Is this idea in any way biblical?

[RDKirk]

Having a building and a weekly offering to help the church keep the building.

That's a pretty narrow definition of "institutional."

One of the problems with small, independent congregations is that they are not able to fulfill some of the specific purposes churches are supposed to fill.

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields -- Mark 10

A hundred mothers isn't going to fall out of the sky. That's supposed to be the congregation. A home church can't keep Jesus' promise.

All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. -- Acts 2

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. -- Acts 4

Again, it takes a large congregation for the Holy Spirit to provide enough rotating resources to make sure there are no needy persons among them. This isn't manna from the sky, this is talking about the Lord using stewards of His wealth to provide for those who are not wealthy.

And in more detail of that process:

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.” -- 2 Corinthians 8

This is even bigger than a single congregation. This is a concept of multiple congregations moving resources between them to make sure every congregation in the entire Body of Christ is getting its needs met.

That's how Jesus intends resources to move within His body. There's not supposed to be one part of the body fat, hoarding resources, while another part of His body is starving. As one pastor has said, "Christ has given His Body has all the resources necessary to maintain His Body."

 

[farout]

You know I thought about doing something similar, the Church in the first century was no where near as institutional as the church of today. As a matter of fact I think that the church should de-institutionalize.

How do you plan on getting members? Door to door?

I can't help but wonder by what you mean by "de-institutionalize"? Could you please name the Church brand or Denomination you are directly referring to, that would help me understand better?

 

[farout]

That's a pretty narrow definition of "institutional."

One of the problems with small, independent congregations is that they are not able to fulfill some of the specific purposes churches are supposed to fill.

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields -- Mark 10

A hundred mothers isn't going to fall out of the sky. That's supposed to be the congregation. A home church can't keep Jesus' promise.

All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. -- Acts 2

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. -- Acts 4

Again, it takes a large congregation for the Holy Spirit to provide enough rotating resources to make sure there are no needy persons among them. This isn't manna from the sky, this is talking about the Lord using stewards of His wealth to provide for those who are not wealthy.

And in more detail of that process:

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.” -- 2 Corinthians 8

This is even bigger than a single congregation. This is a concept of multiple congregations moving resources between them to make sure every congregation in the entire Body of Christ is getting its needs met.

That's how Jesus intends resources to move within His body. There's not supposed to be one part of the body fat, hoarding resources, while another part of His body is starving. As one pastor has said, "Christ has given His Body has all the resources necessary to maintain His Body."

You are right, small churches that are working together can accomplish much. One small church, be it a home church or so, can barely function to meet their own needs, and one or two other small needs. But there are some ingrown churches that stay stagnate and fester using up so called members, as one family controls everything! I know I pastored one for barely one year. They lied about the salary, the insurance, and refused to grow! That is NOT a church! Christ needs none of these types of ingrowned family worship centers.

 

[Meowzltov]

Skipping over a few irrelevant parts, I spent about 2 years studying the bible and trying to find a denomination that fit with the bible. I finally found Non-Denominational Christianity and it fit perfectly and I have considered myself Non-Denominational ever since.

There is no such thing as "non-denominational Christianity." Every non-denominational church is DIFFERENT. If you think they teach the identical things, you are not digging deeply enough. Some are OSAS, others are not. Some are charismatic, others are not. I could go on and on.

 

[Sola1517]

One of the problems with small, independent congregations is that they are not able to fulfill some of the specific purposes churches are supposed to fill.

The sole purpose of the Church is to preach the Gospel. Taking care of people happens spontaneously.

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields -- Mark 10

Where were these big congregations back in the first century? That's what we need to get back to, first century Christianity.

Again, it takes a large congregation for the Holy Spirit to provide enough rotating resources to make sure there are no needy persons among them. This isn't manna from the sky, this is talking about the Lord using stewards of His wealth to provide for those who are not wealthy.

