Gods Order in the body of Christ

[Strong in Him]

I suggest you’re read my original post a few times .

I know what it says - I don't agree.

And yes, many true believers are quenched in such meetings and bound up under the false control and false authority of man made religious forms. God commands that all believers be free to allow Him to give them gifts and revelation and to minister freely as God works in them

Maybe.
Yet God still works, ministers through and blesses these sorts of gatherings and meetings. By the way, we are talking about God's chosen and anointed Ministers; those he has called and equipped for service and not people with "false control and authority" or an exalted man on the podium"
And I have been in house churches where people feel pressurised into speaking in tongues, because everyone else is. I have heard of house churches where tithing, for example, is not only preached but enforced, and it isn't a Scriptural teaching. In my last church, someone joined us from such a church and her first question was "how much do I have to give?" Apparently people used to sit go round and try to go through her finances with her, showing her what to cut out so that she could afford to give 10% to the church.
Such churches, practices and teaching may flourish because wrong doctrine is taught, and there is little, or no, accountability.

“As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that Godin all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever.Amen. “(1 Peter 4:10,11 KJV)

And 1 Cor. 13:26-37, Ephesians 4:11-17, Colossians 3:15,16,1 Thess 5:12, 1 Cor. 12, Romans 12:1-8, etc

And how do you know that we don't?
How do you know that churches don't have trained worship leaders who may help lead the worship, or that people may sometimes give a prophecy in a service, or give personal testimony? Or that people gifted in drama and dance don't take part in the worship?
And so on.

Yes it is,

No.
1/ Worshipping God is never wrong - doesn't matter if it is a high church service with liturgy and prayers from a book, or a very informal service with people doing just what they "feel led" to do.
Years ago a clergyman wrote a sermon which was called, by the press, "sinners in the hands of an angry God". He stood up and read this sermon, word for word, apparently with his nose almost touching the paper because he was very short sighted. The Holy Spirit was moving mightily through his words. People were falling to their knees and repenting - apparently even holding onto the backs of the pews to save themselves from falling into hell. There was a revival.
Don't tell me that God hates formality and will not work through people who lead services in ways that you despise.
2/ If you want to get back to NT times, I suggest you learn Hebrew and Koine Greek and buy the Scriptures in those languages; forgetting your insistence that a Bible produced 1600 years after Jesus is the only "true" Bible. Then I suggest you wear robes and sandals, write on scrolls, and so on.

Again you need to answer my clear post at the beginning and all the scriptural commands that are for believers.

And where does it say that ALL churches - even those that exist in 1900 years time, in other lands and other cultures - are COMMANDED to follow this pattern?

Also we must not judge by outward appearance

And yet that's just what you've been doing; talking about the "exalted man on the podium" who "controls" everything, and people being stifled by sitting in pews or chairs.

false again. First I am not personally attacking anyone. I am showing the scriptural order as given for all the churches of the saints.

No, you're quoting Scriptures which describe worship as it was then, declaring that this is God's order and condemning people who don't follow it.
Maybe you don't intend to attack anyone, but using phrases like "this is God's order - for anyone who has eyes to see it", isn't exactly affirming. It's saying "I'm telling you this is right; you can choose not to see it."

Also, even if they were the most humble men, when they are put in that wrong exalted place and elevated on a platform or altar and they alone are considered in preeminence over others they become like Lord’s and masters which Jesus rebuked and Paul and Peter and John.

No he didn't.
He didn't say it was wrong to lead, or to lead worship.

Also I can show from many of the so called “constitutions” or by laws that they have that they say in them that “The Pastor” alone has freedom of the pulpit and us in control of all the activities of the assembly and he alone is mentioned under the “ministry” section. These things are WRONG.

It's wrong if the Pastor alone preaches, all the time, and won't let anyone else use their gift,or tells people what to believe and insists that he alone is right - but I don't know of anyone like that.
If you don't have someone with overall responsibility, you could have anyone getting up and saying that they "feel led" to give a word from God. Then how would you know if it was correct; especially if the following week, someone else stood up and "felt led" to say the opposite.

Ministers aren't dictators. Churches have Church councils/PCCs who make decisions, and most, I think, have worship meetings and/or committees.

