The Clergy/laity System

[Saint Nicholas]

Eileen wrote in the Federal Vision thread:

"Nicholas,
I often get too emotional when the ‘whore’ is discussed because I still go to a reformed church and I always take these things to heart and flee the discussion. Then it takes me some time to think on them and when they continue to bother me I know it is time to understand instead of flee. If anyone has a mind to discuss them with me I have a few questions.

I understand the cancers that are spoken of above but I wonder if there could be some expansion on the Clergy/laity reference because that is the one that I don’t understand. Is it the traditions of the ‘church’ in regards to the pastor and that some of those traditions run along the same line as the pope distinction that is the cancer? That one man has rule, that one man has the authority over the sheep? How do we distinguish what are the God given gifts of teachers, pastors, elders, etc. from the abuse of those gifts? How do we bring the whole idea of the NT ‘ekklesia’ into today and use the whole idea of those men given to the ‘ekklesia’ for our edification?

Is that where there is basic abuse, in that those roles have assumed authority and power where it is not God given and if so could someone draw that out a bit?"


Dear Eileen........I will try to answer your questions as best as possible.

Is it the traditions of the ‘church’ in regards to the pastor and that some of those traditions run along the same line as the pope distinction that is the cancer?

Yes. But not to the extent and extreme of the Roman Pontiff. The inherent fundamental error still is the same. Most non-catholic clergymen do not submit and pay obeisance to one man, however they must still submit to a body of men that are over them in their denomination. Generally, these are the men who humanly ordained the clergyman, trained via seminary, and installed them. This caste clergy system rarely fully answers to their laity, and in most cases answers only to the upper chain of command of other clergymen.

That one man has rule, that one man has the authority over the sheep?

This has always been the goal of anti-Christ and all demonic religions. And this also has been prevalent with dictatorships politically speaking. However, the goal with the former is to control the flow of information to the laity through a one main voice [the clergy pastor]. How many times have you stood up in your meetings or services and dared to question and or disagree with your pastor/clergymen? Try it once or twice and you will experience what I am talking about.

How do we distinguish what are the God given gifts of teachers, pastors, elders, etc. from the abuse of those gifts?

The unbiblical clergy system is what we are discussing here, not abuses of gifts. The clergy system is neither an office or an abuse of a gift or gifts. Being called to the clergy is not a gift. Therefore it cannot be abused in the Biblical sense.

How do we bring the whole idea of the NT ‘ekklesia’ into today and use the whole idea of those men given to the ‘ekklesia’ for our edification?

Your question in context, presupposes the legitimacy of the clergy system. The edification of the elect is laid out in the scriptures. Ephesians 4:11-16 There is no hint at all in the New Testament of a caste/clergy system. The very fact that I am writing this to you is a use of the gifts that God has given me. I am not a clergyman Eileen.

Is that where there is basic abuse, in that those roles have assumed authority and power where it is not God given and if so could someone draw that out a bit?"

First of all, The clergy is not a role, neither an office. Even if the clergy did not assume authority and power, the clergy system would still be at fault by it’s very nature and essence.

I hoped this has helped, however below I have listed some links that may shed more light on this subject. Since I do not know all that the below writers teach, I at this time cannot fully endorse all their teachings. But do agree with their assessments pertaining to the Clergy system.

Nicholas

http://www.scionofzion.com/clergy.htm
http://www.searchingtogether.org/articles/clergylaity.htm
http://www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/clergy.htm
http://procinwarn.com/professional_clergy_system.htm
http://www.gnte.org/ecopub/Messages/nicolaitanism.htm

I think the above should suffice for now. However there are many other sites if these are not enough.

[Eileen]

Thank you for your reply and the links Nicholas. I won’t respond in depth until the weekend as I have very little free time during the week. I have read the first article which actually shed some light in a way I didn’t expect. I wonder if because many (not myself) in the reformed tradition still hold to the idea that the New Covenant is just a different administration of the Mosiac Covenant that they still find their distinctions in the clergy/laity as legitimate because of that covenant, bringing forward those types and shadows perhaps?

This caste clergy system rarely fully answers to their laity, and in most cases answers only to the upper chain of command of other clergymen.

Through various circumstances recently in the ‘church’ I found this to be true and the statement actually made that the pastor doesn’t answer to the congregation in any way, only to the classis when all along the laity (congregation) had the same exact mindset and answers to the problems that the classis did. There is wisdom among the laity that is never courted. I was challenged greatly in my thinking of the ‘clergy system’ and the challenge continues.

