When you aim at nothing, you are sure to hit it. What a totally self-focused young man. As he said, he was not searching for the truth. It actually seems that he was searching for book deal and, voila, he found it.

That Ur finds this of such great value highlights the trend here away from truth.

I'm not sure I agree this is a commendable thing. Based on the article it would seem this guy's religious experience(s) and exploration have been egocentric and selfish.

He became embittered and angry with God because he essentially got less than he thought he deserved out of life. I understand the frustration and the anger. We've experienced a miscarriage as well as almost lost our youngest son when he was born due to complications. But to spurn God based on you not getting what you think is right or you deserve displays a total failure to really grasp the gospel on his part. I understand the pain of loss, but seriously where did this guys conception of Jesus and God come from? Surely not the bible since Job, Ecclesiastes, the life of Joseph, etc. points out that walking with God is no guarantee we will be spared suffering of this kind in this life.

Then he shirks his responsibilities to his wife and children to go on some quest for self-discovery and justifies it by saying I paid for you to finish schooling so you can pay for me to do this.

The one thread that seems consistent through his reactions, decisions, and his religious exploration is that they are rooted in self-righteousness & self-seeking evidenced by his refusal to fully give himself away to anything other than himself - not Christ, Allah, Buddha, or his wife and children.

This isn't commendable, it's tragic.

Andrew stated, "I don't think about God now. I just participate." Somehow that doesn't seem like progress toward anything of value.

I find the pictures selected interesting. Not only did he change his style during each month, but each one has a frown, a scowl, or a blank look. I do not see joy or delight. The article speaks of enjoying certain aspects of different religions, but it is significant that these were the pictures selected to illustrate his year in this blog post.

It seems that there is a lot of putting a religion on, not much saturating and growing out of the heart.

I think the goal of pointing out this man's search was not to say anything about truth or whether his search had any merit. For me this should help us all understand the world outside of the walls of our churches that we say we are trying to reach. Some of the reactions to it show me that there are those who don't care to understand and would rather live in their subculture. And some say Andrew is self-focused.

"Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart."

The way to Christ is humility, and it looks like he's at least finding a little of that in his openness to learn. I do think there is a lot of hope for someone like this.

Tom,

Thanks for your comments. I believe you understand why I posted this article. I'm not trying to say his search should be affirmed, or that his conclusions are right. The merit in this article is the way it helps us understand our culture's view of religion. Andrew and people like him are the one's we're trying to reach. We must know them to reach them.

Url

I don't know if this guy is just sampling religious exercises - or whether he is really seeking the Lord.

One is a dead end street - the other is an awesome pursuit.

I do know this - if you seek HIM - you will find HIM.

1Ch 28:9 “As for you, Solomon my son, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands the intention of every thought. If you seek Him, He will be found by you.....

It worries me that he is "just participating". I see no belief involved. This might have been an interesting exercise, but I doubt it really has any beneficial results for his life. Just participating may eventually get old and then will his anger return again to replace it?

Also mixing up the different practices as he is now doing seems to be a confusing thing to me. The people I have know who never committed to anything - never accomplished anything, they just existed. Seems to be a very boring and self-centered way to live.

The article and the comments make my heart hurt. Where was this guy's pastor during this time? Where was his church family? Where were his brothers and sisters in Christ?

I don't know that his pursuit says much about the larger culture. It just says he was crushed almost to death and didn't know where to go for help. Why didn't any of the Christians who knew him come to his aid?

On the other hand, I'm not sure he was well grounded in the truth before he faced his crisis. I'd lay some of the blame for that on his church too.

Jesus said, "A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell along the path and was trampled underfoot, and the birds of the air devoured it. And some fell on the rock, and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up with it and choked it. And some fell into good soil and grew and yielded a hundredfold." As he said these things, he called out, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, he said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that 'seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.' Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard. Then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away. And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience. "No one after lighting a lamp covers it with a jar or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a stand, so that those who enter may see the light. For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light. Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away." (Luke 8:5-18)

URL
American culture, even a certain age group or color group is an endlessly wide scope of thinking. To take any singular testimony and say "this is what our culture is thinking" is very inaccurate. We must look at our call to reach the lost by seeing each person as an individual, not merely a member of a culture. There is no need to "understand a culture" unless you are standing behind a pulpit sending out information to a crowd of people with zero interaction or heart to heart connection. From tradition, this is modus operandi. From the Bible, lecturing the Word is not at all what it means to "...preach the word, in season and out of season". The Bible never puts preaching behind a pulpit directed to a crowd with zero participation in the message. At least I can't find one there. Maybe you can. We are all called to reach individuals, one at a time or a family at a time. This requires asking good questions to understand their own unique world view. No matter what their brand of faith their experience has been, there will be many unique differences within that brand. We must anticipate or assume nothing from an understanding of broad culture or branding. That will set us up for an insensitive approach driven by assumption and preconceived thinking. God has told us He will give us the words to say at the time. We must trust Him for this. This is our idendity as His temple, His ambassadors, His body, etc. Our only advance preparation is to be ready to give an answer to the hope that is in us. We can direct that hope directly to the individuals point of need only if we have taken the time to hear specifically and personally where they are at.

