Hierarchy within the Body of Christ

 

 For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus   For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ [1] There is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free there is neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus [2]  And if you be Christ’s then are you Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise [3]

Galatians 3:26-29

---

[1] Galatians 3:27 is not speaking of water baptism. It is speaking of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which baptizes all believers into the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). 

[2] Galatians 3:28 obliterates all notions of hierarchy within the Body of Christ. There is no racial, ethnic, or gender hierarchy among the Out-Calleds of Christ. Unscriptural organizations have implemented hierarchy from the beginning, thus corrupting the worship, service, and preaching of Christ, limiting to males most forms of leadership seen in modern churches, but not ordained by our Creator.

[3] Galatians 3:29, is an awesome revelation to the Body of Christ that in no way negates promises made to the physical seedof Abraham [the Jews/Hebrews]. The Body of Christ and the people of the world who will inhabit the first one-thousand years of Christ’s earthly Kingdom will participate in the common wealth of the nation of Israel.

The Bible says, the New Covenant is a better covenant based on better promises. The Old Covenant contains amazing promises. But not a single promise made to Abraham and his physical descendants is taken from them and “transferred” to “The Church.” This is a false and anti-Semitic teaching that began with the organization founded by Constantine and later called Roman Catholicism, with the Vatican as its capitol and also its embassy. Not many understand that the Vatican City is a sovereign nation which many nations, including, the united states, have ambassador’s to. The goal of the Vatican has always been a literal, global dominion of Roman Catholicism in an attempt to usurp the promise that Israel will one day be the head nation in Christ’s global Kingdom.

Historically, the Vatican has used military and naval power (Spanish Armada) and terrorism (the Spanish Inquisition) to achieve this goal. They now use the ecumenical movement [which they founded] to achieve global dominance in appropriating to themselves, what God promised the Jews. 

Protestants also have their own anti-Semitic version of what it means to be “Abraham’s seed.” We see this in the false teachings of Reformed and Dominion theologies. Though reformed and dominion teachings are not identical and disagree on many points, but both paradigms appropriate to themselves promises made to Abraham, and both groups are anti-Semitic in their disavowal of the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…Israel. Some Messianic groups are anti-Semitic in this way, as well, using Galatians 3:29 as a basis for disavowing physical the Jews as God’s chosen people.

This is an excerpt from The Hungry Hearts Bible Commentary edited by this author.

 

. Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery & the Evangelical Caste System: Andersen, Jocelyn: 9780979429323: Amazon.com: Books

What readers are saying:

"This book is well written, well researched, and a real eye opener."

"Andersen is a gifted writer, and the book was easy to read even as it covers thoughtful and sometimes technical information. I am glad I read it. I’ve read a great deal about women in the church and home, and it is easy to think there is nothing new to be learned or considered – but this book has a unique approach and covers aspects overlooked by others. Everything is well documented with footnotes in case you have questions or want sources."

"The author is not only a gifted writer but clearly well-studied and informed."

" I was pleased that translation bias was covered in a chapter, an issue that needs to be addressed, and one that I find quite hard to bring up with lay people or everyday believers who lack knowledge about Bible translation. We can trust our Bibles, but we also need to acknowledge that certain passages are hard to translate and bias can come into play."

"Andersen tackles most of the primary the teachings of complementarianism with an impressive exegesis"

Woman this is WAR! Gender, Slavery & the Evangelical Caste System: Andersen, Jocelyn: 9780979429323: Amazon.com: Books

 Author and speaker, Jocelyn Andersen, is an eclectic Christian writer. She is a Bible teacher who writes about many subjects including Bible prophecy and equality of the sexes. She is best known for her advocacy in domestic violence awareness. Her book, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence, has been a staple in the library of resources on that subject.  

If the topic of God and Women interests you, join the conversation HERE.

To receive an announcement from Amazon whenever a new book is released by Jocelyn Andersen, subscribe to Her Amazon author's page.

To Contact Jocelyn: Use the contact form in the sidebar of her blog at www.jocelynandersen.com to leave comments on her books, to reach her with questions, or to request for her to come and speak at your group. 

The Church in Time-of-Covid

 

What perfect timing that my on-track Bible reading puts me in the book of Acts during this time-of-Covid, that has been so challenging to the Church. 

This present distress has forced believers to re-assess the ways in which they walk-out their faith. The first believers had to do the same. Would to God we mimic their faith and courage.

