Ecclesiology is one of those words that may be dropped into a conversation by a theological geek as a way of impressing or frightening an opponent. Like many words containing the ending ‘ology’, its use appears to indicate some level of specialised knowledge on the part of the user. In using the word here, I am asking my reader to understand the word at its simplest level. I take it to mean what Christians say and have said about the nature and meaning of the word church.
Many students of theology are surprised to discover that ‘church’, translating the Greek word ekklesia, is seldom used in a modern sense as a word describing an institution. More typically what we have in the New Testament are a variety of images like kingdom, communion or body to describe the new spiritual reality that the first disciples entered into as followers of their risen Lord. They knew themselves to have a new identity being ‘in Christ’ and that identity was shared with those who belonged to Christ as they did The words that they used to describe this new reality were typically words describing fellowship or close belonging. We have, as mentioned above, the famous body image in Paul’s understanding and the equally powerful word ‘koinonia’ or fellowship. Both these latter words, among other images are articulating an experience of what we might today describe as the ideal of Christian belonging. This, then as now, is at the heart of what many Christians identity as being the most important element of their religious experience.
The other dimension being described in our normal modern use of the word church picks up the more institutional aspects of the organisation that had come into being as the result of the Jesus event. While the beginnings of what we would call church order were beginning to appear in the pages of the New Testament, most of the institutional structures of the church would not appear for a hundred years or so. The fully formed identity of the Church, with buildings, formal authorised legal structures, the accumulation of wealth and the emergence of a legally defined hierarchy was by no means a given development in the early days of the Christian movement. The emperor Constantine may have made the Christian Church the official faith of the whole Roman world, but that privilege was gained through the Church allowing itself to become the tool of imperial political ambition. This debate about whether the Christian Church gained though its identification with Roman political institutions is not a debate I wish to enter on here. Suffice to say at this point is that what Christians understood to be the Church in 340 AD (or 1500) was a creature very different from anything that Jesus or Paul could have imagined.
Writing about historical events in such a generalised way is a dangerous activity, particularly if the reader senses that it is being done to make a church political point. I hope I am not doing this, but I am seeking to suggest that when any Christian speaks about the Church, he or she is mentally placing themselves somewhere along a continuum for understanding the word. Some Christians will feel far more at home with the subjective experience of church suggested by the word koinonia or fellowship; others in contrast will prefer to be identified with more structured institutional expressions of church that appeared later on in church history. It is of possible to identify with both forms of understanding but most Christians will choose to identify with a reasonably consistent place along our imagined continuum. That preferred place will want to give honour to the biblical subjective experience of church while honouring the more formal aspects of its life. At some risk of over-generalisation, I would suggest that traditional Catholics, with their strong grasp of tradition and order, are likely to be found at the institutional end of the spectrum while ‘biblical’ Christians will prefer the opposite end – the place of informality and freedom from over-defined structures.
What I have written so far is a somewhat lengthy introduction to an exploration of the idea that ecclesiology, or doctrines of the Church, have the potential to abuse the members. Both ends in our imagined continuum have particular risks in this regard. The risk, in the case of institutional manifestations of Church, is that those who occupy places of authority within the structures can come to believe that they exercise a divinely sanctioned power. To act in the name of God, whether though a special charism or as part of a legally ordained hierarchy is a heady claim. In recent times the legal and institutional side of the Church of England has become more visible because of countless safeguarding cases. Many of us have felt repelled by the way that the Church sometimes shows a face of self-protection mode with little expression of compassion. While we need a system of institutional justice in the Church, there have been too many cases where the institution in its extreme formal mode, comes over to the observer as a cruel monster seeking to overwhelm any who would challenge its power. As examples of this toxic power abuse administered by those paid to protect the institution, we may recall two notorious examples. First there was the extraordinary battle between Julie McFarlane, a sexual abuse survivor and a professor of law, against the lawyers representing the Church. It is hard to see how anyone other than a lawyer would have survived the aggressive questions on the part of the lawyers representing the Church. She did prevail and her abuser went to prison, but without any evident support from the Church institution. The other picture, indelibly engraved on our memories, is the sight of two archbishops at the IICSA proceedings refusing to apologise to Matt Ineson for the admitted failings of church protocols. One surmises that they were both acting in accordance with legal advice. When such advice takes precedence over gospel values, we may regard this as an example of a church operating abusively at the formal end of the continuum we have described.
