The second reformation.

[Gregory Thompson]

The first reformation protested the Pope

The second reformation protests the Pastor and the institution that creates the pastor.

thoughts?

 

[St_Worm2]

Hebrews 13
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

The Reformation was opposed to certain heresies and errors that crept into the church (beginning several hundred years earlier), not to the existence and the necessity of the church and/or its leadership in a general sense.

As for priests, bishops, overseers, elders, deacons, etc., I believe these positions of leadership are Biblical, not man-made, yes?

--David
p.s. - do you know of any examples of "churchless" Christians in the Bible?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hebrews 13
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.

The Reformation was opposed to certain heresies and errors that crept into the church (beginning several hundred years earlier), not to the existence and the necessity of the church and/or its leadership in a general sense.

As for priests, bishops, overseers, elders, deacons, etc., I believe these positions of leadership are Biblical, not man-made, yes?

--David
p.s. - do you know of any examples of "churchless" Christians in the Bible?

True.

And what is "the pillar and ground of the Truth" ... according to Scripture?






















The Church.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The first reformation protested the Pope

The second reformation protests the Pastor and the institution that creates the pastor.

thoughts?

We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Hebrews 10:23-25 "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching."

A pastor is scriptural, but I believe large congregations promote some to hide and never connect with any other believers at a personal level, and how can we exhort one another, if we don't know anything about them through relationship? So in larger congregations, everyone should be tied into a cell group for a weekly gathering together, led by a mature Christian, where everyone can discuss their needs, or discuss more Bible, or even a Christian study book. This is the point of church meetings, not to build an empire like with some of the mega-churches.

I used to not like church buildings, because they met in homes in the first century; but for new people coming into a community, that pagan originated steeple is helpful to locate fellow Christians, or for seekers of the faith. It doesn't have the same meaning as it once did. Nor does December 25th, or Easter. I don't mind stealing from Satan to honor Christ. And with miracles still happening in those buildings, neither does God.

 

[SkyWriting]

I believe these positions of leadership are Biblical, not man-made, yes?

The (version of the Bible you prefer to use) was written, gathered, edited, and recently translated by men.

 

[paul1149]

The second reformation protests the Pastor and the institution that creates the pastor.

I'm unaware of any half-responsible voice that wants to write the pastorate out of the domata gifts, or that protests the Bible, which creates the office of pastor, or the church, which selects the person who holds the office.

What I am aware of is a desire to return to the plurality of eldership, and to move away from churches being run as institutions and fiefdoms. I understand that even Luther expressed a desire to move in that direction, but because of the political necessities of the time could not do so.

 

[Albion]

The first reformation protested the Pope

The second reformation protests the Pastor and the institution that creates the pastor.

thoughts?

Since you ask, I'd say "no." The first Reformation wasn't exactly about the Pope. It was against a bigger drift away from the Apostolic faith that had occurred. Remember the Solas. Not one of them was about demoting the bishop of Rome.

And as for the idea that a second Reformation protests the role of a pastor??? That will have to develop before we can make that judgment. It hasn't done so thus far. Almost all the churches that have come along since the Reformation, the second and third generation Protestants, you might say, accept the role of a pastor.

Sure, some Quakers and a few others might fit the scenario, but it would be much easier to make the case that a second Reformation was built around Pentecostalism or some other theme.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I took the thread to be about the "Radical Reformation".

In part (borrowed from Wikipedia for convenience sake)

Unlike the Catholics and the more Magisterial Lutheran and Reformed (Zwinglian and Calvinist) Protestant movements, some of the Radical Reformation abandoned the idea that the "Church visible" was distinct from the "Church invisible."[3] Thus, the Church only consisted of the tiny community of believers, who accepted Jesus Christ and demonstrated this by adult baptism, called "believer's baptism".

While the magisterial reformers wanted to substitute their own learned elite for the learned elite of the Catholic Church, the radical Protestant groups rejected the authority of the institutional "church" organization, almost entirely, as being unbiblical.

(End paste)

I have seen many, many of CF that consider themselves and their own interpretation of Scripture as a sole "authority" despite what any Church might say.