 My Bible commentary on the Book of Acts is still a work in progress. The chapters will be posted on my Bible commentary blog as they are completed. Below is an excerpt:

            Acts 4:1-2 And as they spoke to the people the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them Being grieved that they taught the people and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead [1]

---

[1] Followers of Jesus have been a feared and outlawed sect from the beginning. He and his disciples (not just the twelve) threatened the status quo of the political-religious leadership of his day, just as true Believers still do today. 

The move to create an official organization of the relationship-based “Out-Called” [the Ek-klesia] came early. Its purpose was entirely about control. 

The moniker of “The Church” was placed in Bible translations referring to that organization which has been headed by Popes at the Vatican. After that, hierarchical protestant religions followed suit in the reformation. But even before that, in the third century, the Roman Emperor Constantine made a successful move to influence the people’s perception of the Body of Christ—the Ek-klesia—by creating a political-religious organization of it.

Jesus did not call his people “The Church.” That is just one example of God's people being influenced by hierarchical-English-translation-theology. He called the body of those who would follow him after his resurrection, the Ek-klesia, meaning the Out-Called. 

To this day, many Christian leaders of all denominations, even those who claim to be non-denominational, deliberately engender a fear of “rebellion” in God’s people, via covenantal church membership. The fear is not of rebellion against God but of rebellion against human religious leadership. 

In many states, counties, and cities, Christians have been forbidden to gather together during these trying times. Their leadership, especially those in hierarchical-based fellowships, have [sadly] provided examples of obeying man rather than God. Is that the example of the earliest believers? 

Many Christian fellowships, today, are based on covenantal rule. And their leaders face a quandary, because the powers that be have forbidden many churches to hold services, or placed harsh restrictions on those that do. These leaders have trained their people so well to "Obey them who rule over you..." that when called upon choose between man's law or (in most cases these days) un-Constitutional mandates that order Christians to cease gathering together, they take the Bible out of context and choose man's law. 

After all, we can meet online. Right? 

We can, but for how long, and can the full practice of our faith--which includes the laying on of hands--be accomplished meeting only online? 

Meeting online is not a substitute for gathering together with other believers. The practice of our faith demands in-person gatherings. How can we obey Jesus' command to lay hands on the sick, if we only meet online? How can we lay hands on new messengers, pastors, deacons/deaconesses and send them forth, according to the Word of God...if we only meet online? 

Meeting online is not the solution. 

At any rate, it hasn't worked very well in China. Just this year, the Communist Chinese regime not only shut down churches meeting via Zoom, but arrested the members. China still has an official Church, but the Body of Christ in China has been forced underground...again. 

And unbiblical hierarchical Christianity does not work well in an underground church. Under Moses, God established a political-religious theocracy that continued even under Roman rule. But that ended with the cross. 

This new thing, Jesus called the Ekklesia--the Out-Called, was not an organization. It was not based on any chain of command like that of the Old Covenant priesthood. 

Rather, New Covenant leadership is based on gifts and callings, example and relationship. That is why Jesus made a point of telling his followers that where two or three of them were gathered together in his name, there he would be also. No quorum needed. No political-religious structure needed. No 501c3 with its hierarchical chain of command needed. 

In fact, a 501c3 structure harms the Ek-klesia, as it incorporates [literally] a chain of command where none biblically exists. In creating such, the Out-Called Body of Christ is done great harm as a whole and is spiritually detrimental to those who believe they have been called to rule.

Do a Greek word study of the verses in Hebrews 13:7and 17. These are usually only read to believers when leaders want to keep their flocks in line. English-translation-theology renderings of these verses [in virtually every Bible version] are unfortunate. Below is a literal amplified reading:

Hebrews 13:7, 17

Remember your [martyred] leaders who have spoken to you the Word of God whose faith mimic carefully considering their end [deaths] and manner of life…Have confidence in your leaders and yield [to their examples] because they watch in prayer over your souls as they must render a verbal report [of accountability of their teachings and your reception of any truth they taught] that they may bring it forth with joy and not grief because that would be unprofitable for you.

 

John 13:14-15

"If I then your lord and master have washed your feet You also ought to wash one another’s feet For I have given you an example that you should do as I have done to you...."

...

If this article has given you food for thought, please subscribe to my updates.  

Subscribe to Updates from Jocelyn!

...

What about you? Has your fellowship and gathering together with other believers been challenged during this time-of-Covid? Have you had to make difficult choices? If so, what solutions have you found? What choices have you made? Please share in the comments below.