Really, cause I've given money to people before that were worse off than me on my own initiative. You don't need the Church to practice the Gifts of the Spirit for you. That's on the individual.

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.” -- 2 Corinthians 8

This is even bigger than a single congregation. This is a concept of multiple congregations moving resources between them to make sure every congregation in the entire Body of Christ is getting its needs met.

Where is the word congregation used in this chapter? It seems that you eisegete your modern day expectations of what a church should be on the passage.

That's how Jesus intends resources to move within His body. There's not supposed to be one part of the body fat, hoarding resources, while another part of His body is starving. As one pastor has said, "Christ has given His Body has all the resources necessary to maintain His Body."

It's not exclusively about taking care of people. As a matter of fact Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:12 that he surrenders his rights to material wealth as an Apostle for the sake of the Gospel. Jesus says you cannot serve both God and money. (Matthew 6:24) So, if a church has their focus on money they're probably focused on the wrong thing.

 

[Paidiske]

The sole purpose of the Church is to preach the Gospel.

You don't think the church has any role in teaching, nurturing, serving those in need, working for justice and peace, or stewardship of the earth (etc) beyond preaching? I'd say that's a pretty narrow focus.

Taking care of people happens spontaneously.

It can, but it's often easier to do well if there's a bit of structure in place.

That's what we need to get back to, first century Christianity.

Why? The first century church had plenty of problems of its own. It was not perfect.

And, we are not living in a first-century world. Two millennia later, we are in a very different place, socially and culturally, and trying to make ourselves like the first-century church would be pretty inauthentic at best.

I'd argue that we're much better off starting from where we are, and being the best church we can be now, without trying to idolise a particular (often misconstrued) moment in the past.

 

[Sola1517]

I can't help but wonder by what you mean by "de-institutionalize"?

I think we need to have church in our homes rather than in church buildings, it's just more Biblical that way.

Could you please name the Church brand or Denomination you are directly referring to, that would help me understand better?

I guess I'm referring to all denominations (at least the protestant ones). We've let our doctrines divide us too long and it's become about gaining members rather than transforming lives into the image of Jesus. Let's all hearken back to Jesus' example. He spent 3 years with 12 disciples. 12 people. There may have been other followers, but out of the crowd Jesus chose 12. The mission of the church is to preach the Gospel and produce ministers so that they can groom disciples into ministers. That's how Christianity spread in the first century.

 

[Sola1517]

You don't think the church has any role in teaching

Yes, we have to teach the whole Gospel. Good point.

nurturing,

Nurturing what?

serving those in need,

Now that you mention it, yes. But is that the heart of it? Do we serve people's physical needs without serving the spiritual needs as the Church?

working for justice and peace

I like the word reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:11-21) I have faith that one day the Judge (Jesus) is gonna come back and set all things right. He will do away with oppression at that point in history. Man, I hope he returns soon.

It can, but it's often easier to do well if there's a bit of structure in place.

I think if you're doing a group project then all you really need is cooperation. Structure is a distraction. Is that what you mean?

Why? The first century church had plenty of problems of its own. It was not perfect.

But the Gospel was spreading like wildfire.

So what does a perfect church look like?

And, we are not living in a first-century world. Two millennia later, we are in a very different place, socially and culturally, and trying to make ourselves like the first-century church would be pretty inauthentic at best.

Culture has it's place but it's not what you strive to be like. Can ya tell I'm slightly conservative?

I'd argue that we're much better off starting from where we are, and being the best church we can be now, without trying to idolise a particular (often misconstrued) moment in the past.

I'm not saying go back in time, I'm just saying whatever I can mimic about the first century Church I'm willing to experiment with.

 

[RDKirk]

The sole purpose of the Church is to preach the Gospel. Taking care of people happens spontaneously.

That's not what scripture gives us. Nothing in God is spontaneous--it's all according to His plan and by His direction.

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” -- John 13

No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband -- 1 Timothy 5

Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress -- James 1

Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? -- James 2

It's not spontaneous if it's commanded, if we're told even to keep a list. There is nothing spontaneous about a list.

