Autonomy of the Early Church

[Standing Up]

I am wanting to know why someone would choose "lone wolf" Christianity, when they can be part of a communion of like minded believers.

Like Albion was saying, it all depends on your definition.

Surely, we all subscribe to the original Nicene Creed. Hence we are part of a communion. If NC is your definition.

If, however, you have numerous salvific additions or subtractions to the NC, then your group is splintered off.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Like Albion was saying, it all depends on your definition.

Surely, we all subscribe to the original Nicene Creed. Hence we are part of a communion. If NC is your definition.

If, however, you have numerous salvific additions or subtractions to the NC, then your group is splintered off.

Actually, my Nicene Creed thread was evidence enough that we (meaning GT as a whole, not the posters in this thread) don't all subscribe to it in the same way, and other threads here show that others don't as well. Though they often do their best to hide it, since I suppose it would incur moderator action. (The Trinity and the deity of Christ in particular seem at issue sometimes.)

I do believe the Nicene Creed is a good representation for the "agreement" basis for the Christian faith. I certainly don't think that others who subscribe to the elements of the Creed but disagree with my beliefs on various points are "unsaved" because of their disagreement. There are almost surely heirs of salvation in every denomination out there, just as there are almost surely those who oppose God's work of salvation in every denomination out there (and I include my Church as well). God alone judges - certainly not me.

My family don't go to my Church, or believe the same as I do. But I don't consider them unsaved. If my daughter wishes to become engaged to someone, I want him to be a Christian, and the Nicene Creed would be my measure of that.


But since you specifically mentioned communion - I'm not sure if you meant the Eucharist. There are many different approaches to the Eucharist. Some require agreement with all the key elements of the fellowship, while some don't even require one to profess the existence of God at all. Since the early Church guarded the Eucharist, it seems good enough to me to agree with that assessment, for myself.

 

[Chesterton]

...and I was grabbed and hugged (fully body contact) tightly by strangers who were vibrating all over,...

Were they Quakers? Maybe they were quaking?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Were they Quakers? Maybe they were quaking?

No.

They were non-denominational Pentecostals of a rather unique sort. And I've seen all sorts since then in order to compare.

My description of the meeting did not do it full justice, I will add that.

But no, Quakers would have been infinitely less distressing.


(Actually the vibrating alone wouldn't have bothered me ... but clasping someone to you in full-body contact and not letting go while doing so, and whispering something in their ear to the effect that you are trying to give them the same thing .... was quite ... unsettling.)

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Very often it comes up in discussion here in GT that the Early Church was actually a loose affiliation of different autonomous churches.

Today this same autonomy still exists in many bodies; from the Catholic Communion to the Lutheran Federation. There are many who still follow this autonomous setup. However there are some who choose to go it alone. My question is, why? Why go it alone when you can be in communion with your brethren?

If I may say,

Currently I am going through a very fascinating read on the issue of a group known as the Hidden Christians. It's entitled In Search of Japan’s Hidden Christians

​

I found the read amazing when considering what happens in the times others are cut off - and in many respects, when you learn to live on your own and see the Lord work through difficult circumstances that no one else has had to go through, you no longer feel the need to be bound to larger groups which you developed from. The book itself focuses on the developments that occurred with Christianity after the arrival of St. Francis Xavier and the Jesuits early on. Logically, of course we know that with places like Japanese culture, for example, Christianity made in-roads into Japan in the times of the Roman/Byzantine Empire and the Silk Road. I am reminded of how the Syriac church and Assyrian Church of the East made many inroads into Japan ( shared [/COLOR]here, here/ and here). Syrian Nestorianism in Japan is hard to avoid historically when it comes to the facts (more shared in #41 and #38 ).

After Commodore Matthew Perry used gun boat diplomacy to force the Tokugawa shogunate in Edo to open its doors to trade, it was revealed that even after two hundred years of suppression there were still tens of thousands of practicing Christians in Japan. Many of the rites and rituals which had been taught to them by St. Francis Xavier and the other Jesuit missionaries were still in use but having been transmitted as an oral tradition they survived only in a highly mutated form - as it concerns the Kakure Kirishitans (more here and andhere, here and here ) and them having to go underground to practice Christianity while also having many aspects of Christianity blended with much imagery/expression from what they saw in the cultures surrounding them from which anime has often derived its religious roots (i.e. Shintoism, Taoism, etc.) to survive - making their version of Christianity distinctly different from anything present in European versions akin to the Crusaders. With Japan's Hidden Christians, persecution appeared as early as the 1560s when an unnamed woman was beheaded for the crime of praying in front of a cross. And extreme cruelty took place that many never had to deal with. Prior to the event where the 26 Martyrs of Nagasaki were crucified — a 12-year-old boy was among them — their right ears were cut off, and the prisoners displayed in carts - and the Japanese authorities executed over 4,000 people in a mere 30-year period - with thousands more being tortured, with methods ranging from snake and excreta pits to amputations, water torture, branding, upside down suspension, and suffocation among them....and when seeing that background, we should not be surprised that thousands of converts would go underground after the banning of Christianity and consequently created a syncretic form of the faith.

