.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
News
2012
September Headlines
|
Issues Related to Women’s Ordination at the European Pastors Council
Submitted: Sep 7, 2012
By AT News Team
Although no dramatic developments occurred, the ordination issue provided an interesting undercurrent during the European Pastors Council in late August in the Trans-European Division (TED) of the General Conference (GC) of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. A GC vice president who made presentations at both the Columbia Union Conference and Pacific Union Conference constituency sessions spoke about “A Crisis of Leadership” in the denomination. A well-known female senior pastor from the Southeastern California Conference was among the key speakers. The division president reviewed the issues and clearly stated his support for ordaining women to the gospel ministry.
Elder Lowell Cooper, a GC general vice president appeared with GC President Ted N. C. Wilson at the Pacific Union Conference session on August 19, appealing for the delegates to hold off on authorizing ordination for women pastors, and then traveled to Slovenia where the European Pastors Council was held and spoke on August 23 to a general session. “There is a crisis in confidence in leaders,” said Cooper in his opening words to the European pastors. “Leaders are held in suspicion. And yet, a trustworthy God will never be made know by untrustworthy people.” He made no reported comments on the ordination issues, but in view of the timing is entirely possible that they were on his mind.
“Cooper went on to say that the most important human resource for the church is trust,” according to a news release from the TED. He discussed seven key principles of leadership: humility, integrity, trust, respect, accountability, collaboration and excellence. “Humility is a much misunderstood concept today,” he said. “By many it is thought of as weakness or insecurity and leaders in the world are thought to need a huge ego.” In the church however things have to be different. Humility is an essential quality for the church leader.
Trust is an essential foundation for any organization and, according to Cooper, two things are required for its establishment: moral character and competence. These are significant at two levels – the personal level and the corporate level. Breaking this down to specifics, he stressed the importance of maintaining confidentiality, while at the same time being transparent with the information that it is legitimate to share.
Cooper also said that collaboration is becoming more and more important in church leadership. “Anyone who believes that they are the center of everything is heading for disaster,” Cooper stated. In the church we cannot afford to encourage a celebrity mentality.
Pastor Chris Oberg addressed the assembled European pastors the next day, August 24. “Getting Out of God’s Way” was the title of her presentation. She is senior pastor of the La Sierra University Church. The conference in which she is employed is one of several in the North American Division that have issued ordained minister credentials to the women who had previously been commissioned.
Before the European Pastors Council concluded, Pastor Bertil Wiklander, TED president, made a lengthy statement on “Women’s Ordination to the Pastoral Ministry.” He reviewed the many times since 1982 that the TED has discussed this topic and made specific request of the GC for policy variances, culminating in a vote in November 2010, “To request the GC for permission to ordain women to the gospel ministry.”
Wiklander made his views clear. “I have never made a secret of my own personal conviction. I accept women’s ordination as being biblical and appropriate. But I am also very concerned that we manage this important matter in harmony and cooperation with the world church.”
He also urged the pastors to read a new book by John Lorencin, retired president of the Yugoslavian Union. Lorencin “used to be very much opposed to women’s ordination. He admits that he took a traditional view and under the influence of his cultural context where there were three main religions, Orthodox Christian, Roman Catholic and Islam. He had not formed his opinion on the basis of the Bible, so when he retired he decided to study ordination in the Bible. … In simple language, he goes through the whole Bible.
Lorencin “finds that in the New Testament, Christ has taken over the sacrificial priestly office from the Old Testament, so it is no more. Instead, Christ has fulfilled the sacrificial system and become our high priest in heaven where he now offers his benefits for us to God. As our high priest, he is also the head of the body of Christ, the church, which consists of the priesthood of all believers, which makes no distinction between male and female.”
Lorencin “points out that there is no word for ‘ordination’ in the Bible. It is used in the King James Version from 1611, but it is there based on old Roman Catholic translations from the 14th and 15th centuries. In fact, pastor Lorencin warns against letting pastoral ordination be influenced by the Roman Catholic, unbiblical practice, which is rooted in the pagan Roman system of being promoted (Latin ordinatio) to a higher ‘order’ (Latin ordo) in the state offices. Any sense of the rite of ordination conveying a special status or character that is not already there through the gift of the Holy Spirit is unbiblical. Ordination is therefore a work of the Spirit and only recognized and confirmed by the church.”