Where were these big congregations back in the first century? That's what we need to get back to, first century Christianity.

The number of men alone in the congregation at Jerusalem was at least 5,000 (Acts 4)

Really, cause I've given money to people before that were worse off than me on my own initiative. You don't need the Church to practice the Gifts of the Spirit for you. That's on the individual.

Scripture does not say "that's on the individual."

Scripture says what I just quoted it as saying--it's a congregation effort. You alone cannot meet the needs of a widow or a single mother (that is, a fatherless child). You may give her some money once in a while, but you're not going to do that and keep her company when she's lonely and help her with her child and maintain her car and shovel her driveway--in other words, taking care of even a one woman's needs is beyond any one person who is taking care of a family of his own. It's intended to be a congregational effort and that's how scripture lays it out.

Where is the word congregation used in this chapter? It seems that you eisegete your modern day expectations of what a church should be on the passage.

You're about to box yourself in to a very small corner.

At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality.

That "your" and "you" is either referring to the congregation or to individuals. If it's referring to individuals, the Paul is instructing each individual to give and give and give until every individual is equal.

Is that what you want to go with?

Or don't you think that in this context when Paul has started this particular passage talking about "the Macedonian churches" and referring to "the Macedonian churches" when he says "they" that he's still talking in terms of "church" when he says "you" and "your" and not individuals?

It's not exclusively about taking care of people. As a matter of fact Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:12 that he surrenders his rights to material wealth as an Apostle for the sake of the Gospel. Jesus says you cannot serve both God and money. (Matthew 6:24) So, if a church has their focus on money they're probably focused on the wrong thing.

Strawman argument. The only person talking about "exclusivity" and "focus" is you.

 

[Paidiske]

Nurturing what?

The life of faith, for a start. I think, for example, of the ability to go to monasteries on retreat; to places of deep and committed and continuous prayer. Those places are deep wells of refreshment and replenishment for the wider church and its congregations, but they can't exist if you want to dismantle the institution altogether.

Now that you mention it, yes. But is that the heart of it? Do we serve people's physical needs without serving the spiritual needs as the Church?

Shouldn't it be both?

I think if you're doing a group project then all you really need is cooperation. Structure is a distraction. Is that what you mean?/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you mean. For a group project, cooperation often needs to be structured. Otherwise it becomes ad hoc which often descends into unintended chaos. (Ask me how I know...)

So what does a perfect church look like?

I don't think it exists this side of the eschaton. I just don't think we get closer to it by trying to replicate the first-century church.

Take just one example; in the first century Christianity was illegal and Christians were persecuted and killed. For those of us who live in places where this is not the case, why would we live as if our faith were illegal and we were likely to be persecuted and killed, rather than taking advantage of the benefits of our faith being legal and our persons being safe?

 

[Meowzltov]

The sole purpose of the Church is to preach the Gospel. Taking care of people happens spontaneously.

Spreading the gospel is a primary purpose, but certainly not the only purpose. James says that True Religion takes care of widows and orphans. "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works." Eph 2:10 And no, taking care of people does NOT usually happen spontaneously, and when it does, it doesn't happen efficiently. If you want to have social outreach, you have to organize. You have to have a network of people from poor to rich, because without the rich you don't have the money to help the poor. If you have a home church with 10 working class people, how will you help the new single mom with the $10,000 hospital bill because she chose not to abort?

 

[Lill]

Okay, so here's the problem.

I and my wife recognize the need and necessity to go to Church. However there are only two non denominational churches in our area and, one is in town. The church in town, does not follow the word of God. They don't even practice communion (A very important part of a Christian church) in their church.

So, I've marked it as a church for us to avoid. There is one other church within 60 miles of here that I have not checked out yet.

But, we have no car and cannot afford to buy one and, 60 miles is a long commute to take by bus. If a bus, even exists to the town that we'd have to go to. We usually hitch a ride with my mother while she attends her Catholic Churches Sunday service.

