| Re: |
Bro Alan writes......
"Not in its beginnings it wasn't. It wasn't highly organized, and in fact it wasn't a denomination. In its beginnings it was one of the strongest movements of the Spirit the world has ever seen."
Indeed brother. And to answer your question in my opinion, if you were part of a group of two or three, or ten or twelve or fifty or sixty, the leadership would become apparent by the power of the Holy Spirit. I think about how the first deacons were called by the people, they were men deemed to be and apparent to all, to be " full of the Holy Spirit." I have seen this create jealousies in other men who deem themselves to be leaders. It's the old Saul/David spirit. Spirit and flesh do not mix very well.......bro Frank
| 2014/10/1 17:22|
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11
| Re: |
Here is the quote in context from the Broadbent book (which I love and have read a few times and refer to many).
Within the Roman Catholic Church there were many souls suffering under the prevailing worldliness, who desired a revival of spiritual life yet did not come out of that system and join themselves to these churches of believers which, outside of it, were endeavouring to act on the principles of Scripture. In the same year (1209) in which Pope Innocent III inaugurated the crusade against the South of France, Francis of Assisi, then 25 years old, hearing at mass one winter morning the words of Jesus from the tenth chapter of Matthew, in which He gave commands to the twelve apostles as He sent them out to preach, saw in this the way of the reformation he had desired and felt himself called to preach in utmost poverty and humility. From this sprang the order of Franciscan Friars which so quickly spread over the world. Francis was a wonderful preacher, and his sincerity and devotion and joyous nature drew multitudes to hear him. In 1210 he went to Rome with the little company of his earliest followers, and obtained from the Pope a somewhat reluctant verbal approval of their 'Rule', with permission to preach. The numbers wishing to join were soon so great that to meet the needs of those who desired to keep the Rule, and yet continue in their usual vocations the "Third Order" was formed, the Tertiaries, who continued their secular occupations while submitting themselves to a prescribed rule of life, the pattern of which is chiefly found in the instructions of the Lord Jesus to the Apostles.[Page 95: The Friars]They vowed to restore ill-gotten gains, be reconciled to enemies, live in peace with all, live a life of prayer and works of charity, keep fasts and vigils, pay tithes to the church, take no oaths, nor bear arms, use no bad language, practise piety to the dead. The spirit of Francis burned for the conversion of heathen and Mohammedans, as well as for that of his own Italians, and twice he suffered almost to death in endeavouring to reach and preach to the infidels in Palestine and Morocco. In 1219 the second Chapter General of the Order was held and numerous friars were sent out to all countries, from Germany to North Africa, and later to England also. Five who went to Morocco suffered martyrdom. The Order soon grew beyond the power of Francis to control it, came under the organizing authority of men of different ideals, and, to his great grief, the Rule of Poverty was modified. After his death (1226) the division, which had begun earlier, between the strict and the lax friars, became more acute; the stricter ones, or Spirituali, were persecuted, four of them being burnt in Marseilles (1318), and in the same year the Pope formally declared to be heresy the teaching that Christ and His Apostles possessed nothing.
These new orders of Friars, the Dominicans and Franciscans, like the older orders of monks, arose from a sincere desire for deliverance from intolerable evils prevailing in the Church and the world, and from the soul's quest after God. While the older monastic orders were chiefly occupied with personal salvation and sanctification, the later orders of friars devoted themselves more to helping in their needs and miseries the men and women around them. Both institutions, the Monastic and the Preaching Orders, for a time exercised a widespread influence for good, yet both, being founded on the ideas of men, quickly degenerated, and became instruments of evil—active agents in opposing those who sought revival by carrying out and making known the Scriptures.
The histories of the monks and of the friars show that if a spiritual movement can be kept within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church or any similar system it is doomed, and must inevitably be dragged down to the level of that which it sought originally to reform. It purchases exemption from persecution at the cost of its life.
Francis of Assisi and Peter Waldo were both laid hold of by the same teaching of the lord, and yielded themselves to Him with uttermost devotion. In each case the example set and the teaching given gained the hearts of large numbers and affected their whole manner of life. The likeness turned to contrast when the one was accepted and the other rejected by the organised religion of Rome. The inward relation to the Lord may have remained the same, but the working out of the two lives differed widely. The Franciscans being absorbed into the Roman system, helped to bind men to it, while Waldo and his band of preachers directed multitudes of souls to the Scriptures, where they learned to draw for themselves fresh and inexhaustible supplies from the "wells of salvation."