Lorencin’s book was published earlier this year in English as well as other languages. It is entitled Priestly Ministry in the Old and New Testament: Should Women be Ordained? Clearly views are changing among the few who in Europe have opposed the ordination of women and Wiklander hopes that the process of Bible study and the influence of the Holy Spirit will change the opposition around the world so that the denomination can unite in a new position.
The full statement is available on the Web at: http://www.ted-adventist.org/news/statement-on-womens-ordination-to-the-pastoral-ministry
Adventist Today thanks TEDNews for daily reports during the European Pastors Council.
________________________
Share your thoughts about this article:
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
The Pacific Union Conference has just voted to ordain 14 women in their union.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/seismicity/
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/
Rom 13:1,2 Let every soul to the higher authorities be subject, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities existing are appointed by God, so that he who is setting himself against the authority, against God's ordinance hath resisted; and those resisting, to themselves shall receive judgment. Young's Literal Translation
Surface reading is going on here. Line upon line, precept upon precept reveals Christ methodically chose 12 male apostles in NT, who in turn were given authority to set aside bishops, deacons, elders,(all men) to be reps of God's NT churches according the the standards revealed by his biblical model before he asended from this earth to "as it is in heaven", where he happens to extend this "special" authority of the twelve around his throne. Matt 19:28. There is definitely something special about that.
Kevin, there are absolutely no scriptures supporting womens ordination in the bible...none! Therefore there is nothing to interpret or argue on this topic from scripture. If you take all the scriptures used by these pro wo leaders and properly exegete them, wo is unfounded.
It was not even thinkable then, nor was it by Sis White, if it was she would have been given light regarding it. The way it was done in scripture is the line upon line, precept upon precept security we as Adventist are sure to be in the will of God...no new age deviations allowed...none. The last paragraph of the article is oozing with the new age agenda!
If we compared all the 28 FBs with the Bible for approval, many would have to be eliminated. I shouldn't have to list them, but if anyone is interested I surely can identify them--maybe I will, after all:
1.There is no Bible text identifying anyone by name as the "Spirit of Prophecy" and it was simply what a group of people decided to call EGW.
2. The Bible never claims to be the "Word of God."
3. The doctrine of the Trinity was not developed until more than 300 years after the NT canon closed; and the Bible cannot be used in support of this.
4. The man Jesus never claimed to be God--others may have made those claims.
5. Foot washing was not part of the Lord's Supper in the Bible record, but was added; and was never given as part of that ceremony.
6. The sabbath was never given to the first humans, or else the Bible failed to record it. Nor was it ever given to the Christian church; but was solely a command given to the Israelites, just as was circumcision. Both were abrogated for Gentile Christians at the Jerusalem controversy.
7. Tithing was established for the Levitical priests; there are no longer priests in the Christian church: it is the priesthood of all believers. The tithe is an OT' law, never imported to the Christian church. Paul said to give what you can afford.
8. The OT dietary laws were never given to Christians except for refusing meat not strangled, blood, or food offered to idols. The vision given to Peter was both literal and metaphor: No food is unclean if God made it. Nor is there ever complete prohibition of alcohol, as it was used in both testaments.
9. The FB on divorce and adultery is more seen in the absence than in the rule.
10. Jesus, as our example never married, nor did he ever mention homosexuality; A real Adventist "Hot Potato.".
;
11. I refuse to touch the Investigative Judgment! It's the first Adventist's "hot potato."
I might suggest that your points are based on a kind of literalism that is often attributed to the ultraconsevative. Most of the Bible takes in-depth reading and study and the use of principle and metaphor to understand. If something seems to be absent to the literalist, it is usually inferred many times over when applying principle, insight, and setting. the literalist does not like to see the forest but looks at the trees to find answers they like. This is easier to do.
Ella,
I agree, but most of Adventist doctrines were formed on a very literal reading of the Bible. Metaphors came later, which is why there are controversial groups.
The Sabbath is accepted literally.
Tithing and dietary laws were literal, not metaphors.
Adultery was literal.'
'
Is sabbath a metaphor?
Is tithing a metaphor?
Are the dietary laws a metaphor?
Maybe you can explain why the above doctrines should be interpreted metaphorically, rather than literally.
