If I were leading a movement, it would be an anti-denominational movement.
Granted, an awful lot of folks who claim something like that are actually fighting for their denomination as the only proper one. I’m doing nothing of the sort. As far as I’m concerned, just about everything in Church History after the death of Apostle John was at least suspect, if not plain bogus. The world is full of theologians and churchmen reading their own denomination back into the New Testament, but it’s really not that hard to discover they are almost all lying.
The original churches were simply Christian synagogues. Men sat down close to the front, boys near or after their bar-mitzvahs mixed in with them. Women and younger children sat near the back. Men could participate and ask questions; women’s voices were not heard. Granted, a major difference was that churches didn’t require a minimum of ten families to start meeting in full worship, so some of the formality could be reduced for smaller groups.
But the whole thing was one big family; it was literally organized like an extended family household, fully patriarchal in the Hebrew style of eastern feudalism. Unlike the highly evolved structure of a classic synagogue, the church was more organic in representing the New Israel. Thus, they always had to Two Witnesses: Priest and King. The pastor was rather like a priest in ceremonial leadership. He was trained and appointed. The elder was the family chief (“king”), the organizational leader rising naturally by seniority and capability. The elder never worked without a female advisor; somebody had to play the role of matriarch. Younger adults could be appointed as deacons and deaconesses, essentially attendants to keep things running smoothly.
Paul saw no problem bringing to Gentile believers some of the Hebrew customs. In “rightly dividing” the Old Covenant, Paul said it was necessary to discern what fit and what didn’t. The question was always whether a particular thing was meant only for old Israel — the covenant for that people, that land, that time in history — and what was a fair manifestation of universal moral character. So he required men and women to be obviously different in their appearances, portraying what was culturally appropriate for their gender. Some items were purely symbolic, such as married women with head coverings and men without. Otherwise, basic modest clothing, nothing ostentatious or fancy. Lavish or trendy outfits with the jewelry and expensive coiffure were a sin.
Is it necessary to explain the ancient traditional code of sexual conduct? Your reasoning doesn’t mean a thing; the Bible is pretty clear and consistent on such things. Ignore it at your peril. The issue was never, “Are you saved?” That’s a silly misreading of some English translations. The question was whether you were willing to live a godly life and be a part of the family. Bringing in your pet sins was a threat to the stability of the church family. A certain amount of human weakness we expect and deal with it, but blatant rejection of moral laws is not a mere weakness. You ain’t family if your conduct opens the door to demons. A commitment to holiness, however poor the performance, was the necessary ingredient to claiming God’s power in this world.
The church was a spiritual family. Property might be shared among family members, but there was no church corporation to hold property. No real estate, no fancy buildings, no furnishings or all the stuff we normally associate with modern churches. There was no such thing as sacred property. People used stuff and some of them might live holy lives, but that’s about it. A church could meet anywhere that permitted them a chance to worship the Lord and teach His Word.
They didn’t have a highly developed theology, certainly no such thing as systematic theology. It was organic and eastern mystical in style. There were moral precepts and some symbolic statements to represent the ineffable God and His otherworldly domain. The logic was Hebrew style, not the crap dreamed up by Hellenized Jewish rabbis. The ancient Hebrew people were Ancient Near Eastern mystics and their logic was symbolic, their language was parabolic, and their teaching was centered on moral commitments to a divine sheikh. Any attempt to apply a Greek or Hellenized style of logic or philosophy was hostile; it was a perversion of the truth.
You can do this without all the folderol; all it takes is two or more gathered in commitment to glorifying Jesus as Lord.
