The introduction of leaven

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

It seems more and more like the model James and Paul and the others employed for organizing the assemblies was then-current synagogue practice.

When I read this sentence, I had one of those "Duh" questions that somehow I overlooked before. My previous take was that there was no explicit word from the Lord to appoint elders, to "organize", have synauds, etc; then any move in this direction is suspect, especially in view of the monstrosity that eventually was shown to all (the RCC and its various mutant offspring).

But why can't Paul & James et al organize assemblies along the the prevailing customs? Better yet, why shouldn't they? I mean, the Lord didn't forbid it, and here was this existing structure, ready to be appropriated. Peter & John also went into the synagogues and preached, right? So what should "organically" develop out of this was exactly what we saw. Why shouldn't Jerusalem be seen as the de facto "center" of the nascent movement? After Jerusalem is destroyed, circa 70 AD, Rome by dint of being the seat of political power gradually takes over as the seat of ecclesiastical control.

Originally Posted by YP0534

Pursue the answer to this question: Paul appointed elders. WHY? Wherever did Paul get the idea to go about organizing the believers in that fashion? When considered in tandem with Luke's account in Acts where "elders" refers alternately to the high-ranking in the Jewish religion and the leading ones among the believers, the indications seem to point to a continuum and a reform movement.

Of course, I don't mean for a second to say that those first apostles didn't see Jesus as the unique Messiah and the start of a new era. But the Messiah was foretold and expected within [the cultural domain of] Judaism. And I'm not familiar with Old Testament prophecies concerning the cessation of temple practice, much less synagogue practice, are you?

Yes, exactly. I am suddenly getting a massive recalibration of my brain circuits. I now realize my old shibboleth "organization" is not necessarily the underlying culprit here. Organization was a main vector which allowed degradation to take root, and to flourish, largely unchecked, despite what I see as warnings by the aged apostle John. But I am going to discard organization per se as the culprit. I think we can go deeper.

Regarding your question abot Paul appointing elders; well, Paul wanted "order in the church", and it seemed good to have some overseers who were proven trustworthy. Isn't this a big theme with Paul? Letters to Timothy, Titus, etc center around this theme. Like you said, this (eldership) might have been prevailing in the Jewish synagogues, so why shouldn't it work here as well? I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than a few like Diotrophes who "loved to be first" and tried to shunt the apostles' teaching; these "local cancers" needed to be nipped in the bud (so I surmise), and thus appointing elders seemed to be the logical and necessary extension of the gospel work.

Originally Posted by YP0534

Lee used the analogy of a chicken and an egg: when the chicken hatches, you don't need the old shell any more. I think that's probably right but I don't have the conviction that our spiritual ancestors necessarily saw that so clearly.

Your comments were very helpful. Thanks for writing. I will post my new thoughts shortly.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

But why can't Paul & James et al organize assemblies along the the prevailing customs? Better yet, why shouldn't they? I mean, the Lord didn't forbid it,

I think it was perfectly natural for them to pick up synagogue practice and while it is not inherently wrong or evil I think it grew up into a large tree.

I think maybe the Lord did forbid it in that we are to wash the feet and that we are all brothers and that none is greater than the other and that none is rabbi or father.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I think it was perfectly natural for them to pick up synagogue practice and while it is not inherently wrong or evil I think it grew up into a large tree.

I think maybe the Lord did forbid it in that we are to wash the feet and that we are all brothers and that none is greater than the other and that none is rabbi or father.

Matthew Chapter 23:
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.
4They tie up heavy burdens 3 (hard to carry) and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
5 All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
6 They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,
7 greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.'
8 As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
9Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.
10 Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah.
11 The greatest among you must be your servant.
12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

There is certainly a "turning upside down" here in the teachings of Jesus, of the traditional "power structure" of both the religious Jews and of the Gentiles. But the "church" instead reverted to hierarchical arrangement already existant. And I think it did so to its detriment.

But, I am now thinking that a hierarchical "power" or "authority" structure, formalized into a human organization, meant to stand for a spiritual entity such as the "universal church" or the "body of christ", is not the real issue. The real issue is undealt-with ambition (fear) which manifests itself in distorted human relationships, and with pride (masking shame) which pushes God aside.