The opposite end of the ecclesiological spectrum we have been describing is ‘church’ as a subjective experience of oneness. In contrast to the perception of church as being about order and formality, the emphasis is here about feeling and merging. Such subjective experiences can legitimately be read out of Paul’s descriptions of the new insights of Christians. We do, however, recognise that a balance is required so that preservation of the integrity of the individual is never lost. Too much emphasis on right feelings by all can result in a kind is dissolving of the personality. In a cult-like process the ability to make individual decisions becomes compromised and weakened. In its most serious manifestations, the individual personality is destroyed. Another serious danger for Christians who strongly identify with a subjective understanding of church is the problem of disagreement and dissent. An individual who wakes up in time to recognise that his/her core personality is under attack, and thus seeks to leave, can be treated extremely cruelly by other members of the group. I have written more than once about the abusive nature of ostracism in churches and cults. Often the cruelty of exclusion is practised on those who publicly seek help after suffering serious bullying or sexual abuse. Many Christians spend an unhealthy amount of time pushing away those whose beliefs and lifestyles are not approved of. The Christian experience of feeling unity and intimacy can be easily turned around to act cruelly to those who fail to conform or question the rose-tinted version of reality put out by those in charge.
Abusive ecclesiology is a startling and disturbing juxtaposition of words. This short piece may have alerted the reader to seeing that for some ‘church’ is a negative concept and it evokes the pain inflicted on them in the name of God who was believed to be all-compassionate and loving. Sadly, the human beings who take leadership roles in the Church seem to be the ones who fail all too often. While no one can solve the problem of church-induced suffering single-handedly, a blog of this kind can play a small part in demonstrating that someone somewhere understands this kind of behaviour. At the same time, it is possible to provide a few hints on the way that we all can challenge the power of those who oppress others with the tools of Scripture and Tradition.
We went to a child’s dedication in an industrial unit the other day. As an expression of fellowship, in theory all the ingredients of oneness could have been present. The surroundings were easy on the eye soft-corporate, the auditorium like a cinema, with muted lighting and the best toilets I’ve ever encountered in a church.
Unfortunately we didn’t really fit in. I’d opted for slacks for the elderly gent and a cable-knit sweater, feeling like jeans weren’t really quite right as one of the eldest in the family now, and there being a lunch party after. I was wrong.
No one spoke to us from their church. This was despite engaging in the repetition of songs reasonably enthusiastically, although to be fair I emitted no mms or amens, nor engaged in any significant arm movements.
It didn’t bother us though because we didn’t have to answer any questions about which church we went to, or whether we could make this one our home.
I detected a subdued sense across those gathered there. Perhaps we were putting them off? Or perhaps the pall that descended over charisgelical-dom following the fall of Pilavachi hadn’t quite lifted.
All churches have liturgy regardless of which poll they’re at, but to be honest I could have done with a bit more structure for the dedications. The C of E knows how to do a good christening, doesn’t it.
When I’ve stopped being facetious, I do believe it’s quite easy to find the end of the particular poll we are drawn from or to, and find it an empty and lonely experience.
This day ended with a great party catching up with family I rarely see, but ignoring and being ignored by the other church members there. Yet we are almost all Christian.
At one time I would have engaged with people more, even a leader or two, but these days, with successive scandals, I’m not sure whether I really want to anymore, and by the looks of it, neither do they.
Maybe there are still vast swaying crowds of united worshippers ecstatic in their festivals. At one time I would have done anything to discover if there were any substance in such a place. The hunger for a bit more thorough liturgy suggests probably a shift in me, although I’m still repelled by the bods who head up the other end of things.
The road to Emmaus seems the place I find I can tolerate; a journey with other searchers, not a fusty stone monument, nor a post-trendy café church. Rather a place a bit like this blog. So thanks for it.
Yes a compassionate God is worthy of a compassionate family in which we can live in harmony. Doesn’t look as if we are ready for this yet.
I loved your story Steve and the feeling of not quite fitting in. It would be nice to think that the fellowship found in church should be naturally welcoming.
Thanks Margaret!
