The theme of this thread is to gain insight into the way Church has evolved from the charismatic church to become the institutional Church. We will look into how this revolutionized the way most denominations modelled their operations hence becoming an army of bureaucrats that direct their various worldwide missions from some central headquarters. Whether this is right or wrong is not the basis of this write up. It is up to you to form your own opinion.

The story of the earliest church in Jerusalem shows that it began with a charismatic understanding of its own life. These early followers of Jesus were dominated by their experience of the Holy Spirit at work among them, and at the very beginning they gave little thought to the problems of organising the infant church. It never occurred to them to appoint officials or write a constitution, nor did they find it necessary to establish an army of bureaucrats to direct their worldwide mission from some central headquarters. They believed they already had the only organising force they needed, in the guidance of the Holy Spirit.The Spirit told them what to say in their preaching, and gave them the boldness to say it.

Acts 4:31
After this prayer, the meeting place shook, and they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Then they preached the word of God with boldness.

When Ananias and Sapphira tried to deceive the church, Peter had no doubt that this was a direct challenge not to himself, but to the Holy Spirit. (Acts 5:9).  For the church did not belong to the apostles: it had come into being with the arrival of the Spirit, and the ultimate responsibility of its members was to God. When the church at Antioch in Syria sent Paul and Barnabas off as missionaries, it was acting on the instructions of the Holy Spirit, who spoke directly to the congregation through certain Spirit-filled individuals within it (Acts 13:1-3).It is the sense of dependence on the Holy Spirit’s guidance that has lead some readers of the NT to not regard the books of Acts as ‘The Acts of the Holy Spirit’

This way of doing things have become quite foreign in churches of nowadays, though it is not so different from what has happened in recent decades in the growth of some African indigenous Christian churches like (Aladura  C&S and Celestial Church of Christ) that I have personally experienced. E.g. in this churches, the name of a children is given by divine revelation of the Holy Spirit. My children got their names this way. This difference of approach underlines a fundamental distinction that must be drawn between the life of the earliest church and the way in which the Christian church subsequently developed within the Western cultural context from which most African Pentecostal churches share values from.

At the beginning, nobody ever sat down and planned to start the church. When Jesus died on the cross, his disciples were for the most part disillusioned and perplexed. This was not what they had expected, and even after the resurrection they were still apprehensive (Luke 24:13-24). The church was not the brain-child of the disciples: it was the work of God. On the day of Pentecost, God spoke to its founder members and worked among them with such power that they had no option but to respond. Into the deadness of their own frustration, the Spirit breathed the life of God in to them and, as individual disciples experienced the compelling power of the Holy Spirit for themselves, they were drawn together in a community of love and friendship. Their educational, social, economic and political backgrounds were quite diverse, and the only thing they had in common was the fact that, through the Holy Spirit, God had transformed their lives. They were bound together as a group, not by the fact that they all belong to the same denomination but because they were all inspired by the same Holy Spirit. It is at this point that we can locate the distinctive self-understanding of the early church. Unlike later generations of Christians, they never saw themselves as any kind of bureaucratic organisation, but preferred to describe their communities as a living organism.  Apostle Paul expressed this idea most explicitly with his use of the terminology of ‘The body of Christ’

Romans 12:5
‘So it is with Christ’s body, we are many parts of one body, and we all belong to each other’

According to history, within the space of about 40 years, all this had changed quite dramatically.  There is an early Christian document called ‘1 clement’. This was a letter sent from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth in about AD 95. It is a good resource for studying the NT.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

It provides insight into what was going on at the time in two churches that were well documented in the NT.  The division, controversies and arguments in the church of Corinth is well documented. The concept of the institutional church was the  new argument the church of Rome’s tried to used to put things right. Did it work? Pass your judgment on that!

It was suggested that certain leaders in the church had special authority, which was vested in them by their position as accredited officials in a church hierarchy. The food of thought of that era was ‘the apostles have received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. According to them, both these appointments were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God’ Therefore the apostles appointed the first-fruits of their labours to be bishops and deacons for those who will believe.  See all this, we can be justified to conclude that these so called local ‘bishops and deacons’  in the church at Rome were being thought of as the successors of the apostles, not just metaphorically, but quite literally.

It is not foolish to discern a significant change in the church’s self understanding. The early total dependence on the idea that the church must be fully guided by the Holy Spirit was gradually diminishing. Christians were leaning more and more towards the church been organised along increasingly institutional lines.