Dave
"Where was his church family?" Good question, but we don't know. They may have been right in the middle of the suffering, in which case, his faith was too weak or just non-existent to receive the love and get answers. The church may have been aloof, which is very typical of the institutionalized form where relationships are very casual, not even close to the initimacy the Bible calls for. The bigger the church, the shallower the relationships for the bigger percentage of people. A more Biblical form helps greatly in suffering. "Someone is hurting - call the pastor!" is a very unbiblical practice.

Tim, I agree with most of what you have said but I struggle with your continued pitch that "The Bible never puts preaching behind a pulpit directed to a crowd with zero participation in the message." And that the only way the gospel can be spread is through building relationships. When Jesus said to Peter (an apparent stranger) "Follow Me" and Peter dropped his fishing nets and followed; did not the relationship come after the commitment was made? Also, on the day of Pentecost, Peter must have addressed a pretty big crowd for there to have been three thousand souls added that day. Acts 2:38 - 41 "And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls."

June, my observation from an Orthodox Christian perspective is that true Christianity is more than a system of rational beliefs. It is also a set of practices that allow us to experience a true communion in and with Christ and the Holy Trinity, which is the very substance of our salvation. Therefore, participation is a more complete and true way to understand any religious system. One gets the impression from the way many modern Christians talk that Christianity is a rational philosophical system derived from rational analyses of the Scriptures in the Bible as if they were a "how to" manual or "scientific explanation" of the nature of God's relationship to us and ours to Him--it is not. It is a way of life in Christ, who continues to live and reside in His Church (of which the Scriptures are a written witness, and of which the Church is the living witness). The Lord invites us to, "Taste and see that the Lord is good." Let us pray this young man, through experience, will come to know that Christ is the Lord and that He is good based on His experience of Him in Christian worship and practice, and that he will come to appreciate in time the relative emptiness of any faith without Christ.

"I'm not trying to say his search should be affirmed, or that his conclusions are right. The merit in this article is the way it helps us understand our culture's view of religion."

Url,

This guy is anomaly (in statistics, we'd call him an outlier) in the general population of non-religious/semi-religious, and-probably large-sample of religious people as well.

The average non-christian/semi-christian, or non-religious individual doesn't give a wit about religion, a growing sentiment, but still a small segment of the population; And in this nation, where the prominent number of people identify themselves as Christian, the rabidity of their devotion to their "religion" is, unfortunately, very public.

To put a rapier like point on the tip of it all...A very large segment of our "Christian" nation doesn't go to church, doesn't pray (except for a category 5 tornado...for some reason that gets peoples attention), and could only quote the most basic, if not the most common text of the bible...which is John 3:16 because its always on the tele as they watch NasCar and other sports.

Mr. Bowen, at least he's interested in his spiritual happiness, a rough way of being interested, but hey, we all start somewhere, BUT...that is more than I can say for the majority of Americans who call themselves Christian and find fulfillment in sports, beer, women, men, clothes, etc, but the bible...I bet they'd give themselves a headache trying to remember if they have a bible stashed somewhere, anywhere in their home.

So, Url, what I'm saying to you is that our religious culture is not unique in this respect, Mr. Bowen is because he's actually interested in his spiritual rest...note, his rest, not the truth, which, ostensibly, is what we Christians who actually are interested in our faith, are about.

But as far are our religious culture goes, no, we're no different than any European country, Muslim countries, or Israel.

Like them, we have a small segment of devout followers, a smaller segment of people interested in their own religious satisfaction, and then there is the vast majority of the populace who claims the same religion as the devout followers, but without the desire or interest to be a devout follower.

That, Url, is what we are as a nation.
There is no mystery here, just the willingness to be honest with ourselves, and with each other.
Mr. Bowen, and others like him, are a very, very small segment of our society, just as we are a very small segment of our society. But we are not spiritual examples of culture of our society, and neither is Mr. Bowen.
Like Mr. Bowen, we are outliers.

And that Url, is something you should know already.