I know, these all sound like excuses but, I don't mean them to sound so.

And, about 2 weeks ago while I was praying the Lord told me to become a minister so, I got ordained and started to work on my own Church group and doing research on becoming a minister.

At first, I was going to do the Church online but then, I realized "Oh yeah, if I do my church online on Youtube, how are we going to have communion?" and 'Having online service just isn't going to be the same as physically being there."

So, my idea is this.

I can start my own church from my own home and be the minister of that church.

And, by communicating with the masses online. I can reach out to thousands and thousands of Christians. More than I ever could in ANY church.

Obviously not to many people here on Christian Forums have a problem with that, as well... Christian Forums exists.

I also want to write my own book teaching the word of God to the world.

I can talk to fellow Christians around the world by communicating with them online, developing friendships with them, helping with them with their daily problems, and talking about Christianity and the ilk.

And, I can fill the ministerial parts of my obligations by running my Church from my own home trying to get as many members into my home as I can. And, if it ends up only being attended by my wife and family? At least I tried.

But, we could have communion, I could write up sermons and service, I could do everything that a church does, only from the privacy and comfort of my own home.

And it wouldn't be sinful because, I'm an ordained minister who both legally and biblically can perform those rites.

I also know legally speaking, I can start my own church from my home and run a church from home.

However, I want to know about biblically. I want to know if this is what the Lord was talking about when he told me to become a minister. If not? I'll continue to search for the answer.

It seems like the perfect plan and the perfect solution to our church problem, only... TOO perfect and far too easy. Usually the right and proper path that God wants you to take, is not easy. Which, is causing me to have doubts. I have asked God in prayer and he told me to post and ask for advice here. So, here I am.

And, I have one thought.

If this was a way to be Christian, why haven't Christians thought of it and practiced it before? And if they have, why haven't I noticed it before or seen anyone doing it through online research?

So, it seems like I already know the answer and this is NOT what God meant when he said he wanted me to be a minister.

And please, don't call me stupid or "not a Christian". Because, unlike many Christians out there? I'll admit my mistakes. I'll always search for the truth. I won't just pick the first answer someone suggests and then go with that. I'll do weeks and weeks of research and bible study to get the right solution to my problems. I want to weigh all of the options so that I can figure out what God meant when he told me he wanted me to be a minister and run my own church. If running my own church was even the solution. Maybe he wanted me to be a life coach minister or other kind of minister. I'm supposed to figure out this journey alone. God will not completely show me the way.

I just want a solution to this problem besides, move. I don't want to move far away from my family when my parents are as old as they are and, our entire family pretty much lives together. But, if that's what God wants? That's what he wants. I'm to obey.

Matthew 28:19-20
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’
You dont need to have a recognized denomination to be an Assembly but it is important to have an Assembly, ( a church) . It is good to come under an umbrella of an apostolic team who can come in to your church on request to offer biblical advice and teaching to feed into your church and so that you can have someone to be accountable to. God loves church . It is where we grow and hear his voice, where He can build us up . Bible based, Spirit filled, obedient. Where God is there will be fruits of the spirit.

 

[Sola1517]

The life of faith, for a start. I think, for example, of the ability to go to monasteries on retreat; to places of deep and committed and continuous prayer. Those places are deep wells of refreshment and replenishment for the wider church and its congregations, but they can't exist if you want to dismantle the institution altogether.

You don't have to go anywhere on the planet to have an experience with God. You are the temple of the Holy Spirit. God lives in you as a Christian and you can retreat to him anytime and anywhere. (1 Corinthians 6:19, John 14:26)

Shouldn't it be both?

Yes. I just don't want to worship the people in the Church, I want to worship the God of the church.

I agree there needs to be a plan, but I guess I have a different conception of structure. Structure to me is about getting the whole 100+ members involved in the process, which I think would look a little ridiculous. I believe in getting the whole church involved, just, if you have a mega church and get everyone involved I think that would also descend into chaos.

