Yesterday I posted about scratching the surface of our walks to expose what is actually happening. below is a comment of the legacy of being born into this time has on our default practices and auto-positioning on issues such as leadership:
I want to further expand my thinking on my claim that we are presently affected by ‘Rome’ in our modern lifestyles. It explores our defaults, the starting mindsets and auto-defining of central spiritual issues. Surprisingly for some this will not just be a Roman Catholic bashing session...this will implicate the Protestant church and those who meet together with the traits of ‘Rome.’ In the first few centuries of the church a great change took place. This was at the time of Constantine the Roman Emperor. He claimed to be a Christian and whether he was or not is the wrong question to ask. Given his circumstance I’m not sure which way I would have taken the Church. Just a quick recap on what happened:
As the Emperor he was the head of a very successful Empire. It had conquered most of the known world. It was able to do this by becoming experts at conquest. War grabbed the states it entered and then the Iron fist of Roman rule maintained it. Three main elements made this possible
- Invasion of other countries
- Strong, ranked leadership
- Men sold out to the cause
Constantine had the correct assumption that God wanted Christianity to be widespread. So using the model of the Roman Empire the church became modeled upon it. Did Constantine make the church become something that it was not? Not entirely. Since the early second century the Early Church Fathers had begun departing from the Apostles teachings and practices. They messed with Leadership, content and practice. For those who feel this was a Spirit led thing please allow for this conundrum:
The New Testament shows us Jesus instructing us what we must do when we meet together at the Last Supper event. Church according to Jesus: Believers, a meal, Christ. That’s it! The Apostles also championed this practice for church in people’s homes. So we have the Apostles and Jesus himself ratifying this way to meet. After the Apostles the Early church Fathers begin changing the way church met. If this was the Lord leading his church into changing to suit the culture, times or other external factors we run into some serious problems. Firstly we are forced to say Jesus led the believers into Roman Catholic practices and beliefs. An offshoot from this is that Jesus led believers to not do what the Bible says. Secondly we have to say that Jesus has continued to lead the church and the Protestant Reformation is going against Jesus’ leading. Thirdly, if the church was supposed to adapt its practices according to its culture, politic, times etc, why do most churches still practice as the Early Church Fathers designed it? Surely Jesus would have further developed ‘church’ as the times, cultures and political landscape changed?
It all gets too complicated and silly for words when we try to say Jesus has had sole leadership of the church. The answer is that Jesus instructed us to meet together as a family of believers around a meal that has a loaf and wine /juice with open and equal sharing. The Apostles followed the Lord and the first century Church is recorded to be just that. When people meet together in a community building with one or a group of prominent leaders around a spoken ‘state of affairs’ we truly have ‘Rome.’ The vision statement of most churches will gravitate around:
- Strong evangelism program
- A leadership structure to make sure (1) is happening
- A rallying round the cause on a weekly basis
So is the message to share Christ wrong? Is it wrong to have gifted people leading the gathering? Is it wrong to keep people centered on what this is all about? The motivation in this is right but what is the overall drive of it all is wrong. In other words, we know what the Bible says we need to be about but ‘Rome’ in us assumes the lead in things that we were only ever invited to take part in.
The way we meet together in a community building with our leaders running things facilitates our own forward momentum, innovation, genius and ingenuity. Many churches are run on these attributes identified in a leaders’ or teams vision statement. Basically it’s ‘here’s how we are going to do it.’ People rally around this if they resonate with it personally. I want to suggest that this was never intended to be how the Gospel was to be handled. All that is ‘church’ was supposed to be led by the risen Christ as head and leader of the Church. Of course Jesus does delegate leadership but it is never to lead that which the Lord himself leads. True Christian leadership is delegated to those who can walk in that which is already purposed by Christ. To be in a place where you can truly allow Jesus rule and reign is rare and demands a return to the simplicity of first century Church.
We cannot hand all things over to Jesus’ Headship while doing things that facilitate our own lead. The Lord has to break Rome within us. Rome is bent on conquest, equates position in the structure with value and spends itself on ‘the cause’ instead of sacrificing itself for the body. This has been called ‘the Lord’s will’ and to perpetuate it we need a structure and system. This is the core reason why your church meets contrary to Jesus instruction (command?) and the Apostolic practice in the New Testament. This ecclesia was for all people of all times because it gives less opportunity for us to take the initiative for leading the Church. When a group of people are committed to giving Jesus his church back the New testament way to meet facilitates the demise of ‘self.’
When a believer comes to a small gathering ‘Rome’ will invalidate the group. The reason is because Rome equates numbers with success. “Your conquest isn't too hot is it?” Says Rome. The lack of prominent leadership will also be targeted by Rome within us. “There’s no leadership! This is just disorganized!” Sneers Rome.
“Where’s the Preaching?” Is also a problem for ‘Rome.’ As a group develops a separate Teaching time would occur outside of the ecclesia gathering. This goes against all Rome’s convictions: “You mean to say everyone contributes? Even the untrained?” Especially the untrained! There is nothing in the small first century style church that attracts those playing with Rome. There’s no opportunity to show off their gifts talents and ability. There’s no vying for position. There’s no spiritual one-upmanship. Gone is the attention seeker and those so holy we dare not look at them. When we aim to truly come under Christ alone, have Rome and other infections smashed out of us, we default to all we have ever been:
Contrite sinners saved by Grace, stepping aside to allow Jesus to be Lord in faith and obedience to his Word. Humbly we aim to walk in that which has already been granted for us. Having identified how hopelessly lost in Self we can be, we dare not venture unless we discern the Lord is leading us. Maybe we will be sent one day to do great works? That aspiration is well and truly at the Lord’s initiative and not a ‘given’ because we see the need.
‘Rome’ would see this as a lazy, unmotivated, selfish and deceived group. This is far from the truth. Waiting for the Lord to move through you is exactly what the disciples did. When the time came they were sent into all the world to make disciples. Many see this as their own sending and this is one of the reasons people go into all the world and make more confusion as to why God is ‘absent’ from the mission. Can we get to a place where we realize we are born infested with the ‘self-willed –works-agenda’ I am calling ‘Rome?’ Is it time to readdress our practices and put ourselves to the slaughter?
Gary Ward
No comments:
Post a Comment