This proves that such assemblies fight against the freedom of the body of Christ and God’s order and instead bind up men under the commandments of men. Such things should be sharply rebuked and warned against.

Paul taught the Corinthians that they should be able to speak in tongues and prophesy in the meetings; but only one or two at a time. And if a prophet was speaking and someone else had a word from God, they (the 1st prophet) should sit down.
How's that for limiting freedom and imposing some kind of structure?
Having a "free for all" in services, where one person wants to be free to sing a hymn of praise and someone else may be trying to hear God in the silence, or one person speaks in tongues which excludes everyone else who can't; neither glorifies God nor edifies or teaches humans.

Years ago, at school, three girls were asked to take over the running of the Senior Christian Union. These 3 were all friends.
two of them had the same idea that you are putting forward here; "order restricts the Holy Spirit, we shouldn't plan any teaching or study for the meetings, let's just go where we are led". The other one said, "no, we are all filled with the Spirit and open to the Spirit, but we need to pray and decide on some topics/books of the Bible to teach people."
The argument became so heated that the trio stopped talking, split up and one went to another school. Result? We had Christian Union meetings, sometimes and of sorts; led by one person. But everyone knew what had gone on - it was a lousy Christian witness.
My friend and I were left to run the Junior Christian Union with virtually no support from our peers.

And we read

“ Mark 10 - 42. But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44. And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.”

That doesn't say, or mean, that one person cannot lead, or have overall responsibility for a gathering or meeting of worship. Like I said, at the Last Supper, who was leading/teaching and washing feet?

 

[LoveofTruth]

And where does it say that ALL churches - even those that exist in 1900 years time, in other lands and other cultures - are COMMANDED to follow this pattern?

Paul said he taught the same things everywhere in every church. God is not the authour of confusion but of peace as in all the churches of the saints.

 

[Strong in Him]

Paul said he taught the same things everywhere in every church.

Yet in Romans he listed all the female helpers he had and those women who worked hard for the Gospel.
In Philippians he wrote of their female deaconesses. In Acts he stayed with Philip's daughters who prophesied and in 1 Corinthians he instructed women HOW to pray and prophesy.

Where does he say "I taught the same in every church - so this will apply to churches in 2000 years time too"? They believed the Lord would return in their own lifetime and therefore could no doubt not imagine the church existing.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Yet in Romans he listed all the female helpers he had and those women who worked hard for the Gospel.
In Philippians he wrote of their female deaconesses. In Acts he stayed with Philip's daughters who prophesied and in 1 Corinthians he instructed women HOW to pray and prophesy.

Where does he say "I taught the same in every church - so this will apply to churches in 2000 years time too"? They believed the Lord would return in their own lifetime and therefore could no doubt not imagine the church existing.

Paul wrote by the Spirit of God holy scripture ( unless he specifically said he was not writing by commandment which he only said a few times) the rest of what he wrote were the commandments of the Lord ( 1 Cor 1`4:37 KJV)

Paul said that what he wrote was for all the churches of the saints. God was speaking this through him and this letter to the Corinthians was for all the churches of the saints everywhere as we read

"2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:"( 1 Cor 1:2 KJV)

and we read in the same book

"2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you....16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."(1 Cor 11:2,16 KJV)

and in the same book

"33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints....37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."(1 Cor 14 :33,37 KJV)

and in the same book

1 Corinthians 4:17
"For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church."

Many more verses could be brought to show that he was speaking to all the saints everywhere in his letters unless he defines it differently .

and Paul wrote

1 Thessalonians 4:2
"For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus."

Acts 14:23
And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

There are different issues with each church but the order is the same. God is not the authour of confusion.

 

[John tower]

Ok.

But when the crowds went to listen to Jesus, how many people were "at the front" teaching?
When Paul was teaching in the Synagogues - and in an upper room, before Eutychus fell out of the window; how many men was that? In fact, how many people led services in the synagogues anyway?
When Jesus was presiding at the Last Supper, when they sang at least one hymn; how many men were doing the teaching then?

It may not have been common in the NT, or spelt out that this happened; doesn't mean that it didn't.

It would be an exception because the scripture is very clear that they always appointed elders plural in each church : each individual elder can have their allotted time when they share, and would at that time be alone in front if the church until the next elder took his turn : but no one person controls it all !!!