I’m seriously puzzled. The article says (start of the second paragraph) “Many students of theology are surprised to discover that ‘church’, translating the Greek word ekklesia, is a word occurring only twice in the New Testament. This failure of Paul and the evident reluctance of other NT writers to use the word is important and instructive. ”
According to https://biblehub.com/greek/1577.htm, Strong’s Concordance says there are 114 occurrences of “ekklesia” in the New Testament. It gives a breakdown of its translation in the NASB as assembly (3 times), church (74), churches (35), congregation (2). Presumably the figures for other translations would be somewhat similar, though of course not identical. That webpage lists twenty-five of the occurrences, from Matthew’s Gospel and the book of Acts: I suspect that they are the first twenty-five occurrences in the New Testament.
How can the statement in the article be reconciled with what Strong’s Concordance says? 2 as against 114? Can the article and Strong’s Concordance both be right? It scarcely seems so. Are they both wrong? Is one right and the other is wrong? If so, which is right and which is wrong?
Or am I missing something glaringly obvious?
Leigh. Yes I have made a glaring mistake in my assertions. The point that I wanted to make, but senile confusion got in the way, is that ‘church’ is always a dynamic reality and not an institutional idea apart from two occasions. This was the line that Zizoulas took in the 60s. I made my generalising false statement from misremembering what he was about. If I were to rewrite this piece, which I am not, I would want alert the reader to the absence or rarity of formality in this understanding of church. I bow down to your access to a concordance, which I do not have regretfully. Meanwhile I shall be more careful in future.
I’ve had more senior moments than hot dinners recently, or so it feels. I’m glad you’re not rewriting it.
“I bow down to your access to a concordance, which I do not have regretfully.” I can’t understand why you said this, as your “access to a concordance” is identical to mine. In my comment I gave the web address of Strong’s Concordance, available online to everyone.
I wasn’t suggesting you rewrite the piece. I appreciate your amending the wording that I queried.
When I read the piece originally I got as far as the start of the second paragraph when I was brought up short by what struck me as an absolutely incredible statement. I am surprised that it evidently didn’t seem to you as incredible as it did to me. I thought immediately “Surely that can’t be right”, followed by “There must be at least half a dozen references in the New Testament to house churches alone”, then “It’s worth checking that”.
I’ve just had a quick, superficial scan through the comments. Either no-one noticed what I noticed, or they thought it of no interest/relevance. That gives me the impression (rightly or wrongly) that contributors on here do not place a high value on faithful and accurate interpretation of the words of scripture. If so, that would be most regrettable.
I apologise for my delayed reply. Other things in life have been getting in the way. They still are. I haven’t yet had time to progress beyond the second paragraph of your piece, much less to investigate Zizoulas and the accuracy or otherwise of his understanding of the NT.
I recall the original Nicky Gumbel Alpha questions book, in which he listed six common interpretations of the word ‘church’ which he said ‘were not the church’. He was trying to make a point about it truly being a fellowship of believers – OK, but the problem was that, due to the limitations of the English language, in which one word has to cover a number of meanings – all of those uses, in the particular contexts, were actually correct.
I’ll admit, my own thinking is primarily congregational, but unlike Watchman Nee, (Normal Christian Church Life) can accept that some wider, national structures which have developed since the closure of the canon, are actually useful and necessary. (Nee’s idea, essentially, leads to reinvention of the wheel and yet further church splits)
One thing I’ve discovered through contributing to Thinking Anglicans is that, by and large I can get on reasonably well with people I’d not otherwise get to talk to, and who have widely differing opinions of faith. That can actually be very difficult to do, due to the entrenched tribalism of some parts of the church – just because someone thinks very differently does not mean they are a threat, as so often seems common.
I can still recall being told I was in serious spiritual danger through having fellowship with Roman Catholics, for example, at a time when the charismatic movement was rather more eccumenical that it seems now! The same thing now, sadly, applies to equality, both gay and female ordination. Sadly we seem to have lost that vision, of tolerance and unity, and replaced it with a new conformity. Maybe its time the Spirit moved again, in power and renewed hope?
“. . .the problem was that, due to the limitations of the English language, in which one word has to cover a number of meanings – all of those uses, in the particular contexts, were actually correct.”