What does CHURCHIANITY look like?

 

Being  CHURCHY smothers friendship, does not promote love, and hinders the work of the Gospel.

   That is why we must make every effort not to be "Churchy" Christians.
   When we are, we hurt people.
   We drive people away.
   And sometimes, we drive them away from more than just ourselves or our church fellowships....
   

CHURCHY Christianity, produces a paradigm I call "Churchianity."

   

What does CHURCHIANITY look like? I'll share a  personal experience as an example.
   I had plans one evening to attend a regularly scheduled Bible Study at a local assembly I love to visit several times a year. The pastors and I have known and respected one another for many years. And, because the pastors of this church are much more than acquaintances to me, I call them friends. But I am forced to use the term loosely, because the reality is, they fall shy of being true friends. 

   The reason is CHURCHIANITY. 

   I can love them and support them [and their ministry] in many ways, but cannot include them in my inner circle of friends and confidants, because I fully appreciate their limitations in relating to people in the capacity of equality and friendship--which requires transparent honesty [while maintaining healthy boundaries], and genuine respect.
   These are good people. They are not dysfunctional in the traditional sense--they are truly lovely in most respects. But they are dysfunctional in the religious sense.
   You see, the shield of their "pastorship" stands on full alert against the equality and intimacy that true friendship demands. 

   Do not misunderstand. I do not encourage disrespect of callings and positions of leadership, we should love and honor leaders who exhibit good examples of Christian living. And even CHURCHY Christians generally have many admirable traits which unfortunately are often diluted due to churchiness. What I am addressing in this post, is hiding behind titles, positions,  religiousity, and CHURCHIANITY, things which have a track-record of taking priority over relationships. 

   I have observed that many [well-intentioned and basically good-hearted] Christians seem to be unable to lower the shields of their "position" or CHURCHINESS...ever. 
   And it does damage in the lives of God's people.
  Sadly, most seminaries teach future pastors and Christian leaders, that the attitude of the couple in my story is the correct posture for pastors and their wives to take--but I disagree with that position. 

   The family relationship that connects every member of the Body of Christ  cannot flourish in a hierarchical, military-like, chain-of-command, structure that overwhelmingly produces CHURCHY and JUDGEMENTAL Christians, who fail to relate fully with those who may need their love and friendship but are instead rebuked, even rejected, when they make choices that may not be wrong at all but fall outside the paradigm of CHURCHIANITY.
   While appreciating this couple's many gifts and strengths, along with their sincere passion for the Gospel, I understand that they embrace the paradigm of hierarchical Christianity which includes filters that cloud discernment and prevents true empathy and bonding in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

   Back to my story:
   Since I had communicated with the pastor's wife about my plans to attend that evening, they were expecting to see me, so I felt it only right to let her know I would not be coming.
   The reason? Earlier that afternoon, I had learned that a dear friend [of almost twenty years] had passed away. This person had been a beloved friend, a part of the landscape of my life for twenty years. And now that landscape had been unexpectedly and dramatically changed...and I was heartbroken at the look of it, at the loss of a friend, ally, and mentor.
   Since I was expected to be at the Bible study that evening (I was not teaching it), I texted the pastor's wife and told her that I would not be there and briefly explained that a dear friend had died, I had been very weepy all afternoon, and simply was not up to interacting with people or going anywhere, not even to church.
   The well-meant but "CHURCHY" response I received to that text,  flabbergasted me. 

   And to be honest, it totally ticked me off. 

   I had obviously shared my sad news with the wrong person, but more importantly (I'm sharing this the way it went down--the way I felt at the time), I felt I had shared it on the wrong day.
   In her texted response, I was told they were sorry for my loss (so far so good), then I was rebuked for skipping church and condescendingly assured that they would pray for my "strength."
   Wow. How does being rebuked for not attending someone's 501c3 group meeting that night translate into love one another, bear one another's burdens, and weep with those who weep?
   What would have been wrong with saying, "We're so sorry to hear. We love you and understand. Would you like some company later? We can stop by for a bit after church?" 
   I certainly would  have appreciated their understanding and their offer, though I likely would have declined as I really did want to be alone that evening.
   What I did not understand and did not appreciate, was being told that church was the "best place to be" that night [despite my wishes to the contrary] but they would "pray" for my "strength."