 

[Strong in Him]

Paul wrote by the Spirit of God holy scripture ( unless he specifically said he was not writing by commandment which he only said a few times) the rest of what he wrote were the commandments of the Lord ( 1 Cor 1`4:37 KJV)

So how do you know that his words weren't the Lord's will/command/advice for that church only at that time, or in that culture?
Why do you think that all his words automatically apply to all of us hundreds of years later in a different culture.

Jews met together in synagogues with one man, or a couple of people, at the front doing the teaching. Jesus even worshipped in this way.
I will be the first to admit that the church is not perfect, and to some extent I can sympathise with your view. But that's a long way from saying that all leaders are "exalted" and the churches we have today are corrupt and wrong.

 

[Wordkeeper]

So how do you know that his words weren't the Lord's will/command/advice for that church only at that time, or in that culture?
Why do you think that all his words automatically apply to all of us hundreds of years later in a different culture.

Jews met together in synagogues with one man, or a couple of people, at the front doing the teaching. Jesus even worshipped in this way.
I will be the first to admit that the church is not perfect, and to some extent I can sympathise with your view. But that's a long way from saying that all leaders are "exalted" and the churches we have today are corrupt and wrong.

What's the deciding factor for checking if a church is organised wrong or right?

 

[Strong in Him]

It would be an exception because the scripture is very clear that they always appointed elders plural in each church : each individual elder can have their allotted time when they share, and would at that time be alone in front if the church until the next elder took his turn : but no one person controls it all !!!

I don't know where you get the idea about "one person controls all".
Every church that I've been in has a leadership team/church council/PCC or whatever and it is they who make/vote on the decisions. It's true that the Minister usually chairs such a meeting - in reality, though, they don't usually get to vote unless there is a tie/deadlock, in which case they have the casting vote.
A minister may organise and decide on the worship, if it is a small church and he is on his own there; but a number of places have worship committees and worship leaders. A wise Minister will use his/her worship leaders, allowing them to choose hymns/songs relating to the theme of the service, lead prayers, maybe even come up with a drama sketch, or dance, to enhance and illustrate what is being said. And will go to the worship committee with an attitude of "I thought we could/I'd like us to try ....." rather than "We WILL be doing .....".

The Minister/Vicar/Pastor has pastoral care for the church, has overall responsibility and is seen, by others, as the figure head; the go to person for problems, questions, requests for baptism etc. That is very far from saying that he/she "controls" it.
The only places I have heard of that happening is in some house/independent churches where there is no hierarchy/structure and the Minister does not seem to be held accountable to anyone. Then, it can be a matter of "you WILL tithe, etc, if you want to remain in this church".

 

[Strong in Him]

What's the deciding factor for checking if a church is organised wrong or right?

In terms of administration and structure it is probably mostly from the denomination.
For example, Anglicans have parishes, deaneries, PCCs, bishops, rural deans and so on.
Methodists have circuits, superintendents, districts, and chairs of those districts. URCs and maybe others, have elders.
I go to a Methodist/URC church so we use the word deacon to describe someone on our leadership team.

In terms of the nature and structure of services, I think it is for each preacher to decide. And in terms of layout of the church building/furniture/decoration etc, that is a matter for the leadership/property teams.

But I don't believe that any pattern is right or wrong.
The church is the people, not the building; the person/people leading worship on a Sunday should be enabling us to worship/reflect on God and not doing it for us.

 

[Wordkeeper]

In terms of administration and structure it is probably mostly from the denomination.
For example, Anglicans have parishes, deaneries, PCCs, bishops, rural deans and so on.
Methodists have circuits, superintendents, districts, and chairs of those districts. URCs and maybe others, have elders.
I go to a Methodist/URC church so we use the word deacon to describe someone on our leadership team.

In terms of the nature and structure of services, I think it is for each preacher to decide. And in terms of layout of the church building/furniture/decoration etc, that is a matter for the leadership/property teams.

But I don't believe that any pattern is right or wrong.
The church is the people, not the building; the person/people leading worship on a Sunday should be enabling us to worship/reflect on God and not doing it for us.

The right pattern is the one that produces results :

John 15:8
"My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples

 

[Strong in Him]

The right pattern is the one that produces results :

John 15:8
"My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples

What has the way that we structure our man made denominations and arrange our buildings got to do with bearing the fruit of the Holy Spirit?