I took this to be the subject of the thread? So I would have to agree that the visible Church as an authority, and people trained in leadership, are rejected by some, though they may choose to follow untrained (in most cases) leadership, or simply have no leadership at all.

So yes, I see it as rejecting the pastors and other leaders, as well as the Church that produced them.

 

[Albion]

I took the thread to be about the "Radical Reformation".

I hadn't taken it that way, for two reasons. Michael put the second Reformation he was thinking of in the present tense and, second, the Radical Reformation is usually thought of as part of the original, overall, Protestant Reformation.

I have seen many, many of CF that consider themselves and their own interpretation of Scripture as a sole "authority" despite what any Church might say.

I took this to be the subject of the thread?

You mean that this attitude is inherently anti-pastor? To me, it's more like anti-church. Usually, the posters who talk that way identify themselves as "non-denominational" and say they don't need any assembly at all. That's different from thinking that the authority vested in a pastor is unScriptural (or so it seems to me).

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In general, there is a movement like that. So I thought I'd bring it up so it could be discussed.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Some years ago this movement was called the emergent church, but there are so many movements within it, a label is not productive.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think it is helpful for the sake of the subject discussion to separate the spiritual gift of pastor, and the profession of pastor as one requires approval of God and the other requires approval from people.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I think it is helpful for the sake of the subject discussion to separate the spiritual gift of pastor, and the profession of pastor as one requires approval of God and the other requires approval from people.

Paul was a tent maker by trade.

 

[Albion]

I think it is helpful for the sake of the subject discussion to separate the spiritual gift of pastor, and the profession of pastor as one requires approval of God and the other requires approval from people.

The position of pastor is Biblical, but the actual person to be installed is subject to a call from the people of God.

This was a principle of the first, original, Reformation when it asserted the idea of the 'priesthood of all believers' against the existing form of church government that was hierarchical with bishops making the call.

Whether or not he should be paid, how much the salary is to be, and so on is uip to the same people who make up the congregation.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The position of pastor is Biblical, but the actual person to be installed is subject to a call from the people of God.

This was a principle of the first, original, Reformation when it asserted the idea of the 'priesthood of all believers' against the existing form of church government that was hierarchical with bishops making the call.

Whether or not he should be paid, how much the salary is to be, and so on is uip to the same people who make up the congregation.

I understand the biblical premise of the whole thing. I'm just considering the perspective of the other side. For example: since pastors need to go to a church approved seminary, isn't the modern pastor a means of scratching itching ears?

 

[Albion]

I understand the biblical premise of the whole thing. I'm just considering the perspective of the other side. For example: since pastors need to go to a church approved seminary, isn't the modern pastor a means of scratching itching ears?

Hmm. For one thing, "pastors" do not need to have attended a seminary. That's something each denomination decides. And if the pastor is allowed to get away with certain improper practices, that's the fault of the congregation (or the regional or national church). But I don't believe that this the norm.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Hmm. For one thing, "pastors" do not need to have attended a seminary. That's something each denomination decides. And if the pastor is allowed to get away with certain improper practices, that's the fault of the congregation (or the regional or national church). But I don't believe that this the norm.

Good to know.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I hadn't taken it that way, for two reasons. Michael put the second Reformation he was thinking of in the present tense and, second, the Radical Reformation is usually thought of as part of the original, overall, Protestant Reformation.

Right. I just thought we should be on the same page, since I appeared to be disagreeing with you, but it's only because I had a different reformation in mind. The finer details of that part of Christian history are not something I've studied, though I've been over it in generalities a number of times, and read biographies.

You mean that this attitude is inherently anti-pastor? To me, it's more like anti-church. Usually, the posters who talk that way identify themselves as "non-denominational" and say they don't need any assembly at all. That's different from thinking that the authority vested in a pastor is unScriptural (or so it seems to me).

There are gradients within the attitude, from what I've seen.

Some will accept an overarching authority created by a collection of particular denominational strain of churches, and seminary educated pastors.