I sure hope he went thru some level of spiritual cleansing after opening himself up to so much demonic influence. Seems like without that the best one could hope for in an experiment like this is relativism.

I appreciate the posting of the article to elicit conversation. I certainly didn't interpret the post as an advocacy of the gentleman's activities.

I think it does give us some insight into the spiritual hunger present in our nation today. I agree that most wouldn't act to the extent that this man did, but most haven't experienced the level of pain this man apparently did (please don't try to equate severity of the incidents endured to the level of pain the individual experiences--each person's threshold for pain is different, whether one speaks of physical pain or emotional pain).

I believe our society is spiritually hungry, desperate, and begging for answers. I believe the Church in recent decades hasn't done the best job of presenting those answers. We can do better; knowing and understanding the person is a critical first step.

I think what is provocative about this piece is that this guy appeared to once be "in the fold." He's one of our "own" gone bad, some would say.

Obviously, something was inadequate in his previous understanding and experience of Christ, otherwise that is where he would have drawn strength and comfort, as many of us do, when going through the painful experience he and his wife endured. It seems to me it is a normal part of the developmental process that we grow up and discard old, immature concepts of God. It's not uncommon to see those going through this sort of spiritual "adolescence" rebel against those old ideas and do some experimenting for awhile, but who often also eventually return to the fold with a more mature faith and a sounder understanding and experience of God. I'm sure we all know a few folks with a testimony like that.

It's certainly no foregone conclusion that this will be the case with Andrew, but the intensity of the seeking in his case gives me hope that that's where he's headed. The reality of spiritual warfare some have mentioned is why I suggest we pray for him.

It seems to me that Mr. Bowen is exploring his post-modern understanding of faith in reaching out to "experience" each of these religions through their rituals. For him this is where the "truth" will show itself - in the experience.
I understand for many who come from a traditional or modern understanding of faith (whether Christian or other) will have a hard time understanding why he would do an "experiment" like this. For the traditionalist and modern person, it is beliefs that are important. What and how one believes is the mark of a 'true' disciple.
I commend him for his bravery in exploring these religions, since he was focusing on the experiences that each brings in the midst of the 'belief' structure that has been built up. It seems to have had some effect as his life has changed.
He may not have found the "truth" in believing a certain way or a certain set of beliefs - but he has tasted a bit of the "truth" in reaching out.

elegance
Both examples you give with Peter are as far from pulpit/pew lecturing as you can get.
1. Jesus and Peter are face to face and heart to heart, one on one - the opposite of one man to a crowd.
2. There were 120 saints preaching that day in other languages, filled with the Spirit. We are only told of Peters brief message, complete with immediate interaction. This was evangelism, not one man dominating the gathering of believers who have already heard 100 - 1000 Bible lectures and are told they need one weekly till the day they die.

Our God is a two-way communication, heart to heart God. He never lectures us. He always wants a heart conversation direct with Him. The gathering of believers is designed specifically in the NT to reflect this reality. Heb. 10:24,25. Mr. Bowen may have missed this deep relationship with God and God's people. Ceremonialized, platform driven meetings are a very bad substitute for what God has specifically asked for. The consequences are tragic.

Tim, I don't think you and the Apostle Paul would have gotten along very well:

Act 20:7-9 "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight [midnight? good grief!]. And there were many lights in the upper chamber {turn off all those lights, it's a waste of candlepower for a gathering of so few people], where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep [see what happens when preachers are long-winded?]: and as Paul was long preaching [YAWN, YAWN]...".

Elegance
No, Paul and I are right on track. The Greek word here translated preach or talk on and on is dialegomai, which is where we get the word dialogue which is two way communication not lecture. You have been mislead by tradition driven translation and Bible lecturers who will not tell you the truth. You can look it up yourself at blue letter bible website .

Like mr. Bowen you have missed the participation that God has designed for believers gathering. Also see Col 3:16 for how the word of Christ will dwell in you richly, with all wisdom, or Eph 5:18 - for what it means to be filled with the Spirit. Mutual, two way dynamic is specified - the opposit of what you have been taught. Do not let tradition or personal comfort trump Gods word. I used to think like you do. I got a degree in Bible lecturing. Praise God I'm free of that now!

Hi Tim, my pastor lectured on the Bible this morning and boy was it awesome. He took us again to the cross in the book of Mark and shed even more light on the price that was paid for my sin. He did not let tradition or personal comfort trump God's Word but rather gave us more upon which to feast. The great message was discussed by many of us at the church picnic that followed. I truly appreciate the incredible amount of study he puts in as he prepares to walk us through the Word. I read that Word on my own but am doubly blessed each Sunday morning when I get to listen to my pastor's insights because I know he loves the Lord so much and is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The amazing thing is that in a church of 2,000 members, we can still have so much discussion and conversation. When we all sing and pray as a congregation it is just a small taste of heaven. When we all get there, we will by the millions praise the name of Jesus forever. I'm so glad you'll be there too! Then this discussion won't matter. LOL

"When we sing and pray as a congregation it is just a small taste of heaven."