But how many of those uses reflected what the New Testament teaches? A use may be “correct” in that English speakers understand what it means and what it refers to ; but the same use will be “incorrect” if it refers to some unbiblical concept. I have no idea what Nicky Gumbel said in his book, but it is certainly true that the English word “church” is – according to my experience of over sixty years as a christian in Britain – used in overwhelming proportions to refer to concepts that are nether taught nor modelled in the New Testament (i.e. concepts that I would call “unbiblical”). And the reason that people feel entirely comfortable in using the English word “church” in these unbiblical ways is that they see no need nor reason for us to be obedient to the scriptures for how we should do church. Hardly anyone considers that the New Testament has anything to teach us on this subject. Most people think that we can do things how we choose, because God hasn’t revealed his wishes on the subject. Or alternatively he HAS revealed his wishes on the subject: they are to be found in what has actually happened in history. My understanding is that, on the contrary, God has revealed his wishes on the subject in the New Testament by the one and only model in its pages for how to do church. But I am in a tiny minority of christians on this.
I too have been delving into the word church coming from the Greek Ecclesia and found it was a small gathering for meeting up for discussions probably about philosophy and sharing food or sometimes rather more disruptive reasons. This sounds more like a dynamic happening and nothing about institutions where we all have to ‘fit in’ and keep very quiet about our differences of opinions. So thank you Stephen and John for making a very good point about ‘church’. How to go forward I don’t know but why not go back …?
Now that is very interesting – a sort of general purpose get together to exchange thoughts etc? That could actually cover a good many situations – indeed, my monthly model railway society could be an ‘ecclesia’ under that definition.
I’d always understood it to be a specifically ‘religious’ word – really, then it pre-existed the church, and was adopted by them, then lost its wider association because the original language fell out of use.
Thanks, Margaret. The only Greek I know runs a chip shop.
I’ve often thought my wife’s gym classes were a much better community than the churches. My model railway and physical exercise are largely solitary but occasionally I bump into chatty souls out walking and we compare notes on weighty matters and/or where the best coffee can be found.
Well, I exhibit my layouts, and always have a Tear Fund banner on the front. Most shows, at least one person notices and approves!
My wife and I met through our involvement with the Christian Walking Club – another Anglican lady asked me why it was necessary to have such a group. Answer – well, its local group meets on a Saturday, while the Ramblers Association usually meet on Sundays, when we’re otherwise occupied!
Well, I exhibit my layouts, and always have a Tear Fund banner on the front. Most shows, at least one person notices and approves!
My wife and I met through our involvement with the Christian Walking Club – another Anglican lady asked me why it was necessary to have such a group. Answer – well, its local group meets on a Saturday, while the Ramblers Association usually meet on Sundays, when we’re otherwise occupied!
I’m impressed John! I started my current semi portable railway “for the children” in 1998, and it’s now semi permanently erected in the loft. I’m tempted to ask you whether yours includes a model church, and if so, of which denomination, but I wouldn’t want overtest the hospitality of our host, except to say that mine is a completely barren landscape. I shall avoid the temptation to suggest which Church landscape this might be considered a metaphor for. Well done for your diligence and witness!
My husband coincidentally has a layout and it has a church with a spire displayed. It looks very much like Church of England. He also attends a model railway club where most of the group sit and talk philosophically about the price of things and potholes.
I am very impressed that you exhibit your layout John.
To both Simon and Margaret
This may surprise you both – it is some sixty years since I last built a church – the old Airfix model of Bonchurch. The problem is, in 4mm scale, unless they’re the classic ‘tin tabernacle’, or somewhere like Bonchurch, they’re very big things. I’m three parts of trhe way through building a Cotswold tithe barn though, and have no idea where I’ll put it!
Hewre’s a link to my most recent appearance in public – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrT5Dosubrk
Start at 13.33, St Fayre Rhianne. If you don’t understand the joke, it doesn’t really matter…… And, yes, I am an Anglican. Thanks to the editor for allowing us this intrusion. God bless
Been Sure of that myself John. Nice work
Care for infrastructure and good trafficking in great metaphor. How much meditation goes into that, and comes out of it.
Paula Gooder’s novels ‘Phoebe’ and ‘Lydia’ gave me a much more vivid impression of what the early Church was like than any commentary I’ve ever read. There are copious notes to back up the narrative. She points out that most assemblies would have been small, since they met in homes and workshops and most Christians were too poor to have much space. There were a few exceptions, of course, like the group that met in the lecture hall of Tyrannus; and Lydia’s home would have been a reasonable size. But the picture is of a town or city with several small home groups which might have different flavours from each other, and would seldom have the chance to meet all together.
