Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!
We're talking about the system here than tends to put much of the function of the body into an elite few . . .
|
And you have hinted at the real problem. It is not the clergy. It is the perception of those who want to be equal in every way and think that the era of enlightenment insists that it be true.
Jesus did not presume that everyone should be responsible to make theological decisions. He gave extra teaching to those that he took aside. That was not just the 12, but also some larger groups, like when he sent out the 70 (72? I suddenly can't remember the exact number. I guess that disqualifies me from discussions here.
)
When you assert that it is the "system," then you make it seem you are making a generalization about any kind of spiritual leadership beyond "we are all just brothers and sisters in Christ." If you come back with the "priesthood of believers" as the counter to such leadership or specialization, then I would say that you don't really understand what priests generally did in the context in which they would have made that statement — Judaism. Priests in general did not do everything. But they did have certain general duties that others could not do, like actually make the sacrifices and do certain other functions. But they were not, in general, the Sanhedrin, nor were they all like the High Priest.
And Jesus taught his disciples about leadership that was not like that of the Pharisees. That was not about position, preference, superiority, etc. If there was to be no leadership, then there was no reason to even make those kinds of teaching.
And simply referring to the clergy as "an elite few," you show your disdain for those who have worked and studied hard to continue to work hard in study and teaching of the word for the benefit of the flock. Paul only needed to tell some that they ought to be generous in taking care of those persons. If he had to write to some church about this kind of attitude about it, there might have been more serious chastisement. Like the kind he gave the Galatians and others about chasing after Jewish rituals.
Yes, you can find some in almost any group of much size that either take some level of advantage of their position (actual or perceived position) and either try to make gain from it or in some way abuse their flock. Looking back at the group of leaders in the LC that I knew, there was an interesting collection. Some I always thought of as being worthy of the respect Paul mentioned. I knew of one that really wasn't, but even before anyone trotted out "deputy authority," there was not really much thought that speaking up would help. And there was at least one that I had doubts about that I later found to be among the best of them. This was in one assembly that varied from 100+ to as much as 250 during my time there. And, for the most part, it was not really even the LSM/Lee issues that were at play (from my perspective in hindsight, though I could be wrong in some cases).
You ask about Lee's teachings. This is one. It does also crop up in other small free groups and the like, but we didn't get it from them. We got it from Lee. And the reason we got it from Lee was not to point to an actual problem that needed a solution but to help ensure that we better appreciated our special place "on the ground" outside of poor, pitiful Christianity. Maybe you don't think you need that kind of superiority, but you have to admit that you are willing to help repeat someone's generic, universal slander of those who diligently serve their flocks because you (and many others) like the idea that your group is better because you don't have their kind of clergy.
But there is clergy even there in your assembly. They may run a loose ship and allow everyone to "prophesy," even though not all are "prophets." And they must not be the kind of clergy that brings a bad name to the job (and that is a good thing). But they are clergy, and by definition, they have some duties that are not yours. So in the strict application of "clergy-laity," you are part of the laity in those items. There may be fewer problems than at First Baptist Scottsdale, Sun Valley Congregational, or wherever (and I have no idea if those particular assemblies, by name, actually exist). But clergy is there. And so you should assert that, based on your experience and observation, clergy-laity is not some evil system as far as its application to your assembly is concerned. Therefore it is not simply some un-biblical thing.
And with that, we bring up an undefined term. What is "un-biblical"? It is not simply the lack of mention in the bible. It needs to be proscribed. And I can't find it.