But we also shouldn't be surprised at the ways that the Hidden Christians chose to REJECT the Catholic Church when they were discovered since (from their perspective) the Catholic Church had been the ones who had changed rapidly. God can use others in isolated situations - even if their faith is incomplete, as was the case with the disciples in Acts 19 who only knew of the Baptism of John and Apollos in Acts 18 and many others.

And in many cases, just as it was with Jews and Samaritans separated due to cultural differences, it will always be difficult for people to connect so long as those cultural divides remain - with us only be able to trust in God, as the Hidden Christians have and others:

[/CENTER​

]​

 

[elliott95]

I am wanting to know why someone would choose "lone wolf" Christianity, when they can be part of a communion of like minded believers.

This is a very ancient practice actually. Hermits abandoning all social ties to live a life alone in the desert is at the very heart of Christian history.

Even if the did not call themselves "Lone Wolf" Christians, it is also true that people labeled lone wolf Christians here do not self-describe as such either.

That was then, and this is now though.
Probably now, it is not so much a life of austerity, seclusion, solitude, and holiness that is the primary motivations for people leaving the church community.

My hunch is that is the complete disillusionment with the institutional churches themselves.

 

[Targaryen]

My hunch is that is the complete disillusionment with the institutional churches themselves.

Disillusionment is one thing, the bad theology and solo scriptura justifications these lone wolves use is another thing entirely.

 

[Nanopants]

Very often it comes up in discussion here in GT that the Early Church was actually a loose affiliation of different autonomous churches.

Today this same autonomy still exists in many bodies; from the Catholic Communion to the Lutheran Federation. There are many who still follow this autonomous setup. However there are some who choose to go it alone. My question is, why? Why go it alone when you can be in communion with your brethren?

After a few years of study, I personally have come to the conclusion that there must have existed a "church within the church," somewhat like an "upper room." There's plenty of evidence, and I won't go into all, but the Didache is a fairly revealing source, indicating that there were travelers (not unlike the Apostles I might add) who must have visited some of these early churches. In another subject, I discovered a proof showing that Christ Himself had His own faith, and I suspect that this would be the faith of that group, if it was legitimate.

As for why I stay out of "church," well, most I've been to are full of hell preaching, torture loving slanderers, they've outlawed Eden, I can't stand being around it, and I simply can't be a part of any group like that without being tempted to tear it apart from the inside out. It's simply unavoidable. Every time I step into a christian community, like flies on a corpse I always find myself pitted against the most manipulative members with a God complex, whether laity or not. So I won't be going anytime soon or until I'm up for a kamikaze run.

 

[elliott95]

Disillusionment is one thing, the bad theology and solo scriptura justifications these lone wolves use is another thing entirely.

I am not the position to judge.

 

[GoingByzantine]

This is a very ancient practice actually. Hermits abandoning all social ties to live a life alone in the desert is at the very heart of Christian history.

Even if the did not call themselves "Lone Wolf" Christians, it is also true that people labeled lone wolf Christians here do not self-describe as such either.

That was then, and this is now though.
Probably now, it is not so much a life of austerity, seclusion, solitude, and holiness that is the primary motivations for people leaving the church community.

My hunch is that is the complete disillusionment with the institutional churches themselves.

That is a very good point. However, I note, that even the Desert Fathers kept correspondence with other Christians and retained affiliation to what was at the time a unified orthodox church.

 

[elliott95]

That is a very good point. However, I note, that even the Desert Fathers kept correspondence with other Christians and retained affiliation to what was at the time a unified orthodox church.

More often, it was that orthodox that sought the desert fathers out. The influence of the holy ones could make or break emperors even.

 

[Albion]

This is a very ancient practice actually. Hermits abandoning all social ties to live a life alone in the desert is at the very heart of Christian history.

You might say that they "separated" themselves--but only in a spatial or geographic sense of the word. What we've been discussing is the idea of not being affiliated with any Christian jurisdiction (at least none above the congregational level).

 

[elliott95]

I think the separation was in a moral and ethical sense too. The separation was from the worldiness of the land of people.

What is different now is that the church is so fractured and fragmented that when individuals remove themselves from the community, it is often interpreted as starting a church of one.

The one person here who self-identified with the OP statement was not joining a church of one, but removing himself from the kind of communities that he found too worldly, and had become disillusioned with.