Incidentally, it used to be the practice to capitalise Church when referring to the worldwide Church, national Church or particular denomination. The lower case was used to refer to a local church or church building. This did help clarify the meaning in writing, though of course it was of no help in speech.
There’s a ruined Roman city near Dubrovnik in which one of the houses is stated to be the first church there. From memory of my visit, the ‘church’ met in one particular room built on to the rear of the structure, and accessed through the main building. Over time this gradually grew to absorb the rest of the house.
“like the group that met in the lecture hall of Tyrannus”
We don’t actually know that there was such a group. What we do know is that Paul “reasoned” there (Strong’s Concordance no. 1256 ). That is, he dialogued there with those who wished to discuss with him. Whether he did that alone, with a few associates, or accompanied by an entire congregation the scripture doesn’t say (Acts 19.9). What we also know is that the happenings in the lecture hall of Tyrannus were not the regular weekly meetings of a christian congregation, because we know that in the churches founded by Paul these were held in homes around a meal (with which the Lord’s Supper was integrated: the same bread and wine was used for both) and in those meetings everyone contributed as the Holy Spirit led them. That is how Paul arranged things in all the churches he founded: there is no suggestion that this is what they did in the hall of Tyrannus (which anyway wasn’t a home).
Acts 19:8-10 reads: ‘He [Paul] entered the synagogue and for three months spoke out boldly, and argued persuasively about the kingdom of God. When some stubbornly roused to believe and spoke evil of the Way before the congregation, he left them, taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia, both Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord’ (NRSV).
This reads to me as if the disciples gathered with Paul in the lecture hall (or school, a some translations have it) of Tyrannus. There is no suggestion that they shared the Lord’s supper during these meetings, but to me a group of Christians gathering to hear Paul preach sounds very like church.
The argument, ‘All early churches met in homes around a meal, and any meetings of Christians not held in homes around a meal were not church’ is a circular one. Paul’s approach was always to take opportunities where he found them and to adapt to local culture as far as his principles allowed. We really don’t know enough about the earliest church to make sweeping statements; even if it were true that Paul imposed the same pattern on all churches in all circumstances, we don’t know what paternities the other apostles followed. There isn’t much room for dogmatism.
Your reading (second paragraph of your post) may be right: I allowed for that reading in my post. Of course “may be right” also means “may not be right”.
A “gathering to hear Paul preach” may sound “very like church” to you, but it is clear that the NT, in describing/prescribing the normal, regular meetings of the house churches, makes no reference to them gathering to hear Paul or anyone else preach. You’re reading into the NT text what you expect to find there but which the NT doesn’t actually say. And Paul (or anyone else) would not be preaching, as all the attendees were already converted. Preaching would have been to outsiders, with a view to them being converted. What Paul said to the insiders would have been teaching rather than preaching.
The argument is not a circular one. It summarises what the NT tells us about how they did church in NT times.
Your confident statement “Paul’s approach was always to take opportunities where he found them and to adapt to local culture as far as his principles allowed” would need support and justification before it could be accepted as accurate.
We DO know enough about the earliest church for me to make the statements I made: you (rather than me) can be the judge of whether they are “sweeping” or not. What I wrote was a summary of what the NT says: as simple as that. If I have mischaracterised what the NT says, please show me what I got wrong.
“even if it were true that Paul imposed the same pattern on all churches in all circumstances” It IS true, according to 1 Corinthians 4:17. He himself confirms this by his use of the word “traditions” at 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
You are correct to say that we don’t know what patterns [I presume you meant] the other apostles followed. That is significant, because it means that the NT shows only one pattern for how to do church. Clearly that indicates that it is authoritative for us. Because “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) we can be confident that the sole pattern given in the NT for doing church is meant for us to follow, just as Paul taught in the churches he founded.
While it is true that we don’t know what patterns the other apostles followed, because the NT doesn’t tell us, we do know that Paul used the word “traditions” to characterise what he taught and did. It is unlikely he would have used such a word if other apostles did things differently. It is much more likely that any traditions in the NT church were universal, wouldn’t you think?
Your use of the word “dogmatism” in your last sentence translates to me as “I don’t like the sound of this, so I’ll dismiss it as dogmatic.” I hope that’s not being unfair.
For Paul’s adaptations to different cultures and circumstances, see for example 1 Cor. 9:19-23.
For Christians gathering in their regular meetings to hear Paul speak, see for example Acts 20:7-12.
