Leaving the dictator format of church leadership.

[GoldenKingGaze]

The apostles in the first century were persuasive and showed truly well from the Old Testament that the New Testament was true. They really suffered as servants, after Jesus' example. The apostles due to hardship and persecution could not raise up new apostles. Later the dictator or emperor Constantine made Christianity Rome's official religion, and it became a dictated faith. Later there was the Protestant Reformation and this move of leaders was also heavy handed and dictated, with some persuasion. I was watching a movie set in Northern Ireland maybe in the nineteenth century and the Church of England would ask the Catholics in the congregation to renounce Catholicism. Someone asked me to do that. But then asked me, what would that mean.

For true apostles today and for real church by free choice by persuasion by reason and love and joy, isn't it best to leave behind dictators?

 

[lanceleo]

No parent and no friend should press another to make a public profession of faith until he is as assured as he possibly can be that the fruits of the Spirit are put forth in that child, or that friend. But, once assured of that, there can be no credit in holding your tongue about a Christian duty. It is the duty of every child of God to be associated with the Christian Church, and surely it is part of our duty to instruct others to do what the Lord would approve of! Do not, therefore, hesitate to say to such as serve and fear the Lord, "How is it that you remain outside the pale of the visible Church? Come you with us, and we will do you good." So Moses did to Hobab.
-Spurgeon

Numbers 10:29​

King James Version​

29 And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses' father in law, We are journeying unto the place of which the Lord said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good: for the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel.​

 

[prodromos]

Later the dictator or emperor Constantine made Christianity Rome's official religion

This an oft quoted falsehood. All Constantine did was recognise Christianity as a legal religion in the Roman Empire, bringing an end to the persecution of Christians. He also made Sunday a day of rest in the Roman Empire. Up until then, Christians were gathering to worship before dawn on Sunday as they had to go to work the rest of the day.

 

[prodromos]

Constantine also facilitated the 1st Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, paying the costs for bishops to travel from all over the empire and covering their living expenses while in Nicaea, so that they could settle the issue of the Arian heresy and also determine a common date to celebrate Pascha.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Constantine also facilitated the 1st Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, paying the costs for bishops to travel from all over the empire and covering their living expenses while in Nicaea, so that they could settle the issue of the Arian heresy and also determine a common date to celebrate Pascha.

Interesting Prodromos, and do you think the leaving behind of the dictator style is a good or bad thing?

 

[seeking.IAM]

Please elaborate on what you mean by "dictator style."

 

[Philip_B]

The apostles in the first century were persuasive and showed truly well from the Old Testament that the New Testament was true. They really suffered as servants, after Jesus' example. The apostles due to hardship and persecution could not raise up new apostles. Later the dictator or emperor Constantine made Christianity Rome's official religion, and it became a dictated faith. Later there was the Protestant Reformation and this move of leaders was also heavy handed and dictated, with some persuasion. I was watching a movie set in Northern Ireland maybe in the nineteenth century and the Church of England would ask the Catholics in the congregation to renounce Catholicism. Someone asked me to do that. But then asked me, what would that mean.

For true apostles today and for real church by free choice by persuasion by reason and love and joy, isn't it best to leave behind dictators?

I think you are right, however the case you present is flawed. When Constantine published the Edict of Milan (314 ad), it is thought that perhaps as many as 8% of the Empire was Christian. The Edict was intended to put a close on the persecution of the Church, and indeed other religions as well, essentially allowing freedom of religion across the Empire. Religious Violence in Ireland is a long story, and not pretty, and may well be more about control of productive resources using the religion as the convenient hook.

Matthew 20:25-28
But Jesus called them to him and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’​

This is why a dictatorial style of leadership is not an appropriate model for the Church.

As for Constantine, he stopped the persecution of the Church, and far too many Christians today are bothered by that, and level all manner of charges against him. He is a complex and flawed individual, and there were lots of things he did wrong, however, he did not make Christianity Rome's official religion.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Please elaborate on what you mean by "dictator style."

Inquisition, no higher judge than the Pope or an appointed priest. Holy Roman Empire authority, the ability to ban publications seen to be heretical and even to put to death an heretical teacher. Protestants and witches also. Strong control, compulsory worship. Somber self controlled masses. Issues raised by St Francis of Assisi. Then Martin Luther broke free, but also was a strong authority who could order in the armed forces. Missions eventually recommenced after Luther with the Moravians, and freedom gradually returned. Church and missions are free now. The Pope is an influence and not a dangerous inquisitor now.

The political style of pope may have begun after the rise of Islam and invasion of Constantinople, in the 8th and 9th centuries.

 

[J_B_]

This an oft quoted falsehood. All Constantine did was recognise Christianity as a legal religion in the Roman Empire, bringing an end to the persecution of Christians. He also made Sunday a day of rest in the Roman Empire. Up until then, Christians were gathering to worship before dawn on Sunday as they had to go to work the rest of the day.

Yup. I was about to point this out, but your answer covers it.

I will note that the comments on "apostles" are a bit off as well. As with any word, the wider contemporary usage has become cloudy, but in it's strictest sense (at least within the Confessional tradition), an apostle is anyone directly given a mission by Christ. Therefore it is still possible to have apostles today, though, again, among Confessional churches I don't know of any recent claims. The point is - it was not and is not a specifically human job to anoint new apostles - though people often have a god-appointed role in such things.

Further, it is not true that the original 12 apostles failed to train faithful and successful successors. You can start with the likes of Polycarp and Irenaeus and trace a line of faithful Christians all the way from Jesus' walk on earth to the present day. The problem is that so many people harp on all the problems with this dude or that dude that modern Christians are left with an impression that Christianity vanished from the face of the earth due to an all-encompassing corruption of the RCC. The RCC definitely needed reform, but that doesn't mean they were without a single faithful voice, nor was the RCC the be-all and end-all of Christianity.