 

[LoveofTruth]

I don't know where you get the idea about "one person controls all".
Every church that I've been in has a leadership team/church council/PCC or whatever and it is they who make/vote on the decisions. It's true that the Minister usually chairs such a meeting - in reality, though, they don't usually get to vote unless there is a tie/deadlock, in which case they have the casting vote.
A minister may organise and decide on the worship, if it is a small church and he is on his own there; but a number of places have worship committees and worship leaders. A wise Minister will use his/her worship leaders, allowing them to choose hymns/songs relating to the theme of the service, lead prayers, maybe even come up with a drama sketch, or dance, to enhance and illustrate what is being said. And will go to the worship committee with an attitude of "I thought we could/I'd like us to try ....." rather than "We WILL be doing .....".

The Minister/Vicar/Pastor has pastoral care for the church, has overall responsibility and is seen, by others, as the figure head; the go to person for problems, questions, requests for baptism etc. That is very far from saying that he/she "controls" it.
The only places I have heard of that happening is in some house/independent churches where there is no hierarchy/structure and the Minister does not seem to be held accountable to anyone. Then, it can be a matter of "you WILL tithe, etc, if you want to remain in this church".

Everything you said here is the reason there should not be a one man pastor over a church and the common errors. But a side note if you check the man made law called the constitutions or by laws for many churches (which is not needed and creates the commandments of men that turn from the word of God) you will see under the ministry section one man mentioned often, "the Pastor". He is the only one under the ministry section. The elders are the supportive arm of the pastor. This is all against scripture and makes the word of God of no effect by their traditions and commandments of men.

you said

"Every church that I've been in has a leadership team/church council/PCC or whatever and it is they who make/vote on the decisions"

[in scripture the entire church made decisions, not just a select few read Acts 15, Matthew 18 etc].

"It's true that the Minister"

[all can minister freely not just the pastor or 1 Peter 4:10,11 1 Cpr 14:26-38, Ephesians 4:10-16 Colossians 3:15,16 KJV]

"usually chairs such a meeting"

[this is the rudimentts of the world not God's order]

- in reality, though, they don't usually get to vote unless there is a tie/deadlock, in which case they "have the casting vote."

[We don't see this in scripture, we see consensus and the whole church agreeing. We do see the negative with men like Diotrephese in 3rd John who loved to have the pre·eminence]

"A minister may organise and decide on the worship,"

[Chapter and verse for this? God leads all as they wait on him and he works in every believer to do all things and works (Hebrews 13:20,21 KJV, Ephesians 4:15,16 KJV etc etc etc.]

"if it is a small church and he is on his own there;"

[Not according to scripture, all the body can edify eachother and the early church met in homes most meetings were smaller than larger. The average well to do house could hold about 30-40 people, sometime we see 120 in an upper room of a house but that may not be the norm.]

but a number of places have worship committees and worship leaders.

[No such thing in the New testament and God's order. Instead all can let the word of Christ dwell in them and have a psalm a hymn a spiritual song to sing for others Colossians 3:15,16 KJV]

A wise Minister will use his/her worship leaders,

[they are not to USE others. God leads all as he wills , not men. John said we have no need that any man should teach you. Also you mentioned His/Her as ministers. From scripture we see only men in oversight and women were not to be in such roles over their husbands and other men, though they can prophesy, testify, teach younger women, have a psalm or spiritual gift and be led by the spirit as all can. The function of elders plural in every church was only for the men as scripture seems to speak of.]

"allowing them to choose hymns/songs relating to the theme of the service, lead prayers, maybe even come up with a drama sketch, or dance, to enhance and illustrate what is being said."

They do not have the power to "allow" or disallow" any. All must be accountable to God and speak and minister as he leads and then the elders/Overseers can exhort with sound doctrine and the word of God if there is issues.

And will go to the worship committee with an attitude of "I thought we could/I'd like us to try ....." rather than "We WILL be doing .....".

[All unscriptural language and direction. There also is no worship committee in scripture.]

The Minister/Vicar/Pastor has pastoral care for the church, has overall responsibility and is seen, by others, as the figure head; the go to person for problems, questions, requests for baptism etc. That is very far from saying that he/she "controls" it."