 

[narnia59]

Very often it comes up in discussion here in GT that the Early Church was actually a loose affiliation of different autonomous churches.

Today this same autonomy still exists in many bodies; from the Catholic Communion to the Lutheran Federation. There are many who still follow this autonomous setup. However there are some who choose to go it alone. My question is, why? Why go it alone when you can be in communion with your brethren?

How autonomous were they really though? Considering that Paul saw many of them as being under his authority as evidenced by his letters, and any appointment of elders was done by him or someone representing him (certainly not 'hired" by the community), how is that being "autonomous"? If you're not picking your own leadership but having them appointed by an outside person, I don't see that as very autonomous.

Reference:
1 Corinthians 7:17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

2 Corinthians 11:28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches.

Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.

Titus 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you

Sounds pretty Catholic to me....

 

[Albion]

I think the separation was in a moral and ethical sense too. The separation was from the worldiness of the land of people.

Fine, but it was not a case where they rejected the rest of the church. That was what we were discussing.

The one person here who self-identified with the OP statement was not joining a church of one, but removing himself from the kind of communities that he found too worldly, and had become disillusioned with.

And what do you think about the pros and cons of making that move? Is it a good move to become a "lone wolf" Christian" for that reason or any other?

 

[elliott95]

Fine, but it was not a case where they rejected the rest of the church. That was what we were discussin

If you say so.

And what do you think about the pros and cons of making that move? Is it a good move to become a "lone wolf" Christian" for that reason or any other?

The pros are, like the desert fathers, to remove oneself from a corrupted environment.

The cons are that we are no longer in a society where holiness is valued. The chances are slim that merely removing oneself from a church, without also removing oneself from society, will be an effective path to holiness.

 

[Albion]

If you say so.

It has nothing to do with my saying so. I'm not the only one to point out this fact of history to you in this very thread, and it's known by all church historians that the hermits were not rebels against the established church of their day; they merely lived alone.

The pros are, like the desert fathers, to remove oneself from a corrupted environment.

But it's not like the desert fathers because they did not renounce the church. Their situation and thinking is NOT what we have been discussing on this thread.

The cons are that we are no longer in a society where holiness is valued. The chances are slim that merely removing oneself from a church, without also removing oneself from society, will be an effective path to holiness.

Could be that's right.

 

[elliott95]

It has nothing to do with my saying so. I'm not the only one to point out this fact of history to you in this very thread, and it's known by all church historians that the hermits were not rebels against the established church of their day; they merely lived alone.


But it's not like the desert fathers because they did not renounce the church. Their situation and thinking is NOT what we have been discussing on this thread.


Could be that's right.

The question of the OP was why do some Christians opt to go it alone. I don't think that it is necessarily implied that they are rejecting or renouncing their form of Christianity on that account, but could be a turning to what they consider to be a higher form of alternative Christianity than what regular life in a social setting has to offer.

St Anthony understood what he was doing to be as much too. He was looking for a more holy form of Christianity, in a time when the ultimate holiness martyrdom was not as possible as it once had been.

In other words, maybe the judgement of 'lone wolves' does not really describe what is happening.

 

[Albion]

The question of the OP was why do some Christians opt to go it alone. I don't think that it is necessarily implied that they are rejecting or renouncing their form of Christianity on that account

Yes, by definition, they are out of communion with the rest of the church and want it to be that way.

but could be a turning to what they consider to be a higher form of alternative Christianity than what regular life in a social setting has to offer.

Yeh, they probably do think that, but the question was why would this be the right thing to do. Most Christians have some sense that being in communion with other Christians and being part of a visible church that is bigger than their own congregation or just themselves is the right thing to do.

Maybe you don't agree with the OP, but that's what he was inquiring into.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The cons are that we are no longer in a society where holiness is valued. The chances are slim that merely removing oneself from a church, without also removing oneself from society, will be an effective path to holiness.

It seems to me that we have polar opposites here.

Hermits removed themselves from the world for the sake of holiness, but from all I have read did not seem to reject the Church itself.

The approach I thought we were discussing here usually involves removing oneself from the Church, but remaining in the world.

I agree that the chances of this effecting holiness are "slim" (or much worse, in fact). But it really seems the opposite of what ought to be, if we see any wisdom in the desert fathers/hermits/etc.

Throwing off the guidance and accountability of the Church and the fellowship of the faithful and all the associated benefits - in an environment of the world that is is largely opposed to holiness - just seems to me like a dangerous path.

I know what God led me to do, which is supported Scripturally and taught by the Church, and I went through a lot of difficulty in order to be obedient to that, to my very great benefit, for which I am thankful.

As I said before, I feel badly for those who truly have no choice, but for someone to deliberately choose such long-term, seems likely to be a matter of rebellion, and most unwise.