info on organic church*, visit http://www.simplechurch.com/ or (an area’s local website).  A transcript of this talk is at tevyebird.blogspot.com, in the blog dated April 29, 2012.
--------------
On the recording, at this time, it says, “house churches.”  While that phrasing is OK, to say “organic church” is better.  I comment on that in blip 94.
            The ideas included in this talk can be found in George Barna and Frank Viola’s book, Pagan Christianity, pages 123-130, which, in turn, will have copious footnotes of historical sources.

Thoughts on spiritual discipline and freedom

            At the house church I go to, as opposed to examining a piece of scripture, the discussion on Sunday (which just happens to be a day in which we meet) was around the topic, “How does being involved in a house church, as opposed to (what in North American culture would be considered) a traditional church, change one’s life?”  What I thought of, for myself, is that is has changed the dynamic conflict between spiritual disciplines and freedom in Christ.  Over the years in the traditional church, I was taught to (at the least) read some scripture daily.  I am quite certain many persons did not do that, and if one just comes in, listens to sermons, and acts friendly toward others, the (lack of) intensity of the realationships in the church are insufficient for most to realize any difference in a person’s life, either to one’s benefit or ill.  In and of itself, there is the technical conflict that one can grow in faith by studying scripture, but one is never commanded in scripture that one must study the Word (which, of course, has been impossible for many in a wide variety of cultures over history for a variety of reasons).  We learn that we are free in Jesus to follow Him, but there are implied and subliminal pressures to exercise that freedom in only certain ways, such as using that Bible study or quiet time in either teaching Sunday School or forcing oneself into a leadership position, for instance (with seemingly few other choices).

            Now that I am not longer in the traditional system, there have been changes in how I live for Jesus.  At first, I felt a kind of guilt when I didn’t go to a service on Sunday morning at times when I was free to do so (I have worked a significant amount of my life in jobs in which I had to work on Sunday), even though I intellectually knew that worship was how I lived my life, not a ritual in a building at a time and place. It was something I had gotten used to over the years, and fit the status quo.  For an extreme example, if one grew up Catholic/Anglican/Episcopal, one might associate the smell of incense with worship; I once visited such a church, and found it irritating and distracting and strange.  That’s my background and experience; there are plenty of other things equally not based on scripture that I had gotten used to, such as the “worship service” starting immediately after a bell on the roof clanged a certain amount of times (at one time I knew how many, I no longer remember).

            Now, spiritual discipline is something to do to honor Jesus.  Over the last couple of years, I probably have done Bible studies less than in the past.  I remember in college a teaching on quiet times done via Inter-Varsity (I think I have this correct) that broke down quiet times into the parts of a) Bible reading, b) Bible study, c) meditation on the Word, and d) prayer.  At that time, I probably did more Bible reading, but that, in a sense, makes more sense in that we need to read the Bible to know what is there, and then study it to understand how God’s communication to us interconnects with our lives.  Over decades, I know more and more what and where certain teachings are, and can interconnect them in my mind.  For instance, one reason I never use the KJV is that English has changed so much in 400+ years that James 1:21 in KJV doesn’t make sense anymore, as the meanings of a number of words in that sentence have either changed in meaning or just became archaic, and, therefore, meaningless in our culture.  If one has been a believer for many years, and gotten used to the archaic dialect might not even notice that to unbelievers in this culture, and even believers younger in age, the dialect makes it unreasonably difficult to understand.  Conversely, if you don’t feel that way, that’s cool.  God made us differently, and each of us may fit in either better or worse as His witness to various subcultural situations. 

I do far more meditating on the Word.  As I say that, it gives me reason to explain myself.  Among my age group, believer or unbeliever, if I say the word “meditation”, it right should conjure up a photo from the late 1960’s of the Beatles sitting crosslegged before the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.  As eastern as it is, that has become the standard image impressed on western culture, in part as this society has become more secularized, and part because the traditional church has taught minimally on meditation from a Christian perspective.  Simply, eastern meditation involves supposedly emptying one’s mind.  Personally, I’m not sure that’s truly possible, and if it is, I believe it borders on the demonic, which is a subject difficult to put into words.  Christian meditation is on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and what we know about following Him—which includes our experience of first becoming His child (the beginning of our salvation), what He has shown us in His Word, our experiences of continuing salvation, sanctification, and growing in spiritual maturity, including both rightly and wrongly sensing the guidance of the Holy Spirit in one’s spirit, and as we grow in maturity, learning of and walking in one’s particular spiritual giftings, and becoming more and more an elder—an experienced believer—in the practical (not human titular) sense.  As time goes by, the Spirit has more to work with in enlightening our spirits in this way. 