[No he is not in such titles. Pastor is a gift not so much a title of a position. Also he does not have overal responsibility. Elders/overseers plural, watch over the flock, not Lord over or take all responsibility. The church is directed to wait on the Lord for all tings and to edify one another and minister to one another and to care for one another and to pray for one another etc.. And the one man pastor ministry is not the figure HEAD. Christ is the head of the church and we are to beware if any man tries to do this Colossians 2:8-10 etc.]


The only places I have heard of that happening is in some house/independent churches where there is no hierarchy/structure and the Minister does not seem to be held accountable to anyone. Then, it can be a matter of "you WILL tithe, etc, if you want to remain in this church"

[I have seen many man made religious forms with the one man pastor over all in total control. I have even heard a so called pastor of the church a large assembly say that he is the head of this church and if they did not listen to him they were in rebellion.]

 

[Wordkeeper]

What has the way that we structure our man made denominations and arrange our buildings got to do with bearing the fruit of the Holy Spirit?

Well if no fruit results, then the structure and arrangement is wrong. We have to find some way that produces fruit.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well if no fruit results, then the structure and arrangement is wrong. We have to find some way that produces fruit.

If a Christian is not bearing fruit in their Christian lives, then it is their relationship with God, understanding of Scripture and whether, or how much, of the Holy Spirit they have in their lives.
That is not related to church order.
You could have a born again, Spirit filled believer sitting in a church that was very structured, and someone sitting in a Pentecostal church who believes that the more noise they make, the more likely God is to hear them. You can have evangelicals who see what is wrong with their church denomination, and don't agree with all of it, but who stay to reform it from within, and free church members who are just as rigid and uncompromising in their own way as someone in a more traditional church.

A few years ago we had 3 or 4 people in our church (Methodist) who, outwardly, seemed to know what it was all about. They weren't shy in saying what the Lord had done for them, and what he could do for the church; they went to Bible study groups and prayer groups and talked about the faith - sometimes I think they were the only ones who were really Christians. Yet they were all critical, judgemental, complaining people who could hold onto a grudge, refuse to forgive and put people OFF coming to church.

Through these forums I've met others like that; people who speak in tongues, prophesy, have their meetings "as the Spirit leads", and sometimes see amazing miracles and conversions. Yet who have been quick to condemn when discussing healing, for example, and tell others they don't have much faith.

All evangelical, charismatic believers who have, believe in and use, the gifts of the Spirit - yet whose fruit is decidedly on the sour side.

 

[Strong in Him]

.

 

[faroukfarouk]

If a Christian is not bearing fruit in their Christian lives, then it is their relationship with God, understanding of Scripture and whether, or how much, of the Holy Spirit they have in their lives.
That is not related to church order.
You could have a born again, Spirit filled believer sitting in a church that was very structured, and someone sitting in a Pentecostal church who believes that the more noise they make, the more likely God is to hear them. You can have evangelicals who see what is wrong with their church denomination, and don't agree with all of it, but who stay to reform it from within, and free church members who are just as rigid and uncompromising in their own way as someone in a more traditional church.

A few years ago we had 3 or 4 people in our church (Methodist) who, outwardly, seemed to know what it was all about. They weren't shy in saying what the Lord had done for them, and what he could do for the church; they went to Bible study groups and prayer groups and talked about the faith - sometimes I think they were the only ones who were really Christians. Yet they were all critical, judgemental, complaining people who could hold onto a grudge, refuse to forgive and put people OFF coming to church.

Through these forums I've met others like that; people who speak in tongues, prophesy, have their meetings "as the Spirit leads", and sometimes see amazing miracles and conversions. Yet who have been quick to condemn when discussing healing, for example, and tell others they don't have much faith.

All evangelical, charismatic believers who have, believe in and use, the gifts of the Spirit - yet whose fruit is decidedly on the sour side.

John 15 is a good reference passage about bearing fruit.

 

[Wordkeeper]

If a Christian is not bearing fruit in their Christian lives, then it is their relationship with God, understanding of Scripture and whether, or how much, of the Holy Spirit they have in their lives.
That is not related to church order.
You could have a born again, Spirit filled believer sitting in a church that was very structured, and someone sitting in a Pentecostal church who believes that the more noise they make, the more likely God is to hear them. You can have evangelicals who see what is wrong with their church denomination, and don't agree with all of it, but who stay to reform it from within, and free church members who are just as rigid and uncompromising in their own way as someone in a more traditional church.

