Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

				Bishops
				-------
				   |
				   |
			    Elders or Priests
			    -----------------
        		           |
        		           |
		      Deacons-----------------Laity

    Here is the Quaker model:


                                Ministers
    				---------

    We Quakers never were much into hierarchy.  :-)

    -- Mike

	I tend to be somewhat suspicious about totally congregational
polity; that is, those churches which can hire and fire their clergy
and staff without consulting any other church body.  I tend to wonder
how freely clergypersons might feel about speaking with a strong prophetic
voice knowing that it might jeopardize their livelihood.

	On the other hand, I'm reticent to embrace the polity of assigning
clergy to a particular church purely by episcopal decision.

	Many churches, including the United Methodist church, use a blend
of the congregational and the episcopal in making decisions regarding
clergy selection, disciplinary action and termination processes.

Peace,
Richard

    UUs work primarily through "congregational polity", as described in .3,
    yet many ministers have little problem "speaking with a strong
    prophetic voice", or at least saying that which is not always popular
    with the bulk of the congregation. Still, a church has a pretty good
    idea of who they called and a high percentage of the church agreed in
    advance to listen to that minister. People make mistakes, they go their
    seperate ways, yet balance is maintained. The minister has a contract.
    Ministers can be fired, yes, but not for the content of their sermons.
    Their contract might not be renewed for that cause, but that, too,
    requires a vote.
    Then again, I've never met a UU minister who was a fire-and-brimstone
    Bible-thumping preacher. Hell and damnation don't get much air-time in
    UU churches.

    re .3: Richard,
    
    UMs may *practice* a blend of congregational and episcopal, but that
    practice is at the discretion and good will of the Bishop.  He is not
    *required* to consult -- or at the very least, is not required to
    act favorable on the outcome of consultation with the church.  He
    still does, to the best of my knowledge, have the power to appoint
    authoritatively and arbitrarily.
    
    (Interesting insight:  I never thought twice about referring to the
    Bishop as "he" in this particular note, even though we now have female
    Bishops who, I have to assume, could act as arbitrarily as men have
    done!! Mea culpa!)
    
    Nancy

    re: .3 Totally congregational polity -- does it make for timorous
    clergy?
    
    I can answer that from my own experience.  My father chose what was
    then the Congregation Christian Church (now UCC) precisely because he
    wanted the freedom from the episcopacy of the Moravian church.  He also
    got fired from two of them.  One because he'd invited a black person
    into his Key West, Florida, home in 1945, and the other for reasons I
    still don't understand.  
    
    It can be humiliating to meet with a congregation that is out to get
    you, and has the power to do so.  Yet my current Episcopal priest is
    keenly aware of compromise, and in my opinion holds back some of his
    beliefs because he feels the CONGREGATION (not the bishop) isn't ready
    for it (or is HE not ready for the confrontation?).  
    
    Finally, history is full of bishops who suppressed prophetic voices. 
    The fault, dear Richard, is not in our polity, but in ourselves, that
    we suppress the prophesy within us.
    
    DR
    
    

    Re: 156.29
    
Ace,

	The word "diakonos" that Bonnie spoke of can be translated - helper,
minister, servant or deacon (or deaconess).  In the Roman Catholic Church,
the United Methodist Church, and perhaps others, becoming a deacon is a step
towards becoming a priest or an elder.  At the same time, in the RCC, a deacon
is also a permanent office.  A deacon may do anything a priest may do; officiate
marriages, anoint the sick, preach, etc., with one exception: the consecra-
tion of holy communion.  The permanent deacon may also marry.

Peace,
Richard

    ace,

    I got this information from a friend in divinity school who
    was studying the original language of the Bible. She is a woman
    and was in an Episcopal seminary, so you are free to accept
    or reject what she told me based on how you feel about either
    of the the above.

    1. In the early church some members were chosen to wait on
    tables and other wise be servants of the members of the 
    community.
    2. These people were called 'deacons' of the church.
    3. The original word referring to deacons did not distinguish
    by sex. The same word that applied to Phoebe in Romans was
    used in other places (tho I do not know where and would appreciate
    references to men as deacons), to refer to men.
    4. The role of deacon was the direct predecessor of our modern
    priests. i.e. at the time the deacons filled the roles that
    we now ascribe to priests and deacons separately.
    5. So if a man is referred to as a deacon, and now considered
    to be a Priest, then so must Phoebe be considered the equivalent
    of a modern Priest.
    6. There was also a group of early Christians, I need to go back
    to my reference books to get this, who nominated their deacons,
    and later priests and bishops as those roles evolved from the
    congregation, and women as well as men served in all roles.
    This continued for over 300 years, until it was decided that
    this was heretical.

    My personal feeling on this, was that it was a case of the 
    winners writing the history. Esp since the custom had gone
    back to the time of the founding of the church.