Okay, I'll ask, how do you know?

The first part of that is a good answer. There is no perfect church this side of eternity but there are churches that are more or less Biblical than others. We have to be faithful to the Biblical witness.

When Jesus was on earth he didn't try to leverage the situation in his favor. He emptied himself and chose to sacrifice for the good of God and the world, to reconcile the world to himself. (Philippians 2:5-11)

Paul also said that those the world deems weak God uses to shame the strong.--> 1 Corinthians 1:27

 

[Sola1517]

That's not what scripture gives us. Nothing in God is spontaneous--it's all according to His plan and by His direction.

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” -- John 13

No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband -- 1 Timothy 5

Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress -- James 1

Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? -- James 2

It's not spontaneous if it's commanded, if we're told even to keep a list. There is nothing spontaneous about a list.

So according to you everybody has no choice but to give everything they have to the church. Nobody has any choice how they do it either. We have no choice whether or not we give our money to charity, or to the Church, or both. Right?

The number of men alone in the congregation at Jerusalem was at least 5,000 (Acts 4)

I can guarantee you they didn't all meet in the same house because that would tip off the authorities.

Scripture does not say "that's on the individual."

The Gifts of the Spirit (which, btw giving is one of them) only some are given to individuals. Not everyone is called to write or can write a check for $10,000.

Scripture says what I just quoted it as saying--it's a congregation effort. You alone cannot meet the needs of a widow or a single mother (that is, a fatherless child). You may give her some money once in a while, but you're not going to do that and keep her company when she's lonely and help her with her child and maintain her car and shovel her driveway--in other words, taking care of even a one woman's needs is beyond any one person who is taking care of a family of his own. It's intended to be a congregational effort and that's how scripture lays it out.

If it's all about giving why does the Church even need to be here? There are thousands of charities out there that do a heck of a lot more work than the local church. If it's such a requirement for the church to give then I think the church is obsolete.

You're about to box yourself in to a very small corner.

At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality.

That "your" and "you" is either referring to the congregation or to individuals. If it's referring to individuals, the Paul is instructing each individual to give and give and give until every individual is equal.

Is that what you want to go with?

That's what happened in Acts. The Holy Spirit moved and 5,000 individuals gave until everyone was taken care of.

Strawman argument. The only person talking about "exclusivity" and "focus" is you.

Well what is the church about?

 

[Sola1517]

Spreading the gospel is a primary purpose, but certainly not the only purpose. James says that True Religion takes care of widows and orphans. "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works." Eph 2:10 And no, taking care of people does NOT usually happen spontaneously, and when it does, it doesn't happen efficiently. If you want to have social outreach, you have to organize. You have to have a network of people from poor to rich, because without the rich you don't have the money to help the poor. If you have a home church with 10 working class people, how will you help the new single mom with the $10,000 hospital bill because she chose not to abort?

There are other ways to give besides money.

 

[pescador]

Almost all (maybe all) modern churches bear no resemblance to the churches described in the New Testament. The typical New Testament church was a group of people who met regularly in someone's home, shared a full meal that included bread and wine, and ministered to each other according to the gifts given them by the Holy Spirit. There was no recognized head of the church (priest or pastor) other than the true head of the church: Jesus Christ. There was nothing relating to people quietly sitting in rows listening to the performance by the "head" who delivers the message from a raised stage. There was no division between ordained individuals and laity, since all those born of the Spirit were (and are) priests.

The form and function of the modern church is modeled after Roman government and Greek theater, not the church of the New Testament. Most of the basis of what modern churches accept is derived from the Old Testament not the New: a separated God who is out of reach of almost all of humanity, a set of rules that should be followed completely, ritual practice and worship, a hierarchical structure of power and control by those who have been officially ordained, etc.