A few years ago we had 3 or 4 people in our church (Methodist) who, outwardly, seemed to know what it was all about. They weren't shy in saying what the Lord had done for them, and what he could do for the church; they went to Bible study groups and prayer groups and talked about the faith - sometimes I think they were the only ones who were really Christians. Yet they were all critical, judgemental, complaining people who could hold onto a grudge, refuse to forgive and put people OFF coming to church.

Through these forums I've met others like that; people who speak in tongues, prophesy, have their meetings "as the Spirit leads", and sometimes see amazing miracles and conversions. Yet who have been quick to condemn when discussing healing, for example, and tell others they don't have much faith.

All evangelical, charismatic believers who have, believe in and use, the gifts of the Spirit - yet whose fruit is decidedly on the sour side.

The early church preached exactly the same message Christ preached with the same results.

Acts 2
44And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.

Strangely, it's not the message being preached today. Somewhere, the teaching changed from the need for a believer to repent, be born again, stop serving selfish ends, mammon for earthly provision, to serving God for heavenly provision, with earthly provision automatically being taken care of, changed to serving the "church" for "grace".

This happened because the structure and arrangement changed.

A change prophesied:

Matthew 7
15Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves

 

[Strong in Him]

The early church preached exactly the same message Christ preached with the same results.

Acts 2
44And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.

I know. But this isn't about church order.
The early church were very small in number. They stuck together, they faced opposition, persecution
and false teachers who tried to turn converts back to the Jewish faith, or make other conditions - i.e circumcision - for salvation.

Strangely, it's not the message being preached today.

Yes it is; there is no other Gospel.

Somewhere, the teaching changed from the need for a believer to repent, be born again, stop serving selfish ends, mammon for earthly provision, to serving God for heavenly provision, with earthly provision automatically being taken care of, changed to serving the "church" for "grace".

This happened because the structure and arrangement changed.

I don't think it did.
I think it started to happen when Christianity was made the official religion, and believers were no longer persecuted. Christianity was respectable and it was good to have faith, or at least, to go to church or be seen to be going to church. Apart from this, the way of life and lifestyles have changed enormously. Most people here in the west have homes, food, warmth, shelter, jobs, cars, computers and related gadgets, freedom of speech and access to as many Christian and Biblical resources as we could want.
There is an attitude of "if we go to church, live good lives etc we are, or must be, Christians." or "if we believe in God we are doing him a favour so he "owes" us and should answer our prayers etc." I've seen it many times. But that isn't because of the church structure or denomination. Because there are believers, within that same denomination, who do trust God for guidance and most other things too; who may live simply, or sacrificially.

I think if you go to countries where Christianity is not allowed, a minority faith, where Bibles are in very short supply or where people face poverty and lack of material possessions, you'll find that things are very different. People meet in houses; because their faith could literally cost them their freedom or their lives. There may be far more miracles, etc - when you have nothing, you rely on God. When you have the means to raise money, or solve a problem yourself, you may not.

Meeting in houses and small groups with, supposedly, no one "in charge", though I think that in any group a natural leader soon emerges, may be for you. There are problems with it, in terms of lack of accountability, beliefs and so on. But people may find that kind of group, with its lack of building, structure and liturgy, helpful; even liberating.
But it would be wrong to imply that these groups are Biblical and the worshippers who attend them are more open to receiving/seeing miracles, more able to respond to the Gospel and live simple lifestyles,whereas those who attend mainstream churches, and denominations, aren't, and are not, or cannot, bear fruit. Some people from large churches have founded hospitals, charities, started prison visiting or working with and among homeless people, or those from cuts or other faiths.

The Gospel is being preached; people react to that Gospel in different ways - like in the parable of the sower.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I know. But this isn't about church order.
The early church were very small in number. They stuck together, they faced opposition, persecution
and false teachers who tried to turn converts back to the Jewish faith, or make other conditions - i.e circumcision - for salvation.



Yes it is; there is no other Gospel.