    Bonnie

    I think it was Priscilla wife of Aquilla who has also been
    regarded as an early example of a woman who held status in the
    early church equivalent to a priest.

    BTW

    this is getting very far of the subject of apparitions of Mary.
    should we take it to a separate note. I brought up the women issues
    to point out how much women are written out of church history,
    Mary in particular. and further, how different branches of the church
    see things through different eyes.

    Thanks Richard,
    
    you've confirmed that my memory is correct on this issue.
    
    Bonnie

    Richard,
    thanks for moving my note, and the pointer
    
    BJ

    On other things deacons are not allowed to do in the RCC. They cannot 
    hear confessions, or confirm people. Also, they do not have a governing
    role in decisions when a priest is present.

    Bonnie, 
    		the roles of deacons and priest even in the early church
    were as different as they are today. Only the apostles and those the
    apostles choose, could consecrate the Eucharist, Confirm and forgive 
    sins. They also were the only ones that could make decisions on matters
    concerning faith. The apostles only chose men to perform these duties.

    I'm not saying it should remain this way,  but that's the way it was.

    Peace
    
    Jim

The role of women in the early church is simply not known for sure.  There
is speculation based on the reference to Phoebe as a deacon - what she did
as a deacon (which as was pointed out has many different meanings) is not
known.

On the other hand, there are some rather clear teachings (in I Timothy,
for example) which refer to the role of women in worship based on God's
order of creation.

This is a tough issue with reasonable points on both sides.  Personally,
I find the arguments stronger in favor of women not holding spiritual 
leadership positions in the church (since that teaching is clearer than
the speculations of what responsibilities a deacon may or may not have
had - which no one knows).

Collis

RE.9

Bonnie,

	If one assumes that the "office of priest" is really the modern day
version of the early church's "deacon/deaconess" then I understand the 
connection.

	However, I must disagree with the basic premise that there is an
"office of the priest" in the local church, that is a position of some sort for
governmental purposes like elders, and deacons. Now as to deacons/deaconess,
these are just serving ones. One who is responsible for mowing the grass can
be a deacon/deaconess! 

	In my study of the scriptures I would say this about the deacons and
priests.

	Deacon/Deaconess: Male and female. Just serving ones to the saints in a
local assembly.

	Priests: Male and female. The universal priesthood of believers means
that all saints (male or female) are priests to God. The function of a priest
is to bring people to God and to bring God to people. There is no special
office in the church, rather the exercise of the priesthood is a function in
life to the Lord.

So the good news is that you, as a believer, are designated as a priest already. 
(Whether you are fulfilling that function is between each and the Lord). Also if
you are serving in the local assembly you are a deacon/deaconess, title bestowed
or not.

The bad news 8*) is that there is no scriptural support for the clergy system
of government with all its accompanying "offices" as we see in modern day
christianity. The more one becomes entangled in the clergy/laity system the
less hope that they will ever be able to fulfill the function of the
universal priesthood bestowed upon all believers.

My two centavos worth 8*),
ace

RE.13
Hi Ace.

>The bad news 8*) is that there is no scriptural support for the clergy system
>of government with all its accompanying "offices" as we see in modern day
>christianity. The more one becomes entangled in the clergy/laity system the
>less hope that they will ever be able to fulfill the function of the
>universal priesthood bestowed upon all believers.

    Are you saying that Christ never set up the apostles as the authority
    of his church ?

    He chose the twelve, and told them the were to forgive sins or hold
    them bound. He didn't tell this to anyone but the twelve.

    The apostles elected a person to replace Judas. If all were equal,
    why the need to replace him ? 

    The apostles appointed deacons to serve the material interest of 
    the community while they were too busy praying, preaching and healing
    people. 

    There was a structure to the church and authority given to those Christ
    left in charge. I believe it's still in tact and is still under His
    control.

    Peace
    Jim

re. 14

Yo Jim,

	Yes, there was an office of apostles. But the office of apostleship in
the Bible is to the universal church. Nobody really reports to apostles in
the Bible, though they were/are instrumental to establishing a church in
each city and appointing elders. Each locality (that is one local assembly of
believers in one city) had elders and deacons but they didn't report to an
apostle. That is not to say that an apostle does not exercise
God's authority to churches, but elders and deacons or an entire local 
assembly never report to an apostle. You see what I mean? It's a "life"
relationship, not an organizational relationship. At least that is the
evidence in the Bible as I see it. I also recognize that clergy/laity has
been around for centuries (though not originally) and it is hard to see a
christian church without it. Yet I think a careful study of the Bible on this
one point is convincing (at least to me 8*).

regards,
ace

    Re: .11
    
    Thanks for the clarification, Jim, and my apologies if I misled anyone
    by my remarks about deacons in the modern Roman Catholic Church.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re :15
    Ace.