For myself, there’s more that I would like to do to honor Jesus with my life, even as I have less strength to physically do things.  I think that I have always felt that I was free to honor Jesus however the Spirit would lead me, but I can look back that, to the degree that a certain act did not fit into the program of the traditional church I was connected to at the time, that attitude was threatening to the leadership and the system, particularly if it was only felt by leaders at a subliminal level, i.e. they may have felt threatened, but didn’t consider why.  As I look back at some of the scandals among famous “Christians” in my lifetime, I know that I cannot figure out, and only God knows, whether that person, in his/her spirit, was a total charlatan on the level of a used car salesman, or whether the person was/is somehow deceived or self-deceived.  That is important to me only to the degree that I, as a part of living in this culture, deal with persons who have been hurt in spirit because of it, but that is pretty much all of our society, both unbelievers and believers.  Therefore, for me, freedom in Jesus is different, and less limited.  Part of that is the realization that God may truly, by the Spirit, do a certain thing, which in turn is a part of my witness to the people around me, and another believer, in another place, being a witness to a different group, may do an exactly opposite thing in an aspect that is not a tenant of faith.  Examples of this (that I can think of at the moment I am writing this) are meat-eating/vegetarianism (Peter teaches us in Acts that we believers are no longer under the kosher law, but I know of believers who choose to be vegetarian so as not to be a stumbling block in being a witness to people in eastern cultures that hold, for their own reason, to vegetarianism), being conservative/liberal/ apolitical (I overtly choose apolitical—I have my opinions, but I feel led to keep them to myself, but respect my brothers who get heavily involved in one side or another), immersing oneself in one of many subcultures, using a certain ability/laying that ability down to emphasize a point of God’s infinite love, and the list could go on and on.

Simple Church Minute 80--Simson's Thesis #6

80—WS#6

My name is Tom; this is Simple Church Minute.

            Recently, these blips have been discussing Wolfgang Simson’s 15 Theses towards a Re-Incarnation of Church.  Thesis #6 is “No church is led by a pastor alone.”  On this idea, Simson says, The local church is not led by a pastor, but fathered by an elder, a man of wisdom and engaged with reality.  The local house churches are then networked into a movement by the combination of elders and members of the so-called fivefold ministries (apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers) circulating from ‘house to house’, like the circulation of blood.  Here there is a special foundational role to play for the apostolic and prophetic ministries (Eph. 2:20, 4:11,12).  A pastor (shepherd) is an important member of the whole team, but he cannot fulfill more than a part of the whole task of ‘equipping the saints for the ministry’, and he has to be complimented synergistically by the other four ministries in order to function properly.” (unquote)

            The whole idea that a healthy church has a balance of ministry from the five ministries mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 and 12 and with more than one person with each of these giftings is an idea that I, personally, have not heard of being examined, period, but there it is in scripture as a direction for the church.  Much of the church in the west is stuck on one person given the title pastor, without regard to his or her actual gifting, if any, as the end all in ministry and a title within a hierarchy which has words found in scripture as an excuse for the hierarchy’s existence.  Leadership in the church is not to be militaristic, but a structure for the purpose of helping everyone higher up and further into Jesus.

            You can read back and ahead about Simson’s 15 Theses at www.simsonwolfgang.de. You can make a comment or ask a question of me at simplechurchminute@gmail.com , and you can find out more about simple church at http://www.simplechurch.com/ and locally at (local website).

Simple Church Minute 57--clergy/laity divide

57—clergy/laity divide

My name is Tom; this is Simple Church Minute.

            At the time Jesus walked the earth, all beliefs had priests, laypeople, temples, and sacrifices, and many countries and occupational skills actually acted as a belief.  An example is Paul and the riot of the idol makers guild in Acts 19.  When Jesus died, arose, ascended to heaven, and sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in the people of his New Covenant, He made a chosen people with characteristics unlike anything seen before on earth.  He introduced to his followers spontaneity, worship, and honor of God without structure and ritual, but within each believer, male or female, Jew or Gentile, the desire to honor Jesus with all that was in them.  Leadership was informal, by experience and gifting, character, and obedience to the Holy Spirit. 

            How then did the church wind up with a structure like other beliefs?  The apostles opposed it.  Third John verses 9 and 10 speak against a man who liked to have the preeminence.  Revelation 2 verse 6 may also be a warning of such a division.  Our wanting official human leaders seems to be a human temptation.  In the Old Covenant, God set up judges, but one sees in First Samuel chapter 8 verse 19, the people wanted a king.