CONCLUSION

Why did this happen? Was it just an accident? Or was it a part of some ancient anti-charismatic plot by subversive elements in the church? Or was it perhaps just a good example of the way that any new movement founded by a dynamic leader will eventually become yet another mega church on the horizon?

PART TWO – COMING SOON!!!
FOUR MAIN REASONS FOR THIS CHANGE IN THE SYTLE OF THE EARLY CHURCH.

God bless

God bless , the idea of the church is a work of the holy spirit . That's why we can't be dogmatic in the church. Because the spirt works in different ways ,but still according to the foundation of the gospel.

This way of doing things have become quite foreign in churches of nowadays, though it is not so different from what has happened in recent decades in the growth of some African indigenous Christian churches like (Aladura  C&S and Celestial Church of Christ) that I have personally experienced. E.g. in this churches, the name of a children is given by divine revelation of the Holy Spirit. My children got their names this way. This difference of approach underlines a fundamental distinction that must be drawn between the life of the earliest church and the way in which the Christian church subsequently developed within the Western cultural context from which most African Pentecostal churches share values from.

When I left the White garment church, I used to criticise it , but as I get to know better I see that God was in all . The foundation was pure and sincere Even though some haven't built on the word over the years ,some have embraced teaching of the gospel.

Very inspiriing thread. God bless you.

^^^^^^^^^ question to anyone; how did the word church has anything to do with what jesus brought; the reestablishment of what old prophets brought?

give me a reason that temple is now church if it is physical.

if it is spiritual which christian often argue it is the other form, how is belief in One God is always in heaven becomes 'three persons' idea?

@joeagbaje; « #1 on: Yesterday at 05:44:59 AM »
[Quote]God bless , the idea of the church is a work of the holy spirit . That's why we can't be dogmatic in the church. Because[b] the spirt works in different ways ,but still according to the foundation of the gospel.[/b][/Quote]which one needs to dance to the tune of the other; Yahweh Who sent Jesus, or Jesus who was sent by Yahweh? i do hope you will say it is jesus the slave and servant that must dance to the Will of his Lord God. if this is the case, how can the Holy spirit which you say is God Lord in the spirit [as if Lord God Who is at in heaven according to jesus is an entity you see, [i wonder anyhow that this God in the Spirit [Holy Spirit]]] will have to dance to the mere tune of the life story [The Gospel] of a part time God, at best, who exhibited 100% human quality? in your bible it is the holy spirit that helped Jesus, not jesus helping the holy spirit.



[Quote]When I left the White garment church, I used to criticise it , but as I get to know better I see that God was in all . The foundation was pure and sincere Even though some haven't built on the word over the years ,some have embraced teaching of the gospel.[/Quote]didn't God instruct Jesus on or of anything? what would you call the instruction? where can we find the collection of the instruction? the collection must is revelation. this revelation i believe in, i act on what came to Muhammad 100%. the story of the journeys of jesus is not revelation. if you dont know it, i definitely know it.

Sweetnecta:

^^^^^^^^^ question to anyone; how did the word church has anything to do with what jesus brought; the reestablishment of what old prophets brought?

give me a reason that temple is now church if it is physical.

if it is spiritual which christian often argue it is the other form, how is belief in One God is always in heaven becomes 'three persons' idea?

Act 2:46
‘They [b]worshipped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord’s Supper, and shared their meals with great Joy and generosity’[/b]

From the onset, the foundation members of christianity did both. They worshipped at the Temple and also gathered together in homes. Then the unimaginably happen, more people accepted Jesus as Lord and savior and these "Homes" could no longer contain them. Therefore the progression was obvious in order to accommodate the growth.

Another reason was the leadership of the Temple did not accept the Christian belief and became hostile towards them. So they had to gather somewhere else

In regards to the 'Holy Trinty', We know that There is only one God, and it is him that we serve

Deut 6:4
"Listen O lsrael! The Lord is our God is one Lord."

Deut. 32:39

“I am He, and there is no god besides Me”

Only Him is worthy of our worship. But looking deeper, we should not ignore the diversity of God.



Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us---------"

"Let us" ?

Genesis 1:2
The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

The Spirit of God?

John 15:26

But I will send you the Advocate, the Spirit of truth. He will come to you from the Father and will testify all about me.

I will send?  Mohammed?
"