IMHO, the SDA doctrines are more literal than most Christian denominations.
Paul called himself an apostle because, like the others, his calling was directly from Jesus and stated in their conversation on the Damascus Road. While there were differences of opinion between them they were united in the Holy Spirit and those differences were resolved by demonstrations of God's power. In the same manner, a person who is called by the Holy Spirit for a ministry will have that ministry confirmed by the body of believers and other leaders as they see God working through them in power. We need to start recognizing the power of God in action more than judging doctrinal purity according to our particular scale of measurements.
I believe there is support in the Bible for ordaining women. Thousands of others who are better theologians than I am also believe that. Are you saying Phoebe was not ordained as a deacon, that Junia was not ordained as an apostle, that none of the women who were 'fellow-workers' with Paul could possibly have been ordained? Ellen White argued for women to be involved in all facets of SDA ministry. She may not have said women should be ordained specifically, but her calls for women to do teh work and be paid for it would make it unlikely she would refuse to ordain women. If she had wanted to deny women the right to be ordained, she could have spoken up when the motion to ordain women was first brought up -she did not.
Are you sure you may not be the one guilty of 'surface reading'? You can declare there is no support for ordaining women anywhere in the Bible or Ellen White, but that doesn't make it so. There are a large number of not just SDAs but Christians of various kinds who disagree with you.
Also the phrase "outstanding among the apostles" doesnt necessarily mean this person was one of the apostles. The person could have been considered outstanding "by" the apostles, which is one of the terms listed under the greek word for "among", which is the word "en". The fact that no one knows for sure, and the term is only used once... in two different ways (Junias/Junia), means the church should use the bible patterns that do qualify under the "line upon line, precept upon precept" rule in which Christ ordained men and all other acts of laying of hands to attend to the main business of the church was done upon men.
Chloe is referred to as a 'deacon', not a 'deaconess'. The distinction is easily made in Greek should Paul have wanted to make it. As women could hold offices in Jewish synagogues - including being the 'head of the synagogue' and 'elder' - there is really no reason not to accept Junia was an apostle and Chloe a deacon, just as Paul plainly says. Which means the argument that Christ only ordained men fails, as Christ is seen as ordainig all deacons, elders and apostles through the Holy Spirit.
I'm not trying to place the Strong's dictionary over and above all the respected scholarly studies for or against wo, but it was their contemporaries that put that book together and they listed the term "by" as an option, which means the outstanding person in question was not necessarily an apostle, but "appreciated" by them. With all due respect to hermeneutical methods of study, the church must rest safely in Isa 8:20.
Could you provide the scripture that supports Chloe's was a deacon?
If you read the Greek text, if refers to Chloe as a 'diakonos' , not a 'diakonissa'.
Greek words - like words in any language - have meanings in context. In a context of a person named and then a group, 'en' consistently means 'among', not 'by'. I am surprised you accept a possible meaning of a Greek word given almost 2,000 years after the text was written, but refuse to accept the unanymous witness of the early church who were much closer and spoke the same language that Junia is a female. Context often rules out possible meanings, and 'by' is ruled out in this context.
It is easy to say 'this practice is out of line with the rest' for any number of issues and end up with the wrong conclusion because you eliminated to much data. If the Bible refers to Junia as an aopslte, Chloe as a deacon, Priscilla teaching Apollos, Junia being an apostle, and other women being 'co-workers' with Paul, then we cannot claim that each is out of line with 'the whole' and thus ignore it. These examples are part of 'the whole'. If you follow your example, we need to go back to circumcising men, becasue Paul's teaching not to is out of line with the whole witness of the NT. The problem with hermeneutical methods is that they always lead to conclusions we don't want to arrive at if applied consistently.
No 1247 in the strong's is Diakoneo 1 Tim 3:10,13. No 1249 is Diakonos Rom 16:1,27. imo these scripture fit the llpp (line upon line...) rule on behalf of ordaining women as deacons...alone and Sis White confirms this practice in her writings. Also, it was Phoebe not Chloe that was called Deakonos.
