[OBW]

Looking back at the earlier posts, it just seems to me that there is some status being given to John due to the fact, or claim, of a lineage of "disciples" and taken away, at least a little, from Paul because there is no such record. But is the record of those who followed John so stellar?

Even if we dismiss the "clergy-laity" flack from Lee as a red herring, we admit that overly-structured hierarchies breed problems and solve few. But isn't it the writings of these disciples of John that began to create a hierarchy of elders, bishops, etc.?

I recently commented in the other forum that we seem to be too eager to read between the lines of the record in scripture. We are looking for preferences. We want to either prove that elders were OK or in error based on outcomes. Well the whole system that existed in Martin Luther's time was the result of a succession of errors that all were claimed to spring from scripture. If that is our yardstick then we should seriously consider a new canon of scripture.

What I am questioning is whether we shoulbd be digging for weak links so we can decide what was a bad example (like Lee did regarding the letter from James) and what was a good example, or we should note the conditions that existed that were spoken of, positively or negatively, and search ourselves for those things. Have we (I) left our first love? Have we followed pagan practices as part of our Christian experience? Have we allowed evil to become prominent in our assembly? Have we elevated our ways in our own eyes to the extent that we no longer seek? Do we have a form of religion that talks a line that is not lived? Are we actively following the Spirit or passively waiting for something to make us quit sinning? Are we holding to Christ's teachings or merely studying them, believing them, and speaking highly of them?

As with some other discussions, I will simply point out my concern that we are seeking answers in extrapolating into what is not recorded based only the very little that is recorded. Like the "ground of the church," if there was to be something prescriptively important, it wouldn't require an analysis of the progress of the church, and of the records of the disciples of John, Paul, Peter, etc., (BTW, something that they would probably deny having) beyond the end of the scriptures to figure out.

Surely there is something in error about the establishment of a hierarchy of positions. (Interesting that it was John's "disciples" that got that going.) But man's error does not negate the sound spiritual purpose of elders. If John had not somehow supported elders, how would his "disciples" have taken it further? Surely if "elders" was just something from Paul, then Polycarp and others would not have had an elder to rise up to the level of a bishop. It requires an unsupported story much more substantial than what is recorded in scripture to arrive at what it seems you seek.

I will not simply keep this up unless you choose to reply to my points. This is not intended for debate, but consideration. That does not mean that I might not challenge, agree with, or otherwise comment on particular points along the way. But I do not say these things just to create a diversionary argument. If you continue with your discussion (with or without any consideration of what I have written) I am not trying to stop you. Just adding what I believe is a missing element.