Jesus said that the drunkards and harlots were going into the kingdom before the religious Jews (Matt. 21:31. The sinners were closer to the kingdom because their sins were exposed. The religious ones were further away because their sins were hidden.

I think formalized structure is not the issue. But a structure can allow these issues to flourish, and eventually to dominate the collective expression.

Again, just thinking aloud here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I think it was perfectly natural for them[James & Paul] to pick up synagogue practice and while it is not inherently wrong or evil I think it grew up into a large tree.

I think maybe the Lord did forbid it in that we are to wash the feet and that we are all brothers and that none is greater than the other and that none is rabbi or father.

Think about it this way: Paul was a pharisee, persecuting the faith, when he got knocked down on the road to Damascus. Then he went off to Arabia or somewhere for what, 14 years? Then he stops by Jerusalem, then off to preach "where Christ is not yet known". So at what point, if ever, does he get exposed to the teachings that we now call "Matthew Chapter 23", etc?

In Arabia he surely had the Holy Spirit and revelation, and he also had what we'd call the OT (I imagine), but when, and to what degree, did he ever get Jesus' teachings like "the last shall be first, and the first, last", and "the greatest among you shall be the least"? And would(or should) these teachings have influenced his decision to copy synagogue practice, if that's indeed what he did, and appoint overseers of the church?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

when, and to what degree, did he ever get Jesus' teachings like "the last shall be first, and the first, last", and "the greatest among you shall be the least"? And would(or should) these teachings have influenced his decision to copy synagogue practice, if that's indeed what he did, and appoint overseers of the church?

Both two very excellent questions.

As to the first, I'd say perhaps not as much as we have.

As to the second, I'd say they should.


Both of these are just my opinion, however.

Paul's humility in being a servant and a slave and "less than the least of all saints" at least bears witness to his being in accord with that manner of life on some level.

Presumably Paul didn't consider appointment of elders as even slightly inconsistent with vying with each other in showing honor (Rom. 12:1-10).

At least, that is what we must conclude based upon the Biblical record.

It's times like these I feel we are a terrible disadvantage in not being able to state with certainty the chronology of the events after Pentecost.

And, yet again, there must be some reason that such record was not sovereignly preserved.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Presumably Paul didn't consider appointment of elders as even slightly inconsistent with vying with each other in showing honor (Rom. 12:1-10).

At least, that is what we must conclude based upon the Biblical record.

It's times like these I feel we are a terrible disadvantage in not being able to state with certainty the chronology of the events after Pentecost.

And, yet again, there must be some reason that such record was not sovereignly preserved.

Well, at the very least it can serve to humble us and make us aware that we don't have all the answers. So I look in places like Eusebius' "Church History", which seems to be a repository of genuine records. I look in the marginalia, such as Diotrophes wanting to be first (3 John 9-11), and refusing not only the counsel of the disciples, but also shunting them from the assembly! What a bother that must have been to the shepherds of the flock!

My point is that there are obviously issues related to maintaining order in any aggregation of folks, no matter how spiritual. And it seems only natural that you'd have the so-called "Episcopal Throne" in the Jerusalem Assembly being passed on to the "Desposyni", the blood relatives of the Lord. But that's kind of what bugs me, really, is it natural, or heavenly?

2 more ideas, one old, one new: First, I've mentioned before but would like to repeat in this context that John the apostle might have been at the forefront of the "organizational" push, post-resurrection, had not his brother been beheaded, and Peter captured, only to be miraculously released. John as one of the original "inner three" might have felt it wise to disappear.

Second, I once read a story about a man who runs a shelter for wolves. Some people think they can raise wolves, and wolf/dog hybrids, and the poor creatures often end up half dead in an animal shelter in Bergen, NJ or somewhere. Well, rather than euthenize them this man who lives up in the mountains has a large fenced area and he takes them in and cares for them.

He was relating the behavior of pack animals. He said, "When the leader dies, the whole clan sets up a howling for several days. Then, they pick the next leader and life goes on. But when one of the "zeta" males dies, they walk over his dead body like he never even existed."