    Oh, but they did report to the apostles, and the apostles reprimanded
    them when they were out of line. Whadja think the letter's to the
    Romans and Corinthians were all about ? 

    Peace
    Jim

re.17

Exhort, reprimand, encourage, charge, yes.

report no.

One is according to an organic relationship.

The other is according to human organization.

Of course it worked both ways. The local assemblies didn't "vote" in or out
those whom God placed in the Body. IN this case, apostles. 

The clergy system has annulled the proper functioning Body life of all the 
members. (i.e.1 cor 14:26).   

regards,
ace 

Note 189.18

Ace,

>Exhort, reprimand, encourage, charge, yes.

>report no.

Sounds pretty much like an authority/subordinate relationship
either way to me.

>The clergy system has annulled the proper functioning Body life of all the 
>members. (i.e.1 cor 14:26).   

How about proposing an alternate system for the church?

Richard

re.19

Richard,


>How about proposing an alternate system for the church

It's not my place..  8*)

God's administration for the church is already defined in New Testament.

A good starting place is 1 Cor 14:26.

ace

    Re: .20

    Ace,
    
    	I just read I Cor 14:26 and it describes an order of worship
    that sounds very much like a Quaker meeting, but alas, it says nothing
    about church organization, administration, decision making or polity.
    It doesn't mention the Apostles, whom you appear to hold in rather high
    regard.

       Starting about verse 34, Paul urges women to be silent in meetings.
    Could these be business meetings?  Worship meetings?  Any and all church
    meetings?
    
    Richard

    Richard,
    
    It was/is my understanding, that the admonishment to women to be
    silent, was because they had never been allowed to question
    before and they were interupting the services with irrelevant
    questions....
    
    so that the prohibition should read  'let those who need schooling
    in the basics, ask questions in the classes set aside for them
    outside of the services' not "women must never speak in church"
    
    
    this strikes me as a bad case of arguing from the specific to
    the general.
    
    Bonnie

Note 189.22

>    this strikes me as a bad case of arguing from the specific to
>    the general.
    
Bonnie,

	Yeah, I thought later that it was a bad idea to include that whole
second paragraph.  I realize now it could easily derail the topic at hand.

	Oh well, just forget that part, Ace.  Okay?

Richard

re.21

Richard,

	 You are correct that the proper christian worship is described in 
1 Cor 14:26. When the believers came together, each one had something to
contribute to the gathering. Some a spiritual song, hymn. Some a word of
wisdom or a word of knowledge. Some a tongue or an interpretation. Some a
prophecy..etc. This was a real demonstration of the organic Body functioning
according to the Spirit when done properly (1 Cor 12-14). 

	Through this window we can see the early churches meeting life. No hint
of clergy/laity whatsoever. This clergy/laity "system" annuls the functioning
because there is one or a few who function and the rest are unexercised
spiritually. Without the proper way to meet, the Body cannot be built up because
the portion of each beleiver is not shared with all the members that all may
receive encourgement, edification, etc.

	One cannot separate the christian meeting life from the church 
government. They are parts of the same process. 

	I'd sincerely be interested in a scriptural justification for the
clergy/laity system. 

Regards,
Ace



	

Ace,

	You might want to check out 1 Timothy 3.1-7 and 3.8-13,
wherein Paul defines two separate (though equal) roles within the church.
My TEV translates the Greek word episkopos as "leaders."  It is from
this work we get the term "episcopal," which refers to bishops.  My TEV
translates the Greek word diakonos as "helpers."  It is from this work
we get the term "diaconate," which refers to deacons.

	If I'm not mistaken, the term clergy comes from cleric and is, in
essence, a servant role.  I've forgotten the Greek word from which we derive
laity, but what it means is "the people."

	I think it is a mistake to exalt clergy or somehow think of clergy
as somehow closer to God.

	In his letter to his buddy, Timothy, Paul is once again caught up
in appearances, that is, in how his fledgling church might be perceived by
outsiders.  Paul had a kind of instinct for PR and public image, as I read
him.

Peace,
Richard

re:  Note 189.25 by Richard "Extended family"

Hi,

>	If I'm not mistaken, the term clergy comes from cleric and is, in
>essence, a servant role.  I've forgotten the Greek word from which we derive
>laity, but what it means is "the people."
>
>	I think it is a mistake to exalt clergy or somehow think of clergy
>as somehow closer to God.

Indeed, as it was explained to my once by our minister (Episcopal), the 
"hierarchy" is something like this:

	the presiding bishop serves the bishops
	the bishop serves the priests in the diocese
	the priest serves the deacons and lay ministers
	the deacons and lay ministers serve the laity

And so it goes, not an architecture of power, but an architecture of 
servanthood.

$set mode/muse

Hmmm, seeing that one role of all Christians is in some way to serve Christ, 
and that Christ serves all, the ultimate suffering servant, perhaps this 
hierarchy is actually a closed loop?

Peace,

Jim