#1247, 1249 Strong's definitions: one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister. The servant of a king. A deacon, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for poor, has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use. A waiter, serving food and drink. To be a servant, attendant domestic. Render ministering offices to be served, ministered unto.To wait at a table, offer food and drink to the guests. Of Women preparing food.. i.e. supply food and necessities of life(e.g. by collecting alms), to provide take care of, distribute, the things necessary to sustain life, to take care of the sick, To attend to anything, that may serve another's interests, to serve one or by supplying any thing.
example:Deaconess Phoebe ask Pastor Paul to help carry water pots to the fire to make soup for the poor. Pastor Paul comply's with song in heart. Pheobe is leading/instructing Pastor Paul currently free from overseeing official church admn duties. Women serving as treasurer, secretary are great roles, but Bishop, Elder are scripturally assigned to men, a proven fact.
Rom 16:7(kjv) Paul refers to Junia/Junias(kjv/niv) as fellow KinsMen(kjv). In Lev 18:12,13 and Prov 7:4 the word KinsWoman is used, which could indicate these 2 persons in Rom 16:7 were men.
Kinsmen = men, Kinswomen = women
Sorrty, you are right - it is Phoebe, not Chloe, who was a deacon Paul's reference to 'those of Chloe in 1Cor 1:11 means she was probably the leader of the church, not a deacon, so more likely an elder.
I suspect you don't know Greek. What the English Bible says is irrelevant, nor can you define a Greek word by either it's English translation or a Hebrew word translated the same into English. One rule everyone learns in first year Greek is that grammatical gender has no necessary connection with biological gender. That is why we do not refer to the Holy Sprit as He/She in Hebrew ('spirit' is both masculine and feminine) or as 'It' in Greek (where 'spirit' is neuter). The same is also true of a child - also neuter in Greek. Greek children, like children everywhere, came in the two basic sexes. Another rule of Greek is that in a group of mixed sex, only the masculine form can be used. Andronicus - clearly male - is named along with Junia, therefore they are both referred to as 'kinsmen'. We were happy to do the same in English for centuries. Greek uses the feminine gender only when there is a reason to do so and so to draw attention to the fact the person/s spoken of is/are female. When Paul refers to 'Priscilla and Aquilla, who worked together with me .. and who risked...' in both cases the 'who' is masculine in Greek. The use of the feminine gender points out that the person is female, the use of the masculine does not necessarily point out that the person is male, simply that their femaleness is not being pointed to. The use of 'man' in English texts is often generic encompassing both males and females. Greek is similar. Athena is almost always referred to as a 'theos' rahter than 'thea', even though her female gender was well-known and assumed. That she was a 'god' was far more important than that she was female. That is why the use of 'man', 'deacon', 'elder' - ever 'husband' - need not be explicitly male. We all accept when Paul says 'brothers' he means both men and women, but some people have a problem with extending that as far as the Greeks - and most people with gendered languages - are happy with.
Another thing you should know about Greek classes - no one who has taken them uses Strong's concordance. It predates most of the significant discoveries in the Greek language. It tells who how the KJV translated the Hebrew/Greek words, not what those words meant to Hebrrews or Greeks. Nor can you simply choose one option from teh range of what the word may mean and decide that is what it means in any given verse. The word 'strike' in English may mean 'to miss', but outside baseball it never does. Context removes many options. In the context of 'diakonos of the church at Cenchreae' 'diakonos only ever means 'deacon' - an elected, ordained church officer - not any of the other meanings. In English, 'elder' can have many meanings. I have more than one relative who is an elder, but some of them have never or only rarely set foot in a church. But in the expression 'church elder', it only has one meaning - an elcted/appointed, ordained leader of a local church.
It is not a 'proven fact' that bishop and elder were assigned to only men. If it were, we would not be having this discussion in the church. It is a conclusion drawn by some people upon reading the NT. Many do not reach that conclusion. Our church has not reached that conclusion, as it has allowed women to be ordained as elders and encouraged women to train for ministry and work as pastors. Every study the church has done has reached the conclusion that the Bible does not forbid women working as elders/bishops and that was affirmed every time the subject came up at GC. I would not be at all surprised if that is the majority decision of the Division BRIs currently studying this issue.
The way you use 'line upon line ...' is almost guaranteed to lead you to erroneous conclusions. It pays no attention to the historical and cultural background, nor to the literary and linguistic context of the passage. They are things our church teaches must be taken into account. When those things are taken into account, many - probably most - people come to the conclusion that the NT church had women leaders and the church today may do likewise.
