[OBW]

The problem I have this whole way of thinking — one that eventually turned into certain ones even questioning whether Paul appointing elders was really a mistake or even going against God — is that if there was not to be leadership that others would be following, then why bother talking to the disciples about the ways of the Jewish leaders. You know. The part where Jesus pointed to the Jewish leaders as wanting the choice seats at the table. To be first. Then told the disciples that they were to serve, not to be served.

If Jesus went to a fair bit of trouble talking to them about aspects of leaders and leadership, what was the point if there weren't to be any? And even in the Jewish system, there was a tiering of priests. It may not have been permanent positions, but it was nonetheless there. And never spoken against. Jesus never said there shouldn't be an equivalent of the Sanhedrin. Surely Jesus was the High Priest.

By Acts 15, a bunch of the elders got together and heard from Paul as well as a number of others, they discussed, thought, and prayed, and then made a declaration for the churches. Seems that the first overt denominational meeting was held and a decision made in Jerusalem that affected every Christian. The "denomination" was the church. (Don't get hung up on the literal need for a name. The bugaboo is not really the name, but the fact that there is a hierarchy. And right there we find a relatively flat hierarchy.) It had been assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the problems discussed in that meeting had come "from James." So I would assume that they kind of thought of him as the current overall spokesperson for the group.

No, this did not grant the progression to a hierarchy that lords it over the flock. But it at least casts a cloud over the idea of simply independent assemblies (whether or not defined by dirt or political boundaries) that only had fellowship with the others to this little bit that generally could happen in a society in which travel and communication were actually much more difficult. And so a hierarchy of leadership was seen in Acts without anything hinting at it being a problem. As long as those leaders we there to serve the churches and lead them in the way to go rather than be superior and seek benefit from their position.

And to suggest that "anything man gets his hands into, the thing eventually manifested rottenness" can only be meaningful if we assert that there is nothing that is not simply rottenness because man gets his hands into everything he does. Therefore it is not simply that man gets his hand into it. It is more correctly that man gets his hand into it and is not aligned with the Spirit. And that happens no matter what kind of thing you are talking about. Not all the time. Not "simply" in certain cases and not others. But it does happen.