I read that story and I immediately thought of the funeral service of Witness Lee. Or it could be the pope, or Ronald Reagan or any head of state. The alpha males of pack animals occupy a ceremonial spot of honor, which allows the orderly functioning of the whole social system. And the "zeta" males die just as they lived, which is ignored and unnoticed. But Jesus turned the whole system on its head: He went to the "Zeta" people; the man in the Gadarenes, chained to a rock, the woman at the well in Samaria, the blind beggars and cripples. Paul is on record as remembering the poor, and himself was arguably "the scum and offscouring of the world". But look at the bulk of his writings, the "pastoral epistles", such as Timothy and Titus. Paul is focused on "order in the church".

The system that was set up, post-Pentecost, reflected the wordly ways to a large degree, even as it struggled to follow the heavenly path.

And I believe that possibly John, sitting on Patmos, looked back and saw this emergent trend, and the Spirit told him to take a scroll and write down what he saw and send it to the assemblies, to Ephesus and Smyrna and Pergamos...

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

And I believe that possibly John, sitting on Patmos, looked back and saw this emergent trend, and the Spirit told him to take a scroll and write down what he saw and send it to the assemblies, to Ephesus and Smyrna and Pergamos...

In complete accord with my earlier speculations concerning why "all those in Asia" may have left Paul.

The Gentiles likely were never very kindly disposed towards the ways of the Jews, and not just with regard to the matter of circumcision upon which topic it is more than clear that Paul sided with them over against the Judaizers.

Hierarchy did not spring full grown from the throne of Constantine. The witnesses are much earlier than this, regardless of how you read "Nicolaitans."

Hierarchy is a creeping thing among those who bear some seeming preeminence or there is no explanation for the course of Christian history.

It was not possible then for interlopers to dominate any more than it is possible now for someone like me to walk up and lay claim to the legacy of Lee's ministry. Such a claim is surely laughable for those in the continuum.

Only those who appear as legitimate successors have a chance to uplift themselves and subjugate others.

It is critical that all the saints recognize this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

In complete accord with my earlier speculations concerning why "all those in Asia" may have left Paul.

The Gentiles likely were never very kindly disposed towards the ways of the Jews, and not just with regard to the matter of circumcision upon which topic it is more than clear that Paul sided with them over against the Judaizers.

Hierarchy did not spring full grown from the throne of Constantine. The witnesses are much earlier than this, regardless of how you read "Nicolaitans."

Hierarchy is a creeping thing among those who bear some seeming preeminence or there is no explanation for the course of Christian history.

It was not possible then for interlopers to dominate any more than it is possible now for someone like me to walk up and lay claim to the legacy of Lee's ministry. Such a claim is surely laughable for those in the continuum.

Only those who appear as legitimate successors have a chance to uplift themselves and subjugate others.

It is critical that all the saints recognize this.

No disagreement on any of this. It is interesting that we seem to promote those "who bear some seeming preeminence" rather than defer to those who serve us well. Surely the power struggles were well underway when Constantine offered access to the power of the sword.

We may prefer to see it as the elimination of heresy, but the power offered by Constantine ended many debates without sufficient consideration. Surely there were serious errors eliminated. But are we sure that is the case for all issues? Have we continued to this day based on the doctrinal position of the ones with the legal authority rather than the ones with the spiritual authority?

(I do not have any particular issue in mind, just the general thought that many of the issues with which we now grapple may have been simply silenced then by power rather than settled by council (not necessarily something like at Nicea).)

While no one person has yet ascended to the top of Mt LSM to claim succession to Lee's ministry, they are busy uplifting themselves, albeit in unison and outward harmony at this point in time.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Think about it this way: Paul was a pharisee, persecuting the faith, when he got knocked down on the road to Damascus. Then he went off to Arabia or somewhere for what, 14 years? Then he stops by Jerusalem, then off to preach "where Christ is not yet known". So at what point, if ever, does he get exposed to the teachings that we now call "Matthew Chapter 23", etc?

