mortsmune said:
I will also say that I do not see a biblical mandate for the sacraments to be administered by "one called to preach," seeing as all of us are "called to preach." In the Bible "preaching" (kerusso) is proclaiming the Gospel to the lost, which is the calling of all believers. Pastors, on the other hand, are called to teach and to equip the saints for doing the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:11-12).
This is actually the call of all mature believers, especially the elders (plural), not just a singular "pastor". It's somewhat astounding that so many people seem to think that the term "pastor" appears upon almost every other page of the NT. Tradition dictates that this one man is thrust into the limelight in the place of Christ Jesus Himself. It's the tradition of the "pastor's" artistotilian rhetoric that is the central focus and purpose for gathering together under the headship of organized religion. The word of God gives not even one example of such nonsense. Most people even assume that the central purpose behind the gathering of believers is for corporate worship, as if that were the very apex of our corporate lives in a fallen world. This couldn't be further from the truth.
I believe that baptism and the Lord's Supper may be administered by any true believer.
Very true indeed.
In fact, the true Lord's Supper is not something that can even be "administered" by a person. It is something that each member of the assembly is to experience and participate in.
Ah, but if all these man-made traditions fell by the wayside, then all the various systems of organized religion would loose much of their power and influence they exercise over their followers. As long as people continue to place an inordinate value upon organized religion, as if it were the highest expression of biblical continuity, these strange superstitions (which enjoy no biblical support) will continue to be drilled into the heads of all its follwers and supporters so long as its foundation of money remains.
As an aside, most organizations have a purpose and an objective, and to achieve these objectives, there needs to be procedures and resources. The resources would include money, men and machinery. In the case of organized religion, the men and machinery combine in the form of missionaries. When we have too many men for the same purpose, a hierarchy sets in, and when we have a hierarchy, there would naturally be division of work and responsibilities. So, as Men of God empower themselves with power and money, all the problems associated with an organization also find their way into the system.
Most organizations are effective, and depending upon the will and morale of the people involved, it will deliver the results. If we bother to look around, we find that the best organizations are those with the
most effective people on top. What needs to be understood here is that
effectiveness and efficiency have nothing much to do with being virtuous. In fact, we find this true most of the time, i.e.
the virtuous ones are never the most effective ones. It's this simple fact that makes it dangerous for us to shroud religion with any organizational clothing.
Religion, as a process, has more to do with the human mind than body. Though human beings can be highly deceptive at times in suppressing their thoughts, it's essentially the way one thinks that comes out as action. Religions and true religious leaders have always motivated us to indulge only in noble thoughts and virtuous actions. It's therefore highly imperative that such religious processes always led by virtuous leaders rather than efficient and effective ones. The inevitability of any organizational approach is exactly the opposite of this essential criterion. The moment we combine religion with organization,
the latter aspect starts dominating, and unwanted elements will always come to the top. All the shameful news (pedophilia, etc.) we hear about within organized religions these days are basically reflections of this unholy amalgamation.
BTW
