Right, I kind of want to let the cat out of the bag, as it were, and give it all away now. It is like holding back a dam a the moment. There is so much stuff to get through. I remember once getting blocked, I wrote down a list of possible studies I was thinking of to see if I could get something going and I wrote a list of 17 studies that were all going on in my head at the same time. That was why I was blocked. Once I wrote them down I could easily go through the list one at a time. I'm not sure whether I have a concrete list in my head but it might be useful to write it down.
I think I will try and make it simple so I will just do a comparisons list of how the early church functioned compared to today!
Firstly, let me say something provocative, the church today has more in common with the Roman Catholic Church than it does with the early church!! Has that for provocative? It doesn't matter whether you are a falling over charismatic church with miracles, or a lectern thumping evangelic church, your roots are more in the Catholic church than the biblical church!
Tee Hee!!
Here goes,
The sacred meal in the early church was a full bring and share fellowship meal. The attitude of the meal was about fellowship. Today the sacred meal is a token of a meal eaten in silent introspection. The complete opposite in fact. The origins of the "Communion can be traced to the cult of Mythrus and was adopted by the Catholic Church.
The ministry worship and sharing time in the early church was from everyone, 1 Cor 14:26 says "When you come together everyone has!" There was no sermon or worship leader. Everyone took it in turns to contribute something to the meeting. Today the "services" are led. The only people that contribute are the preacher and the worship leader. Everyone gets to follow the songs and say "Amen" but the difference is like watching a sporting event and taking part. As a spectator you get to sing and shout responses. In fact as a sports spectator you are more free to start a song than if you are in a modern church! Which is of course the complete opposite of the early church. The practice of led services started with the Catholic Church.
The early church met in members houses. This wasn't because of persecution, as some suppose. The persecution was only at certain times. The Greeks, Romans, and Jews all had special worship buildings that they erected where ever they went. It was a very multi faith society and another faith would not have made much difference. There is no mention of special building.
"34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet." Acts 4:34-37
There is no mention of money going to buildings or ministers but to those who had need. There were no needy people, why, because everyone distributed what they had spare to help those who were in need. Today ministers plead for money for buildings and for ministers wages. This practice started with the Catholic church. It is the complete opposite.
Church government in the early church was by consensus. That is every person had a vote and things were only changed if there was a large majority vote. This is not a 51% vote, this is a 100% vote and only less if it is considered that someone is just being awkward! Now, decisions are made by the ministers, and possibly and elected committee. The government of the church was removed from the people by the Catholic Church! It is the complete opposite!
In the early church the "local church" was autonomous, that is to say that it was its own authority. Even though there were apostles, they didn't "lord it over" the congregations. Jesus even praised a church for judging those who called themselves apostles. Decisions over member discipline (1 Cor 5) were made by the church, not by "area experts." Today churches are part of denominational hierarchies, some churches have autonomy but very few exercise it. The Catholic church created a hierarchy through which Emperor Constantine could govern the whole empire. To say that authority is form outside the local church is the complete opposite of saying it is inside the local church.
Pastors in the early church were equally called bishops and elders. They were senior members of the church. They did not put on special clothes or stand in a special place. They were there to oversee the meeting and make sure that everyone was treated fairly. They also made sure that heresies were not being shared as part of the "everyone has." They also could be called upon when there was need. Today Pastors are seen as the managers and are expected to "take" the service. They are seen as a rank above the body and not mere members of the body. If you walked into an early church it is likely you wouldn't be able to tell who the elders were, today you can't help but know who the "pastor" is. The Catholic church authorised the rank of clergy as the ministers to the congregation and were actually civil officers. This is of course the complete opposite!!
In each case the teaching that Jesus had imparted to the Apostles concerning establishing the church was reversed by approximately 300 AD when Constantine declared that he would rule the empire through the church.