   THIS, is an example of what CHURCHIANITY looks like and what to do if being a CHURCHY Christian is your goal.
   Please understand, that I never, EVER, turn down prayer. I appreciate and solicit all prayers on my behalf. And I generally believe gathering together with other believers is [or should be] one of the greatest places on earth to be. But I'm old enough to remember the days when people who called themselves your friends CAME TO YOU in times of sorrow and loss, instead of expecting you to come to them. And they certainly did not rebuke you for preferring to be in your own home during an evening of private grief because your news had the bad taste of inconveniently arriving on a day their 501c3 organization was holding a regularly scheduled meeting.
   I thank God for local churches, but almost all local fellowships are 501c3 organizations where the ekklesia meets. It is the Christians themselves (not the 501c3 faith-based non-profit organization) who are the CHURCH--the ekklesia.

   Sadness over the loss of a friend does not generally make one weak

   I did not feel I needed strength that day--only the time and space to grieve the loss of my friend. At the time, I felt the statement about praying for my "strength" was more connected to my choice to stay home from church rather than the fact that I had lost a dear friend. I felt that my choice to spend the evening at home in private grief rather than come to church was viewed as weakness. I still feel that way.

   But I felt my grief was normal, appropriate, and even healthy. What was wrong with wanting to mourn my friend's passing in the solitude and privacy of my own home instead of at a public church meeting?
   Right or wrong, I felt both remarks [praying for my strength and the rebuke for not coming to church that night], were condescending, "CHURCHY," and lacked empathy. And in the emotional weepy state I was, it impacted me in a much more dramatic and painful way than it would have had my sorrow not been freely flowing from my eyes and down my cheeks all that afternoon.
   Being sorrowful because someone we love has died, is not a "weakness." It is completely natural. What I would have loved and appreciated, would have been a positive message that my sadness was understood and that I had friends who  loved me without placing inappropriate "church guilt" on me for not attending their meeting simply because someone had died.
   I realized that I was emotional and worried that I might have been over-reacting to what I felt was a CHURCHY response. I knew this Christian did not intend her message to hurt. But her religious response, containing a thinly-veiled criticism and condemnation had injected a sense of injustice and even anger into my grief that did not belong there. I did not feel that I was doing anything wrong, but they obviously did, and now I had to deal with that judgement on top of everything else (and I wasn't dealing with it too well at the time, I didn't think). 

   I did not feel I was being a bad Christian, but they obviously did. I did not feel I owed anyone any explanation at all as to why I did not attend their meeting that night--except as a courtesy, because I had made special plans to be there, and had told them to expect me.
   I was offended. I admit it.
  I discerned the rebuke and condescension and felt they were passive-aggressive "CHURCHY" remarks, intended to set me straight in a way that would hopefully not make the person making the remarks appear or sound uncaring.

   But that's exactly the way they looked and sounded to me.    

   Now, I know that the person who made these remarks generally means well and probably spoke without thinking how her remarks might sound or how they might be taken by someone who had just admitted to her that they were in an emotional "weepy" state. But "CHURCHY" attitudes [from this person] had come out more than once over the years. We have communicated together about this "issue," but to no avail as of the time of this writing. Everything is swept under the rug and remains unresolved. 

   How much of this can any relationship bear?
   I write this, in hopes that light can be shed on the the problem of "CHURCHY CHURCHIANITY." It is widespread. This is not the only example I can give--and have heard from others whose experiences are even worse. My hope and prayer is that God's people will see CHURCHIANITY for the shallow and hurtful, lose-lose, fraud, that it is... and change it. 

   Yes, this interaction affected me in a personal and hurtful way. Did it cause me to write them off and vow never to visit their church again? No. I have fellowshipped with them many times since. Did it cause me to question and doubt their good intentions and faith? No. We are all works in progress. Did it cause me to question God's love for me? Of course not. 

   But I have spoken with many people who testify that has not been the case for them.  

   CHURCHY Christians do not intend to drive people away from fellowship with other Christians or even away from God, but they sometimes do!
   Loving one another other is not rocket science, and religiousity has no place in relationships.
   People of God, it is time to throw out CHURCHIANITY. It is time to repent of the times we may have been "CHURCHY" Christians ourselves [if we are truthful, we can admit that, at some point, we all have been], but through the help of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit we can be convicted of hurtful behaviors and attitudes...and change them when they appear in our own lives. We can stop churchianity in its tracks.

Have you experienced hurtful and disappointing CHURCHY CHURCHIANITY? How did it affect you? How did you deal with it? Share your experience in the comment section below.