Institutionalism, paid clergy, church programs, the canon of Scripture, and the early church

I posted the following text (with one typo now corrected) to a Christmas Eve post titled “Subversive Can Openers” at John Morehead’s blog today at 6:43 p.m. (U.S. Eastern Time):

"The early church had no buildings, no paid clergy, no programs (not even for families and children!), and no agreed upon canon of Scripture..." An interesting series of statements, to say the least. I think you're asking some important questions here, but I've always interpreted 1 Timothy 5:17-18 as indicating that the early church had paid elders. And as Kenneth Scott Latourette wrote, "As early as the beginning of the second century a differentiation between clergy and laity began to be seen..." "A History of Christianity," Volume 1: to A.D. 1500, (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1975), 183. And I've always seen 1 Timothy 5:3-16 as a description of a church program for the support of widows. As for the issue of the canon of Scripture in the 1st century church, I recommend consulting "Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity," by John Barton of Oxford (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997) before anachronistically reading later canonical concepts into the frist three centuries of church history and then drawing rash conclusions about how the church of those years treated what we now call the canon. Much work still needs to be done in the area of the early church's view of the canon. But none of this negates the essential value of the question I hear you asking: is something (an informal network of people, an institution with regular meetings, or whatever) a church simply because it calls itself a church, even though it doesn't function in any way similar to the way the early church did? But then, to where should we turn for an authoritative description of the early church, and which of their diverse writings should we view as normative for us today? It also seems to me that you're using the word "institution" more in the sense of "institutionalism," i.e., "emphasis on organization (as in religion) at the expense of other factors" ("Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary," [Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1977], 599), the "other factors" being what really matters, whereas calling the church an "institution" simply implies that it was established (instituted), or that it has some sort of organizational structure, both of which I find impossible to avoid in reality. Unless you indicate otherwise I'll assume you're writing about what I refer to
as institutionalism, in which case you have my wholehearted agreement that it is as far from the intentions of Christ and his apostles as you can get. When it takes root in any church, its spiritual vitality immediately begins to die.

emerging conversation

I started a new blog this morning called “Emerging Conversation” in which I’m trying to initiate a conversation about the Emerging Church. I realize that there’s an awful lot on the Web about this subject, but that fact only highlights the challenge: where does one begin? Is there primary text, or a canon of literature I may consult? I’ve also noticed that much of the material on the Net is of a contentious nature. And I understand that some of that contention has also been committed to print. While I’ve never been one to avoid a good debate, in the spirit of Renaissance humanism (Ad fontes! — “To the sources!”) I think I should first familiarize myself with what the emerging movers and shakers are actually saying and doing before expressing any opinion of my own. And since this emergence has been going on for some time, it will probably take a while before I feel qualified to have an opinion, which, when I finally get it, I hope to express in a loving spirit.

Meanwhile, as I was going about the business of setting up this new blog, my first choice for a name was “Emerging Church,” but apparently that one is already taken (even though there currently doesn’t appear to be an actual blog at that blogspot sub-domain). So then I chose “Emergent Church,” though little did I know that someone had actually already started blogging there—over a year ago, however, which is probably why Blogger.com allowed me to usurp that sub-domain and start blogging right over the previous posts. I discovered this fact accidentally, and truly regretted defacing someone else’s work, no matter how neglected it may have been. So I suppose this is a lesson to all of us who use Blogger: don’t allow your blogs to sit idle for too many months if you expect to keep them. In the end I didn’t like the name, and if I don’t delete it I may use it as a place to store interesting citations from Emerging Church literature.

free country

Last night, as I was preparing to read chapter 4 of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe to Ben, I noticed that he was watching a particularly dark episode of some cop profiler drama, and I registered my disapproval with Wendy. Ben entered the discussion with his usual flair, objecting to our efforts to circumscribe his TV viewing, with his climactic line being, "This is a free country! I have my rights!"

He's only seven. Where does he get this stuff?