To me Jacob is a great picture of this. He though he was marrying Rachel but he actually ended up married to Leah. The only thing that is said about Leah is that she had weak eyes! Spiritulising that, she had weak vision. The church today has a very weak vision of what it should be about. It has taken what it has received and run with it and tried to make sense of it in relation to scripture. However, it is far removed from scripture. Over the centuries many people have brought about change trying to return the church to the biblical model, however, it has a long way to go.
The picture of the church in the bible is a local group of believers meeting together, each taking responsibility for ministry and sharing a meal together. It is a picture of a family gathering together to eat together and to catch up on what has been happening, to rejoice together and so on. Like a family, family decisions are made by the family. Today the church is an institution where the people are ministered to and a token of a meal is taken. Like an institution decisions are made by the institutional hierarchy.
I warned you! But as I say, even though this is far removed from the early picture, they are still God's people. I firmly believe that we should know that what we have is not God's best for us, and that like missionaries in a foreign land we should love God's people regardless of whether their customs are what we would like.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

8 comments:
before I read this, I just wanted to tell you to write as big a posts as you need. I can take my time absorbing it.
:)
"In fact as a sports spectator you are more free to start a song than if you are in a modern church!"
True dat.
There is another denomination here called the Quaker Church. The way they meet is they all sit together, sing, then sit quietly until someone feels they have something to say. And so on. Very interesting.
One church I went to had a combo of things. Every Sunday was singing, a long sermon, then a long time for people to share, then a long meal together. Every Sunday. This is very unusual here in America, so needless to say the church is small. I like it in theory, but in actuality, I can't sit that long without wishing I was dead.
One question. What are you basing your info on of how the early church governed itself? Especially the democracy part?
Good stuff.
Well done for getting through it all. Sorry I have been very lazy again in not thoroughly supporting my argumemnts. It was either do a full study on each topic or a presis of the whole thing. It felt too laboured to go through one at a time without giving the big picture first! So this is kind of the introduction.
For now, there are three main areas if info, one is scripture and what the tells us they did, two is the theologican historians who agree with the study in what they say, for example you will find nothing in the Lion's Handbook Christian History that disagrees with what I have said, but the historians are pragmatists and not bbible believers. I like it when someone holds up a bible and says it's the makers instruction manuel, however, hwever, they don't agree that we should do what it says as far as church, but they agree that it says it. Three, Church history shows us when the changes were made and for what reason. For example, to go from Baptising adults to baptising children is quite a leap, that leap was recorded in several letters showing why the practice should change. The question we have to ask is, is it a good reason that ties up with the whole of scripture.
As for the democracy no where in the bible does it say we should or shouldn't have decracy, however, when you look at the practice we see what they did, we then test that against what Jesus and the others said.
Sorry, I will do a full study on each aspect!
Just wondering what you were using for your references. Don't feel like you have to cite them with each post.
(Does it bother you when people tell you what not to feel??) :)
Sorry, I wasn'T being defensive, but probably am. I am feeling lazy, I have been wanting to do this study for a while. I should go through it properly and show it properly to give it support.
I don't mind being told what to feel,!!! It doesn't mean I will take it!!! It shows you care, but I'm OK really!
Glad you're okay. I'm good too. I feel like we're a bit out of step with each other on this post! Ah, well, it happens. We don't have the facial expressions to convey what we're saying. Except the occasional :) and ;) and :( which are still pretty lame!
It is interesting that different denominations have taken different aspects from scripture concerning church, but of course if someone takes all of the aspects they wont be a denomination!!
Most will rather stick to their denominational traditions rather than re-adress scripture. I believe that the early baptists actually followed the pattern of church that I have expressed, however, the idea of "baptism" soon became popular among those who wanted an institutional church and so the "baptist denomination" was born.
I am happy to explain anything if you feel we are out of step!!
We're good. I was just out of step with everyone yesterday. It was supposed to be game day (the 1st of the month) and I wasted most of it doing stupid stuff and ignoring my kids.
Lesson learned. (I hope!)
Post a Comment