For the above reasons I no longer attend church, but live my life as an obedient servant of my Lord Jesus Christ. Guided by the Holy Spirit I make my thoughts and actions obedient to Him, not to anyone else. I have been given grace by God to live my life eternally as one of his children. I don't need anything else, especially those non-Biblical things that have been created by people to imitate Old Testament and/or pagan practices. Above all, I love God with all my heart, soul, and mind, and love my neighbor, whomever he or she may be, as myself.

 

[Meowzltov]

I can guarantee you they didn't all meet in the same house because that would tip off the authorities.

Of course, you are right about that. But they WERE all organized as part of the same local church, under the bishop, James. They gave tithes together and recieved gifts together from other local churches. You can't get around the fact that there was an organizational structure with an ordained clergy of deacons, presbyters, and bishops, with rites such as baptism, communion, anointing of the sick, ordination, etc. You do have orgainzed institutional churches under bishops, James being the most obvious, Timothy being yet another. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome, although the records of that are non-Biblical. It doesn't mean they had built churches -- these came later in history after the persecutions were over. But it does mean the churches were large and organized.

 

[Meowzltov]

Almost all (maybe all) modern churches bear no resemblance to the churches described in the New Testament. The typical New Testament church was a group of people who met regularly in someone's home, shared a full meal that included bread and wine, and ministered to each other according to the gifts given them by the Holy Spirit. There was no recognized head of the church (priest or pastor) other than the true head of the church: Jesus Christ. There was nothing relating to people quietly sitting in rows listening to the performance by the "head" who delivers the message from a raised stage. There was no division between ordained individuals and laity, since all those born of the Spirit were (and are) priests.

Although groups met in homes, each home group was part of a larger local church, organized under a bishop such as James, Timothy, or Peter, and under the authority of ordained presbyters/elders with ordained deacons/helpers. Eucharist was part of an Agape Feast, but Eucharist DID exist, and Real Presence was believed. The laying on of hands separated clergy from laity. Acts 6:6 The priesthood of all believers was distinct from the ordained presbytery/priesthood.

As an Evangelical, I made it a point to study the Early Church, and the more I studied it, the more I realized it was Catholic. It took a decade, because there were many doctrines in the Catholic church that I had problems with, but eventually I did become a Catholic, and was received into that Church which never broke the chain of laying on of hands.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well what is the church about?

As Christians we are a BODY, a holy family, a communion of saints; we don't do "Just Jesus and Me." Although we are responsible to do the following three things on our own as well, the point is that we are not to divorce ourselves from the Church and its support in our pursuit. We offer our support to others in turn.

1. Piety. This is Worship, Prayer, Praise, Meditation on Christ, Examination of Concience and Confession etc. Breaking Bread is a necessary part of Piety.
2. Study. This is concentration on his Word mostly, although it can be topical as well.
3. Good works. True religion is helping Widows and Orphans. We are called to Good Works. Eph 2:10 Evangelization is part of Good Works.
4. Potlucks. Just kidding.

 

[pescador]

Of course, you are right about that. But they WERE all organized as part of the same local church, under the bishop, James. They gave tithes together and recieved gifts together from other local churches. You can't get around the fact that there was an organizational structure with an ordained clergy of deacons, presbyters, and bishops, with rites such as baptism, communion, anointing of the sick, ordination, etc. You do have orgainzed institutional churches under bishops, James being the most obvious, Timothy being yet another. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome, although the records of that are non-Biblical. It doesn't mean they had built churches -- these came later in history after the persecutions were over. But it does mean the churches were large and organized.

Can you give me a scriptural reference for saying that James was a bishop? Where do you find support for saying that "there was an organizational structure with an ordained clergy of deacons, presbyters, and bishops". Members of the various churches were selected to perform various tasks (as God gave them gifts) but there was no "ordained clergy" as we think of such these days. Ordained clergy implies that they were somehow elevated above the rest of the body, rather than chosen to perform various functions. Remember, Jesus, rather than claiming to be special because he was sent by God, was a servant.