In Arabia he surely had the Holy Spirit and revelation, and he also had what we'd call the OT (I imagine), but when, and to what degree, did he ever get Jesus' teachings like "the last shall be first, and the first, last", and "the greatest among you shall be the least"? And would(or should) these teachings have influenced his decision to copy synagogue practice, if that's indeed what he did, and appoint overseers of the church?

I must admit that it is never stated. But in 1 Corinthians 11, he gives a fairly accurate rendition of the portions of the last Passover in which Jesus broke the bread and passed the wine. I'm fairly comfortable that Paul was not just "winging it" since the so-called "great commission" was mostly about obedience to Jesus commands and following and therefore a lack of knowledge of those commands would have been a disqualification from the very start.

So whether entirely alone and taught by God, or through a time receiving the accounts from someone(s), unnamed, who were there when Jesus spoke and acted as he did, Paul got it all. Why 14 years rather than just 3-1/2? Who knows. Maybe it is that even for a top brain with all the Jewish teachings that Paul had, not being there makes understanding more difficult. (Look at how unclear we are and we've been looking at this for more than 14 years in most cases.)

As for the use of synagogue practices, there is no way to presume that he got direct word from God or those unnamed persons that it was what God intended. We can only presume that with his writings about qualifications for elders achieving "Word of God" status as well as the mentions of appointing elders being recorded by Luke and mentioned by Paul, it is not simply some error even if not necessarily a requirement by God.

I also note that Jesus, while he did say strong things about the errors and teachings of the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc., never suggested that the temple leadership should not be. Further, he did his entire ministry in the form of a rabbi, even engaging in the kind of discussion and analysis of scripture that the rabbis of that time would do. He did say that we were not to revere a man for his position, such as "rabbi," but he did not say that the function of the position was invalid.

I don't know that any of this prescribes anything specific, but it makes me less inclined to oppose function like elders, and possibly even structures of positions, but to look instead at how those functions are being carried out. The problem may not be the function or position, but the person who is claiming the position. That is another can of worms when you begin to analyze how to deal with persons who have come to hold postion but should not.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

So whether entirely alone and taught by God, or through a time receiving the accounts from someone(s), unnamed, who were there when Jesus spoke and acted as he did, Paul got it all. .

very good point. I now remember that Luke, Paul's traveling companion, was a compendium of stories par excellence, so Paul must be presumed to have had unfettered and long-term access to all of the Master's teachings.

Originally Posted by OBW

As for the use of synagogue practices, there is no way to presume that he got direct word from God or those unnamed persons that it was what God intended. We can only presume that with his writings about qualifications for elders achieving "Word of God" status as well as the mentions of appointing elders being recorded by Luke and mentioned by Paul, it is not simply some error even if not necessarily a requirement by God..

True. I just raise my line of questioning because something bad seems to have happened to the fellowships by the "Revelation" of John, and I am casting my net broadly. Throwing a net and pulling in a fish are two different things. One may follow the other, but it doesn't necessarily, at least the first or second cast.

Originally Posted by OBW

I also note that Jesus, while he did say strong things about the errors and teachings of the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc., never suggested that the temple leadership should not be. Further, he did his entire ministry in the form of a rabbi, even engaging in the kind of discussion and analysis of scripture that the rabbis of that time would do. He did say that we were not to revere a man for his position, such as "rabbi," but he did not say that the function of the position was invalid..

Well, my reading is probably stronger than yours, but that may be a function of my personality.

Originally Posted by OBW

I don't know that any of this prescribes anything specific, but it makes me less inclined to oppose function like elders, and possibly even structures of positions, but to look instead at how those functions are being carried out. The problem may not be the function or position, but the person who is claiming the position. That is another can of worms when you begin to analyze how to deal with persons who have come to hold postion but should not.

Good points. As I mentioned earlier, I am recalibrating my positions vis-a-vis structured positions. I myself am rather inclined to "function" and let people hang whatever title they want to upon me, rather than be handed a square hole and told to fit myself in. But again, that may be disposition or culture rather than "truth". People from other cultures might be very uncomfortable in a group agglomeration unless someone starts assigning places.

But at the very least, I would suggest what Paul did doesn't have to be the template we all have to squirm into, a la "NCCL" of Nee.