I don't think it did.
I think it started to happen when Christianity was made the official religion, and believers were no longer persecuted. Christianity was respectable and it was good to have faith, or at least, to go to church or be seen to be going to church. Apart from this, the way of life and lifestyles have changed enormously. Most people here in the west have homes, food, warmth, shelter, jobs, cars, computers and related gadgets, freedom of speech and access to as many Christian and Biblical resources as we could want.
There is an attitude of "if we go to church, live good lives etc we are, or must be, Christians." or "if we believe in God we are doing him a favour so he "owes" us and should answer our prayers etc." I've seen it many times. But that isn't because of the church structure or denomination. Because there are believers, within that same denomination, who do trust God for guidance and most other things too; who may live simply, or sacrificially.

I think if you go to countries where Christianity is not allowed, a minority faith, where Bibles are in very short supply or where people face poverty and lack of material possessions, you'll find that things are very different. People meet in houses; because their faith could literally cost them their freedom or their lives. There may be far more miracles, etc - when you have nothing, you rely on God. When you have the means to raise money, or solve a problem yourself, you may not.

Meeting in houses and small groups with, supposedly, no one "in charge", though I think that in any group a natural leader soon emerges, may be for you. There are problems with it, in terms of lack of accountability, beliefs and so on. But people may find that kind of group, with its lack of building, structure and liturgy, helpful; even liberating.
But it would be wrong to imply that these groups are Biblical and the worshippers who attend them are more open to receiving/seeing miracles, more able to respond to the Gospel and live simple lifestyles,whereas those who attend mainstream churches, and denominations, aren't, and are not, or cannot, bear fruit. Some people from large churches have founded hospitals, charities, started prison visiting or working with and among homeless people, or those from cuts or other faiths.

The Gospel is being preached; people react to that Gospel in different ways - like in the parable of the sower.

The message changed from "Stop depending on the world for physical survival and start depending on God for spiritual survival" to other messages that teach you "You need men for survival".

This can only happen if you depend on men for teaching.

 

[Strong in Him]

The message changed from "Stop depending on the world for physical survival and start depending on God for spiritual survival" to other messages that teach you "You need men for survival".

This can only happen if you depend on men for teaching.

Maybe.

But receiving teaching from men - people - is good.
There are people who are language experts and can tell us EXACTLY what was originally written in Scripture. There are people who know a lot about the way of life as it was then and can give us insight into their habits, traditions, problems and so on. There are theologians who can teach us about God's purposes, nature and character.
Yes, this could lead into a "don't think for yourself just believe what men say" type of attitude - or it could lead to someone understanding and appreciating Scripture more than they ever had done.
Passages like "I am the Good Shepherd" take on new meaning when you learn that, in the east, shepherds led their sheep from the front and would lay down in front of the entrance to the sheep pen, so that any wolves had to get past the shepherd to get to the sheep. And that sheep were very valuable; a source of food, wool and income.
When I first started learning about exegesis - reading a passage in context, noting the style of literature and writing, considering who it was written to, what they would have understood by it, and so on - I thought, "how boring and unnecessary; what a good way to destroy someone's understanding of Scripture." But actually, it has been very enriching, opened Scripture up to me in many ways and helped me to appreciate it more.

We shouldn't rely on people to do our study and thinking for us, or treat clergy, theologians and commentators as infallible.
But I would be very wary of anyone who said "the Holy Spirit taught me", and expected you to believe their words without allowing them to be tested and checked. Rather like "Rev" Moon, who said that he had had a personal vision of, and commissioning by, Jesus - and founded a whole cult based on that experience. Or like the leaders of JWs, Mormons etc who were doing a similar sort of thing; expecting people to follow leaers who had been personally taught by God. Many of these can even quote Scripture; it is THEIR understanding of it, but has supposedly been revealed and therefore cannot be challenged.
Doctrine and theology can seem stifling - but Scripture tells us to test the spirits, discuss doctrine with the church leaders and STUDY to learn the faith and show yourself approved by God.

As with everything else, it's down to the individual Christian, their faith, attitude, response and so on. Some traditional Christians are wonderful believers with great faith, are spirit filled, bearing fruit and do on. Yet, as I said before, some people who seem charismatic, spiritual and outwardly are doing the right things, are actually judgemental, narrow minded and so on.