Kevin, having a laymans querious interest in linguistics and literature (and formally-and literally-myself being unscratched by education aside from where my curiosity and desire to personally choose to read and consider), I have even greater respect for your reasoning, suggested conclusions, tact, and demeanor. Your very well composed response to Angie highlights i believe what is at the root of all of the seeming contradictiory and dissonant "truths" -not only within the SDA "accepted interpretations', but those within all Protestant theologies. Probably not limited here, either-possible to include, for instance, the Buddhist religion/not religion, Universal church, or any/all of the historical culturally envogue simplistic animist or pantheist pre-christian belief and value systems (or ideologies, histories, exchatologies, etc etc)
If we could understand that words are mere metaphors-albeit useful and highly, needful (given man has at present limited and haphazard experiential unity nor awareness of collective consciousness), perhaps we might discover a broader and cohesive metanarrative which might transcend the interpretive too-seductive necccesities (which a concordance like Strongs entices us into almost unawares) which it seems most individuals, and the compromised agreements most groups comprised of these individuals. The effect then is to create a "false uniformity" and actually make impossible any unity among unique and distinct individuals.
When the Word, who was with God, and who was God, actually became Man-and the apparent telling attendant lack of the concpt of original literary words for the first millenia and half, spanning right from the book of beginnings to "Yahweh is Salvation" (perhaps Moses' writings ought be the Septateuch) as well the Babel linguistic ramifications-we ought pay a different kind of attention to the life of Jesus and his real-world teachings, and less on the lexiconic calisthenics we employ to "prove" our pet "truths".
To quasi-prove my point, I doubt I can even convey this idea, using the limited vocabulary I have-to very many people. Futhermore, many will seize on my confounding limitations to so poorly be able to delineate something as personal as my thoughts on this idea-and further marginalize it because it does not fit in their preconceived notions using their taught (often dogmatic) agreements on just language and/or linguistics failures alone-and subsequently prevent further discourse, precluding any desire or attempt to understand it.
Somwhow I strongly believe that God is so far beyond these neccesary-useful, though by very nature, confounding human constructs, that our attempts to limit him to our definitions (despite how well read, diversely educated, and "right" our approach might be) is itself a great slight to ultimate TRUTH. The same is true of every Science-and even of every game we humans create, whether cricket or baseball, croquet or golf....each relies on its own lingo, jargon, context-often with the "same" words!
With a nod to a duffer (such as Stephen Foster), have you ever heard a golfer try relate to brook trout fly fisherman (such as myself)?
Kevin, your response very interesting and informative, I learned some great info regarding Greek grammer. I love my Strong's though:)
Here's another relevant point to mention.
Pauls last phrase in Rom 16:7 says..."Who also were in Christ before me".
If Andranicus and Iounian(orig grk term)/Junia-s were in Christ before the Apostle Paul, he was probably still persecuting Christians and according to scripture, there is a clear picture painted that the only Apostles at that time were the original 12 Apostles. No others Apostles are mentioned by name or action.
Here is a short chronology (Dates taken from my IIW Seminar Edition Bible I got from a Pastor Kenneth Cox Prophecy seminar 30 yrs ago!)
AD 27... Christ set aside the 12 Apostles matt 10:2, Luke 6:13
AD 33... Matthias replaces Judas as an Apostle after a special meeting that had specific requirements Acts 2:15-26. It's true that Acts 6 says the number of "disciples" were increasing, and there was a laying on of hands (ordination) service performed, but none of the "Men" were refered to as Apostles.
AD 33... Saul's conversion to Paul
AD 45-51... Paul is identified seperately from the 12 Apostles
AD 60-65: Paul calls himself Apostle of Jesus Christ 9 times
AD 60: Paul commends Andranicus and Iounian in Romans 16:7
I believe some say Barnabas was an apostle, but I don't see that in scripture (I could be wrong)
In conclusion, if the only Apostles on the planet were the original 12 before Paul was converted in 33 AD, that means Andranicus and Iounian/Junia-s could have only been "of note" to the original 12 and not a part of them.
It appears I've been trying to make Andronicus into a feminine name by calling him Andranicus:) whose name btw means Man of victory!