However, the goal with the former is to control the flow of information to the laity through a one main voice [the clergy pastor]. How many times have you stood up in your meetings or services and dared to question and or disagree with your pastor/clergymen? Try it once or twice and you will experience what I am talking about.

I don’t understand why anyone would want to control the flow of information to the laity, I don’t necessarily see that. I do see that there is a mindset of ‘we believe this and so must you’ maybe that is the same thing in your thinking. I do ask questions and most of the time I disagree with the answer, which is currently one reason I am looking into other alternatives.

The unbiblical clergy system is what we are discussing here, not abuses of gifts. The clergy system is neither an office or an abuse of a gift or gifts. Being called to the clergy is not a gift. Therefore it cannot be abused in the Biblical sense.

I see that I will have to re-think my language so that I can communicate my thoughts and questions. I hate for language to get in the way but often it does. I see that I use ‘churchy’ language from habit when it isn’t necessary and so I will try and think of the correct words to use.

Ok, the clergy system as we see it today is not an office or a role or found in scripture. I can agree with that. You pointed to Ephesians 4:11-16 and to the edification of the elect and that passage speaks of the gifts that God has given to specific people FOR the elect. They are men fitted by Christ with gifts and are called apostles, prophets evangelists, pastors and teachers. So these gifted men are for the edification and equipping of the saints and certainly don’t have to fit into a clergy system to use the gifts God has given them as attested to by even this forum but it is still a possibility these gifted men may abuse their gifts as well as those in the system. Would you agree with that?

How do we bring the whole idea of the NT ‘ekklesia’ into today and use the whole idea of those men given to the ‘ekklesia’ for our edification?

Your question in context, presupposes the legitimacy of the clergy system. The edification of the elect is laid out in the scriptures. Ephesians 4:11-16 There is no hint at all in the New Testament of a caste/clergy system. The very fact that I am writing this to you is a use of the gifts that God has given me. I am not a clergyman Eileen.

I recognize that your God given gift edifies me Nicholas and I do thank you for using it because it is an example of what I was asking. Do we individually recognize those gifts because we are saints? Is this how the ekklesia functions outside of the organized church today? Perhaps that would be for a different thread. Anyway, thank you and I will be reading the articles this week, I'm looking forward to them.

Eileen~

[Eileen]

I did so appreciate all of the articles and see that the distinctions promoted today are certainly ‘off the mark’ so to speak and undoubtedly come from a wrong view of HOW the ‘gifts’ of God given to the Church, the elect for their edification, are implemented into the body. I know it is bigger than that of course but when the simplicity of it hits you it is rather amazing isn’t it? Seems like there should be such a simple remedy and I see that is what can be found here to a degree, a remedy. Gifted men recognized by the body. The fullness of the body cannot however be found on a forum and that is where I continue to search for putting that fullness into practice.

I wonder if someone might address the “Nicolaitan” issue where some see the doctrine as the clergy/laity system because the word means “conqueror of the people” (one of the articles) and the most common definition is as follows copied from another article. Any thoughts as to both of these ideas?One is true one is false, is one based on tradition alone, etc?

Twice mentioned in the NT (Rev 2:6 & 15) as a sect whose works were hated by the ascended Lord and by the Ephesian Church but whose teaching was upheld by some professed Christians of Pergamon, and apparently tolerated by the Church there. Nicolaitan doctrine is associated with the teaching of Balaam,'who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, (inducing them) to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication ' (Rev 2:14). As Nicolaitan teaching is said to be held 'similarly', we may conclude that the Nicolaitans were a kindred antinomian sect, who abused the doctrine, emphasized by St. Paul, of Gentile liberty from the Mosaic Law. In defiance of that apostle's warnings (1 Cor 6:13-20, 8:9&10, 10:28) as well as of the decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:29) they permitted participation in heathen feasts connected with idolatry and in the fornication which frequently accompanied such feasts. The Nicolaitans represent a more advanced and aggressive state of antinomianism than that which was found in the CorinthianChurch. They are organised into a sect with a 'doctrine,' and stand in a nearer relationship to the 'false teachers' referred to in Jude 4,11,12 & 2 Peter 2:1,2,14,15, who 'turned the Grace of God into lasciviousness, 'denied even the Master' (probably through countenancing idolatry), and 'followed the way of Balaam,' 'running riotously in his error.'

Thanks for the continuing study!
Eileen~