            There were elders, people of experience, but no one was over another.  Apostles started churches, and on occasion revisited churches, had others visit, and Peter, Paul, and John sent letters, which are examples of apostolic oversight.  Notably, they weren’t sent to the head person, they were sent to all the church.  The leaders were not necessarily male.  In Romans 16, Phoebe is mentioned in verse 1, Priscilla in verse 3, and Junia in verse 7.  Within a couple hundred years, Cyprian of Carthage taught clergy was needed to intercede, even though the Bible teaches we no longer need an intercessor.

            You can email me at simplechurchminute@gmail.com.  For more info on organic church*, visit http://www.simplechurch.com/ or locally at (local website).

On the recording, at this time, it says, “house churches.”  While that phrasing is OK, to say “organic church” is better.  I comment on that in blip 94.

Simple Church Minute 40--covering

40—covering

My name is Tom; this is Simple Church Minute.

            In the early church, there were leaders, but no flow chart type hierarchy such as one would find in government, military, business, or our modern institutional churches.

Jesus is the head of the church; we are told that in Col. 1.18 and Eph. 5.23. Each believer can be prompted by the Holy Spirit.  Believers might be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors/teachers, elders, deacons/deaconesses, presbyters, workers, overseers, servants not as a matter of an appointed office with title, but according to faith, gifting, experience, character, and obedience to the Holy Spirit.  The Revised Standard Version has First Timothy chapter 3 verse 1 say “office of an elder”, but that is not in the original language.  This is an example of a translator putting in, possibly without realization, his cultural experience instead of what the writing actually said.

            Just one generation after the the apostles trained by Jesus, the idea of covering crept into the church. Cyprian of Carthage taught that every believer was accountable to a spiritual authority, with only the top person in a hierarchy being accountable to God alone.  This structure solidified in middle ages Catholicism, the Reformation removed some layers, but the idea never disappeared.  The covering doctrine reappeared in the charismatic flavor of the church under the teaching of Juan Carlos Ortiz in Argentina and the New Wine Magazine writers in the U.S.  All this runs contrary to the priesthood of all believers in which ministry is functional, organic, and shared by all believers before God.

            You can email me at simplechurchminute@gmail.com.  For more information on simple forms of honoring Jesus corporately, visit http://www.simplechurch.com/, or locally at (local website).

Simple Church Minute 4--ordination

This is read at a really fast pace to get into 2 minutes.

4—ordination

My name is Tom; this is Simple Church Minute.

            In the early church, elders came about through time.  In the world, an elder meant one of the older, experienced persons.  In the church, it meant one not just physically older, but experienced as a believer, who had grown to spiritual maturity.  It was not a title as used today.  There are three places where elders were recognized, and in one, First Timothy chapter 3 verse 1, there had been 14 years between the time of the founding of the church and the recognition of elders.  This recognition was only recognizing seniority and godly service these persons had been doing in all those intervening years.  A believer should be growing day by day into this role from the day of first believing on Jesus to the day one passes away, without regard to whether there is any person to comment on it.

            The word “ordain” did not mean to place into an official position.  In the early church, there was only one office—head of the church, occupied by Jesus.  Ordain meant to recognize and endorse what was already taking place, insofar as believers desiring to serve Jesus.  How did ordination get its meaning of placing a person into an official position?  The ordination ceremony was borrowed from the Roman ceremony for appointing civil servants, even to some of the words used in it.  By the 3^rd century, ordination became a ritual that marked a person passing from laity to clergy.  After the Edict of Milan, which made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire, church leadership became interconnected with the societal structure of Rome.  Gregory of Nyassa said the priest, as was the title at the time, by ordination was (quote) invisibly but actually a different, better man. (unquote)

            That was far from what the apostles taught the early believers.  First Peter 5 verses 2 and 3 directed, which commands, “shepherd, serve, willingly, not dishonest, eagerly, not as lords, examples.”  This is not to be critical of traditional church pastors; almost all honestly desire to see the church of Jesus go forward.  Its just that there isn’t solid scriptural precedent for our traditional structure.

            You can email me at simplechurchminute@gmail.com.  For more info on organic church*, visit http://www.simplechurch.com/ or (an area’s local website).

On the recording, at this time, it says, “house churches.”  While that phrasing is OK, to say “organic church” is better.  I comment on that in blip 94.