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon
| 2014/10/1 17:37||Profile|
| Re: |
Do you believe that changes anything or that the quote I gave somehow took the true meaning out of context? It only affirms my point about what Broadbent was saying about systems and what happens to those who compromise and stay within them. I appreciate you shedding more light on what Broadbent was getting at..........bro Frank
| 2014/10/1 18:18|
| Re: |
Thank you Maryjane,
And Noone, I am sorry " sister," :) ........bro Frank
| 2014/10/1 18:29|
Whittier CA USA
| Re: |
Have to agree with brother Greg here. I know that many traditions practiced within denominational and non-denominational churches are not perfect. Some churches have one pastor who is the senior pastor with associate pastors/elders, other churches have a plurality of lead pastors, while other churches are more congregationally led. At the end of the day what matters is that the biblical gospel is being preached and not compromised, souls are being reached out to and saved, and the saints are being built up in their most holy faith. Does it really matter that much whether all of that happens within an "institutional" or "non-institutional" church setting? I don't believe it does.
Let us be careful that we are not found among those who break fellowship from and look down on churches because we don't agree in non-essentials such as different ways of church government or church leadership.
For some time I was caught up in a sort of "remnant" elitist mentality that hindered much of my growth in the Lord. During that time I couldn't fellowship in an "institutional" church setting, even if it was a solid, healthy church, because I strained at a gnat over those types of non-essentials. I believe the Lord convicted me of and set free from that type of mindset in many ways.
It just grieves me to see heated arguments among the brethren over this issue of church government.
| 2014/10/1 21:44||Profile|
| Re: |
In the early church we see that God chooses the men to be put into leadership, as in Acts 1 where the lot is cast to determine who will replace Judas.
May I suggest then that it is not so much about whether there is leadership or no leadership, but about whether any possible leader is appointed by God or not?
Is there even a problem with a leader of whom we know that he is set in place by God Himself? Would not the body benefit and be blessed? But problems arose when men started to appoint men, and through them corruption entered the church. This happened early on as we can see in the book of Jude.
This has been compounded by the move towards seeing "Church" as a place/building and something that we have a certain ownership over. "ALL WELCOME" signs were put up and a democratic voting process introduced. Something few would be willing to let go off in our day and age, yet it assures that any organized "church" with more goats than sheep will sooner or later vote a goat into leadership and we all know the rest of the story.
Is it any wonder then, that we are leery of leadership all together? Can we get back to Acts 1, where it was never a question as to who should choose a man with authority to make decision for the body? Perhaps in a case where we do not have such confidence it is better to remain without Leadership until God elevates one to this position.
| 2014/10/1 22:53||Profile|
| Re: |
I just wanted to state that this thread is not about leadership. This thread is about death by denomination. Now I understand that some people are very taken up with the issues of leadership. God always raises up leaders, that is just a simple fact. He is a God who gives gifts and one of them is leadership. Those who are baptized in the Holy Spirit and empowered for ministry and called by God shall certainly lead. That is why I mentioned the first deacons, their qualifications were that they were men who were full of the Holy Spirit and it was very recognizable to the saints. I am very sure that " strong leadership," came down from Jerusalem to spy out the saints liberty and not for one hour did Paul stand for it, even rebuking Peter publicly for playing the hypocrite when these strong leaders came down. Paul never paid them that much attention, these men or reputation did little for him.
No, the thread is about the confines and constructs of men and how it inevitably quenches the Spirit of God. Denominationalism is a construction of men and not of God. It stands in opposition to the Word of God, whether in John 17 or countless other Scriptures that talk about the oneness of the Body. Walls of partition are demolished by God, not constructed. The end results, as Broadbent was arguing,was death, whether it takes a few decades or a few hundred years. Again, we must be led by Scriptures and not the vain traditions of men...........bro Frank
| 2014/10/1 23:29|
| Re: |
You are right, and thank you for putting things back on track. I didn't mean to derail the thread.
| 2014/10/1 23:47||Profile|
| Re: |
yea agreed oraco,
One of the most sutel deceptions is denominaitionalism of the heart ,where or brother is divisive in his heart yet claiming to be non denominational, breaking fellowship with other Christians in the process and seeing his own view as right on track ,but you can smell the pride wafting around
| 2014/10/2 0:21||Profile|
| Re: |
So am i hearing this right every denomination is not of god is that what you are saying frank , but your little group fellowship is of god ,because you decide not to call it a denomination , and claim that Jesus is your paster mbut the rest dont have Jesus as pastor ...
| 2014/10/2 4:46||Profile|