How do you justify your assertion that ‘preaching’ is exclusively evangelistic, and all other talks to Christians are ‘teaching’? How would you classify e.g. exhortation and prophecy?
‘You’re reading into the NT text what you expect to find there but which the NT doesn’t actually say.’ Leigh, you may not be aware that Surviving Church is a safe space for survivors of various kinds of abuse, including spiritual abuse. We don’t always agree with each other but we do respect each others’ motives and integrity. You said earlier that ‘That gives me the impression (rightly or wrongly) that contributors on here do not place a high value on faithful and accurate interpretation of the words of scripture. If so, that would be most regrettable.’ Please don’t continue to denigrate us – we are trying to follow Jesus, just as you are.
Thank you for that, Janet. I am away at present, so won’t be able to give time yet to a proper consideration of your comments and preparation of an appropriate response. Hopefully I’ll do that in a few days’ time. Or maybe in dribs and drabs rather than all at once. I wouldn’t want you or others to conclude from my silence that I’m ignoring what you said. On the contrary, I want to engage with it — when I can.
I apologise for being away from this discussion far longer than I thought I would be.
My reply to your post dated 19 April at 2:08pm
—————————————————-
Your first two paragraphs: thank you, I shall investigate and report back.
Your third paragraph: I’ll respond regarding preaching being evangelistic when I find enough time to do so. As an interim semi-response I would classify exhortation as exhortation and prophecy as prophecy; neither are teaching nor preaching.
Your fourth paragraph: I am keen to respond to this.
I’m very disappointed at your reaction and the accusation you make against me, that I am denigrating you or anyone. That was not my intention, nor can I see that it can be deduced from what I have written. Quod scripsi, scripsi. I stand by it: it denigrates no-one. I stand by the extract which you quoted: “That gives me the impression . . .” That is indeed the impression that some posts/comments have given me.
I am not questioning or impugning anyone’s INTEGRITY. Let’s get that VERY straight. But neither do I accept that everyone’s MOTIVES are automatically as pure and straightforward as the individual concerned may think they are. Of course, that applies to me as much as to them: perhaps my insight into my own motives is inadequate or mistaken. I imagine that we would all accept that sometimes (perhaps even often) our motives are not what we think them to be and that others often have a more accurate perception of them than we do ourselves: the observer is usually in better position to be objective than a participant is. I can – and do – respect another person’s motives without feeling obliged to accept their interpretation of their own motives. No-one in their right mind would accept every individual’s interpretation of their own motives: their motives are as much open to debate and query and disagreement as other ingredients of the discussion.
I am indeed aware, as you put it, “that Surviving Church is a safe space for survivors of various kinds of abuse, including spiritual abuse”. But I don’t see how anything that I’ve written might in anyway endanger or undermine that. Please enlighten me if you consider that to be necessary/desirable.
I’ll get back to you on your first three paragraphs as soon as I can.
Thank you John for the video of the exhibition. My husband watched it and enjoyed the show.
House groups now are more like the original meetings or ecclesia. I went to a church house group when I was in my thirties and found it encouraging and supportive. More dynamic and interactive than being part of a large congregation.
More scriptural, too. Much more scriptural.
But I haven’t ever come across (in my limited experience) a truly scriptural house group, meeting round a meal where the meal and the Lord’s Supper are integrated and inseparable, and in that context everyone making their contribution as the Holy Spirit led them. That is how the NT tells us they did things in all the churches Paul founded.
I’d agree with you, Margaret. Most of the livelier, active churches I’ve belonged to have had house groups (under a variety of different titles) for people to meet, share, study and pray together. As a friend in our present church said, publicly last weekend, it helps us become a family. You can interact with one another on a more personal basis than is possible on a Sunday, which is usually very, very busy.
As for what the originals were like, well, they do seem to have varied, both in practice and quality, from Paul’s letters dealing with various problems that cropped up. Personally, I wouldn’t like to say whether there was solely one universal ‘pattern’, given the differing cultures etc which made up the early church or not.
Watchman Nee seemed to think each local church was autonomous and independent of the others – which may have been so in the NT era, but certainly changed after Constantine’s adoption of the faith, and the various councils for establishing doctrines and practice. All organisms and organisations evolve over time – nothing stays the same for ever and the church, being a living body, is bound to do the same.