The selection of Mathias = Acts 1:15-26
Paul's conversion AD 35
Also, the idea that I was thinking of is called the Apostolic Age AD30 to AD100. I suppose there are different opinions as to what this means, but imo, it supports the idea that it was only the 12 and Paul who were the "true" Rev 2:2, and possibly the "only" Apostles.
While the name ends in '-us', the word is masculine. The 'o' is merely a linking vowel between 'andr' and 'nik'.
In my layperson's spirit of Acts 17:11,12, I cont. to do a"quick" study of this topic and must admit there may have been "other" Apostles. 1 Cor 15:5 describes the original Twelve in greek as 'Dodeka'. Vrs 7 mentions a 'possible' collection of other men who were known as Apostles "Apostolos", as well. Idk, there seems to be another way to interpret these verses as well.
Okay Kevin, so with that confession, I suppose my theory has been crushed! But because I love absolute truth, then poof-be-gone, theory:) Honestly, I never heard of Rom 16:7 being used to support wo until you mentioned it in our discussion.
Before I close, I still have one other point to mention in regards to Rom 16:7 that I found in my quick study...Apparently, the original greek term "Iounian" was genderless, neither male nor female. The studies say, translators began adding accents in strategic places to make the term male or female! Back to square one...no eye witness, no divine intervention, i.e vision/dream = no proof!
Btw, thanks for the correction on the greek grammer for Andronicus' name!
@ Angie --> ordination has never been equated in our chruch with apostleship. And the arguments of prieshood used by others are inconsistent, since the New testament is all about priesthood of ALL believers, adn we say that we want to continue the Reformation :)
Crisis of Leadership - that's for sure! We admitted not having a theology of leadership either. Borrowing leadership practices of heathens is crisis.
Trinitarian Leadership - fractal - leading on earth as God, Father, Son & Spirit, leads the Universe.
I guess in both the NT Church and SDA Church eventually most of the major evangelism would end and transitition towards a more established leadership base. My understanding from the article on Church leadershop in the first hundred years by Prof. Johnston of Andrews that gradually the office of bishop (i.e. elder) replaced the charismatic offices of apostle and prophet. Did a very similar thing happen to our Church?
The best thing I have read on the topic (especially because it doesn't specially mention WO at all) is Prof. M. Johnston's of Andrews Uni article Leadership in the Early Church During Its First Hundred Years. His major point is that 'charismatic leadership' (which includes apostleship and prophecy) was quite distinct from (although there could be overlaps) with 'appointed' administrative leadership (which started with just elders, but eventually included deacons and bishops as the Church expanded).
It was the proto-orthodox Church, which became the Roman Catholic Church, that eventually amalgamated the office of apostle and bishop together after the failed prophetic revival in 165 CE. It was only appointed leadership that needed ordination, not spiritual leaders. Spiritual leaders were ordained after being appointed by God, as a sign that their spiritual gift was recognised by the Church. By contrast, it is ordination itself which creates the authority for appointed leaders.
In the NT Church, with its house churches, one assume the elders in appointed leadership were the wealthier pater familias (which would have included women like Lydia), in whose homes the believers all met. However, one can also see how God could choose anyone in those communities as a spiritual leader with various spiritual gifts, including a slave, or Greek or a woman.
In today's Church, I think you actually see this best in the SDA Chineese Churches. They have young spiritual leaders, including young women pastors. But they still have older male 'Uncles' in positions of senior administrative leadership.
I have no problem whatsoever if congregations want to restrict their eldership to older, married men with believing children per Paul's criteria. As long as they recognise that God can appoint anyone to spiritual leadership, including young women.
the universal (catholic) church. Even at the time of the Nicean Council the church was largely represented by the eastern bishops and some 700 centuries later separated and became what is known today as the eastern orthodox church.
The point is in the early Church leadership was quite fluid and these roles weren't strictly defined or institutionalised like they are today. In many ways it was 'situational leadership'.
To use a military analogy, before the paratroopers dropped into D-Day, they had units, with clear leadership hierarchies, with clear distinctions between officers and NCOs. But on D-Day itself, with the chaos of war, leadership became very situational, with more fluid amalgamations of smaller strike units.
We keep having arguments about formal pre-D Day type structures. Whereas, the early NT Church, like most new religous movements, had more of the fluidity of the post-D Day type leadership. The funny thing is, it is the post-D Day type leadership which actually does most of the 'soldiering', whether in war or in spiritual war.