Replies

Here are the 'right questions'- The more I studied, the more perplexed I became. At one stage my elder sister, a very committed evangelical with somewhat flexible denominational affiliations, chided me with becoming "obsessed" with trying to find a "true Church." "Does it really matter?" she would ask. Well, yes it did. It was all very well for a lay Protestant to relegate the denominational issue to a fairly low priority amongst religious questions: lay people can go to one Protestant Church one week and another the next week and nobody really worries too much. But an ordained minister obviously cannot do that. He must make a very serious commitment to a definite Church community, and under normal circumstances that commitment will be expected to last a lifetime. So clearly that choice had to be made with a deep sense of responsibility; and the time to make it was before, not after, ordination.

Okay, these are a good start. But the obvious answer is so much simpler than he makes it. The true church is the corporate body of individual believers. Jesus said something very simple- 'wherever two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in their midst.' It's amazing how complicated we've made that by coming up with a priesthood, 'full-time ministers', offices, ministries, etc etc ad nauseum.

Here's my contention- if we gather together to edify the Body of Christ (one another), leadership will arise naturally from the relationships that emerge. Gifts and talents will be made manifest, and a degree of weight will be attributed to the words of those who deserve it.

In my opinion, Luther stopped way too soon. He simply replaced one corrupt hierarchy with another- and it persists to this day.

As for me and my family, we meet in homes with other believers. We have the Lord's Supper (a meal), we worship, we pray together, we teach or encourage or just talk with one another about life and the victories and challenges that we encounter.

And this type of ecclesia produces spiritual independence- we rely on Jesus Himself rather than some man or institution who presumes to insert himself between the Bridegroom and His bride.

If this arrangemet sounds 'risky', as if we're going to go off the deep end (a common argument), ask yourself this-- do you really trust the Holy Spirit to keep those that He has sealed? Or does He need man's help?

But the obvious answer is so much simpler than he makes it. The true church is the corporate body of individual believers.

And that relieves his vocational quandry, how?

I've long maintained a simple answer, as often as not, shows a lack of understanding the question.

Jesus said something very simple- 'wherever two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in their midst.'

Fine, you've established Jesus is in their midsts: and little else. If such passages were so simple, we'd be overrun with "two or three in agreement" lottery winners!

Here's my contention- if we gather together...etc.

The experience of several thousand denominations says you're wrong.

As for me and my family...etc.

That's all very nice, but if your gathetings were the spiritual equivalent of little girls playing "tea party," who or what has the authority to convince you of it?

And this type of ecclesia produces spiritual independence-

What make you sure that's a good thing?

we rely on Jesus Himself rather than some man or institution who presumes to insert himself between the Bridegroom and His bride.

This is what Sartre called "bad faith." You are playing an active role in the situation, yet denying it. You can't have it both ways and maintain credibility.

If this arrangemet sounds 'risky', as if we're going to go off the deep end (a common argument), ask yourself this-- do you really trust the Holy Spirit...

The Holy Spirit isn't at issue: you are. Nutty cults never start out being nutty.

One of the questions I've always had with reasoning like this (I'm being quite sincere here) is how it can be reconciled with 2 things.

1) Creation, as a whole, has order. That is observable every day. Furthermore, it has a hierarchy - the food chain is but the most obvious example. Even individuals within a specific group have a certain hierarchy - the Alpha Male of a Lion Pride is, for lack of a better term, top dog. This is the same as in humans - a family has (normally) a head, a leader. In most cases, this is the father, or grandfather. Mothers and grandmothers have many important roles, and in many cases are the behind the scenes head of house (I think of a sign my mom has - "The Rooster rules the Roost - but I rule the Rooster"). However, there is a distinct order is all levels of Creation - why would His Body not be the same?

2) The image used consistantly in the Bible is that of the "Kingdom of God." Kingdoms, even in Jesus's day, had specific roles and levels for its subjects. It follows that, in the Heavenly Kingdom, there would be a variety of posts, of offices. Not everyone can share the same office. Now, I agree that earthly Kingdom's are corrupt by our very nature. However, Plato's Republic provides an example of the "perfect" Kingdom - when the rulers can know what is best for the whole Polis and seek to achieve it. Each member of the Polis must follow the lead of the rulers in achieving that good. Each member is equal in dignity to the others, but has a very specific role - I see the Chuch in the same light.

Sorry if this is rushed or somewhat incoherent - I need to run but I really wanted to throw this your way and hear your responses. If you need anything clarified, please ask!