Some will accept their own gathering (church/congregation) and their own seminary-educated pastor.

Or their own congregation and a chosen non-educated pastor.

Some accept their own congregation, but no pastor leading it. Maybe leaderships cycles, from one meeting to the next, or within a particular meeting. Or maybe there is no discernible leadership at all.

Some accept only themselves and generally hold the Scriptures in authority, and seek their own interpretation, and attend no meeting at all.


I've seen all of these at CF. I've at least visited each of them in person. (Including the last, not by design, but because I had a re-conversion apart from any church and didn't begin attending until some months later ... because it became abundantly clear to me that that was what I was supposed to do.)

So inherently? I don't know. The seeds can be there. How far it grows depends on various factors. I'm not even so sure that anti-Church or anti-pastor precedes the other, necessarily, unless by "Church" you mean something like a major ecclesiastical authority, which yes, I think is always the first step.

 

[redleghunter]

Some years ago this movement was called the emergent church, but there are so many movements within it, a label is not productive.

Some info for those just 'seeing' that term used for the first time:

Question: "What is the emerging / emergent church movement?"

Answer: The emerging, or emergent, church movement takes its name from the idea that as culture changes, a new church should emerge in response. In this case, it is a response by various church leaders to the current era of post-modernism. Although post-modernism began in the 1950s, the church didn't really seek to conform to its tenets until the 1990s. Post-modernism can be thought of as a dissolution of "cold, hard fact" in favor of "warm, fuzzy subjectivity." The emerging / emergent church movement can be thought of the same way.

The emerging / emergent church movement falls into line with basic post-modernist thinking—it is about experience over reason, subjectivity over objectivity, spirituality over religion, images over words, outward over inward, feelings over truth. These are reactions to modernism and are thought to be necessary in order to actively engage contemporary culture. This movement is still fairly new, though, so there is not yet a standard method of "doing" church amongst the groups choosing to take a post-modern mindset. In fact, the emerging church rejects any standard methodology for doing anything. Therefore, there is a huge range of how far groups take a post-modernist approach to Christianity. Some groups go only a little way in order to impact their community for Christ, and remain biblically sound. Most groups, however, embrace post-modernist thinking, which eventually leads to a very liberal, loose translation of the Bible. This, in turn, lends to liberal doctrine and theology.

More here: What is the emerging / emergent church movement?

And here: What is the Emerging Church? | CARM.org

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Some info for those just 'seeing' that term used for the first time:

Question: "What is the emerging / emergent church movement?"

Answer: The emerging, or emergent, church movement takes its name from the idea that as culture changes, a new church should emerge in response. In this case, it is a response by various church leaders to the current era of post-modernism. Although post-modernism began in the 1950s, the church didn't really seek to conform to its tenets until the 1990s. Post-modernism can be thought of as a dissolution of "cold, hard fact" in favor of "warm, fuzzy subjectivity." The emerging / emergent church movement can be thought of the same way.

The emerging / emergent church movement falls into line with basic post-modernist thinking—it is about experience over reason, subjectivity over objectivity, spirituality over religion, images over words, outward over inward, feelings over truth. These are reactions to modernism and are thought to be necessary in order to actively engage contemporary culture. This movement is still fairly new, though, so there is not yet a standard method of "doing" church amongst the groups choosing to take a post-modern mindset. In fact, the emerging church rejects any standard methodology for doing anything. Therefore, there is a huge range of how far groups take a post-modernist approach to Christianity. Some groups go only a little way in order to impact their community for Christ, and remain biblically sound. Most groups, however, embrace post-modernist thinking, which eventually leads to a very liberal, loose translation of the Bible. This, in turn, lends to liberal doctrine and theology.

More here: What is the emerging / emergent church movement?

And here: What is the Emerging Church? | CARM.org

I was more familiar with the groups that were tired of unbiblical abusive church and seemed to be forming new churches or networks of communities. It's a general area to go if you "received wounds in the house of your friends"

I kind of hope from the pattern I'm observing, that the church grows from this and doesn't create a permanent third group to go to in protest.