(And, personally speaking, I never adopted Nee’s definitions of ‘normal Christian Church life’ for that very reason. You cannot simply ignore 2000 subsequent years of development, as he seemed to do, and dismiss it as irrelevent or wrong.)
Hi John, very briefly. I want to respond to this, but don’t have time at present — see my reply to Janet Fife. Sorry, it will be to disagree with you, but hopefully giving reasons why, the reasons hopefully being scripturally based — because the discussion shouldn’t be about “I like this but you like that” but rather about what the scriptures do or don’t have to say on the topic(s).
Morning, Leigh. I was wondering if you’d respond. G’diy, mate.
Rightly or wrongly, scriptural interpretation will inevitably reflect personal attittudes, experiences and thoughts even when they’re submitted to the spirit’s guidance – that’s why we’ve got so many denominations. And, also such widely different attitudes within the church – there never will, or can be one universally agreed approach to practical issues such as wealth, war or birth control. But, so long as sincere views are tempered by respect for those of other people, there should be room for us all.
There’s an interesting parallel thread on Thinking Anglicans at the moment; Helen King started it off, and I seem to have jogged some other folks memories, about historic abuse within the charismatic movement – it makes salutory reading – and contributing to it has pulled together a few threads in my own experiences.
‘Bye a bit
Hi John,
Here is a VERY late reply. My apologies.
Your first paragraph (not counting the greeting). You are correct that ” scriptural interpretation will inevitably reflect personal attitudes, experiences and thoughts even when they’re submitted to the Spirit’s guidance” but it shouldn’t be so – and IMO needn’t be so. Where the scripture is clear we should be obedient to it, not allowing our personal attitudes, experiences and thoughts to divert us from obeying the truth. No doubt it is a constant battle, but we need to keep fighting it all our lives. We also need to be grateful to those with prophetic gifting who have both the insight to see where we are going wrong and the willingness to be unpopular by saying so. Then we need to receive the insight and submit to it.
Your second paragraph. It seems to me that the historic abuse within the charismatic movement stems from exactly the same error as the historic abuse within the Roman Catholic Church (and others): namely an exaggerated, wholly unbiblical deference to those in leadership. The reasons for the deference, though, is different. In episcopalian churches (particularly state churches) there is far too much deference to the clergy (seen as men of God); in the charismatic movement there is far too much deference to those with notable gifting (powerful personalities, persuasive and confident speaking ability, etc.) – also seen as men of God, but for a very different reason. I rather think that in the charismatic movement it is also connected with a sense of “we’re all in this together”, “I want to be in with everyone else”, “I want to be part of what God is doing”. I want those things too, but I also have a mind to think with and the yardstick of scripture to base judgements on. One of my heroes in the Bible is Micaiah of 1 Kings 22.
Just found this quote on viamedia, which neatly summarises my feelings – even if it is sometimes hard to live up to!
As Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1945–61, put it, “in the Church of England and throughout the Anglican Communion we jealously guard the freedom of people to have their own opinion and express it”.
“Personally, I wouldn’t like to say whether there was solely one universal ‘pattern’, given the differing cultures etc which made up the early church or not.”
We do know that “Paul imposed the same pattern on all churches in all circumstances” (using Janet Fife’s wording from a post of hers on here). He tells us this in 1 Corinthians 4:17. He then confirms it by his use of the word “traditions” at 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
So the New Testament does make it clear that there was solely one universal ‘pattern’. Or. to express it another way: “There is solely one ‘pattern’ in the New Testament. If there were other patterns at the time, the New Testament makes no mention of them.”
I’ll copy a couple of paragraphs from an earlier post of mine, because they are relevant here.
“You are correct to say that we don’t know what patterns the other apostles followed. That is significant, because it means that the NT shows only one pattern for how to do church. Clearly that indicates that it is authoritative for us. Because “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) we can be confident that the sole pattern given in the NT for doing church is meant for us to follow, just as Paul taught in the churches he founded.
While it is true that we don’t know what patterns the other apostles followed, because the NT doesn’t tell us, we do know that Paul used the word “traditions” to characterise what he taught and did. It is unlikely he would have used such a word if other apostles did things differently. It is much more likely that any traditions in the NT church were universal, wouldn’t you think?”
To summarise:
Kicking a man when he’s down;
I can’t understand why no one reads my comments;
Divide and conquer;
Being back at school having my homework marked;
Perhaps less is more