[count-your-change]

Martin Luther certainly had reason for his list of complaints but the division of the Christian congregation into a clergy class and a laity class was one of the most glaring of departures from the Scriptures and his efforts at reform left it solidly fixed. Jesus had Himself admonished His disciples at Matt. 23:8-12 that they were not to take titles for themselves and seek attention by their dress. And it seems that as long as the apostles were alive they could keep such practices out of the various congregations but as Paul said to the elders from Ephesus at Acts 20:20-31 after he went away men would arise "from your own group" to lead off disciples after themselves. Secular history records that those were who were supposed to be servants in the Christian church instead became a powerful elite with special garb and titles to set them above a "laity". As a Jesuit writer said in his article, "Beyond the Clergy-Laity Divide", "..there really was no clergy-laity divide during the patristic period". (1) Paul C. Phan, a professor at The Catholic University in Washington, D.C. , made a similar comment in an essay titled, "The Laity in the Early Church-Building Blocks for a Theology of the Laity" (2) Indeed, The Catholic Encyclopedia states that before the time of Constantine the priestly dress didn't differ from secular dress and that everyday dress was worn at the offices of the church. (3) The division of worshipers into a professional, paid, titled clergy and a laity class continued to be the form after the "Reformation". This division was unscriptural then and it is now. (1) http://www.sedos.org/english/kunnumpuram.html (2) http://www.members.cox.net/vientritdao/bao/cho4.html (3) http://www.newaadvent.org/cathen/15388a.html

[the invisib1e hand]

ib4z, on about a 40% chance.

[trisham]

Very interesting.

[2ndDivisionVet]

So the Mormons are actually more “early Christian” than either Catholics or Protestants?

[Truth Defender]

So far, all responses have ignored what is said, and have ignored or made snide remarks without any reference to what you posted.

Your post has a lot of merit to it. Of course, it could be expanded into many, many pages that would just touch on the problems of a clergy-laity mentality. The Apostles were against dividing Christians by elevating one man against another. Then, naturally, philosophy played a large part in trying to downplay the words and teachings of the Apostles in this respect.

[Seven_0]

The reason such a system flourishes is because it is so well suited to the people it displaces. The laity are glad to give up their responsibility to anyone who will take it.

[GOPJ]

Martin Luther and his effect on Hitler - might want to read this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1986216/posts

[Mad Dawg]

I think the Jesuit writer is wrong about the clergy laity divide in the Patristic period. The word "really" is so often a waffle word which means "The data are subject to interpretation but I wish they weren't."

I think there were ranks among the followers of Jesus, with the Apostles making a kind of an "inner circle". I think Paul claims a kind of rank for himself based on his Damascus road experience and his receiving the right had of fellowship on one Jerusalem journey. He suggests a kind of rank or prominence for Cephas when he mentions he stayed with him during an earlier stay in Jerusalem.

"Would that all the Lord's people were prophets." But they don't appear either to be so or to want to be so, and there's a suggestion in 1 Cor 12 that they are not likely to be so either. And Paul's remark that one ought not muzzle the ox who treads the grain must be weighted along with his assertion that he had the original tent-maker ministry.

I do not think the Biblical witness for a Church without orders is ambiguous at the very best, and consequently a Jesuit who says there "really" were no orders in the Patristic period is demonstrating nothing so much as the way a beloved hypothesis can interfere with the analysis of data.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

The man-made organizational boundaries are, indeed, not even considered by most. This book takes a serious look at this issue - and many others confronting the church.

http://www.antonbosch.com/books.html

[wmfights]

I hope you all had a blessed Resurrection Sunday.

I thought you might find this topic interesting.