Yes, very true! I often joined in worship with a small charismatic fellowship years ago. We had some sweet times of teaching and fellowship, but whenever Tim comments, I can't help but think of the great beautiful liturgical "dance" between celebrants and congregation (leader-priests and priest-participants, if you will) in my Orthodox congregation (where, incidentally, the priest(s) ask forgiveness of us his "brothers and sisters" at least twice during this liturgy, wherein we respond with "God forgives"). Even what is liturgically scripted in the classic historic Christian worship of God's people (the "script" coming almost entirely directly from Scripture!), is entirely mutual and interactive between leader and people, and between the people and leader together as the people of God and God.

elegance
"my pastor lectured on the Bible this morning and boy was it awesome. ... He did not let tradition or personal comfort trump God's Word but rather gave us more upon which to feast."

It seems pretty clear the expectations for gathering God has for you given in the scripture and I passed on to you were rendered meaningless. God asks you and the saints each bring part of the feast, not devote 75 - 85% of your giving to buy a hired Bible lecturer and a cathedral for 2000 people to all face crowd experts driving the expression. In heaven we will not merely see the backs of heads of the rest of the members of the body of Christ. We will face Christ himself and each other His bride. When we do that now, we have a much better expression and preparation for then.

"Then this discussion won't matter. LOL"
What we do and don't do now, and the scripture we reject or obey now will matter then.

Elegance
Of course I am familiar with these passages. Are you familiar with the passages Paul taught that this "right" should be refused, and then gives the reasons for why? Read all of 1 Cor. 9. The end of his argument for the right to be paid is a complete reversal of all those reasons for the right. His reasons for refusing it are of greater strategic value for kingdom building. Also see Acts 20 for his instructions to the Ephesian elders (pastors), and 2 Thes. 3 where he states his example is to be followed. The only time Paul ever received gifts was from the Philippians when he was in Thessalonica. There is no example or story of anyone never working in the market place so he could dominate the gathering of believers in one-way communication. The scriptures used to justify this tradition are severely twisted.

There is no reason for why a man should never work in the market place and hog the teaching when the saints gather. There are many statements for why the teaching should be shared and entrusted to others so one man never has to do 99% of the expression of truth when the saints gather year after year after 30 years. Even the instructions about not muzzling do not say one man is to do all the teaching and no market place work. If he teaches once a month, he can still work a job and not be muzzled.

If you want to keep your thinking and understanding of scripture sealed inside the box of tradition, and only what you have experienced, and only what you enjoy, and only what God has used to benefit you, then your faith will remain very small, in contrast to "more noble faith" where believers compare what they are told with the scriptures to see if it's true. Acts 17:11. Much of the NT is rendered meaningless by pulpit and pew routines.

Is it strange that you can only fulfill Heb. 10:24,25 in a church picnic, not during what is called "worship"? That picnic time is far more reflective of the NT then the $2 million /year "worship" hour. (My previous church was 1200 members and $1.5 million per year just for inside the walls programs.

How many times have you heard a hired lecture on Christ's suffering? 20? 40? How many more do you need only from a professional talker? Are the men in your church still unable to articulate from their own hearts about the suffering of Christ in a way that will stimulate your faith? The perpetual dependency of all the saints in your church demonstrates you have no concept of the purpose of teaching - which is to "fully train" others to be "like" the teacher. Luke 6:40. God is looking for full reproduction of the teacher - the exact opposite of perpetual dependency to the teacher.

Your willingness to interact demonstrates you are fully capable of taking your faith out of the box and moving towards the full likeness of Christ. Walk by faith (into areas you have not yet experienced) not by sight. (Reject clinging to what you have seen and enjoy.) Leave Ur, just like this blog is titled. Sitting in the pew, week after week is staying in Ur. There is no call for pulpits and pews anywhere in scripture, and this costs millions every year for just your group of saints. The call IS for mutual participation by God's people to build their faith towards greater "love and good works." This costs zero. When 100% of your giving goes beyond yourselves, your love and good works multiplies exponentially in soooo many ways.

Okay, Taylor and Tim, we seem to have gotten off on a rabbit trail that is extremely far from what this original post was about. I cannot find a direct set of rules in the New Testament for the structure of the church under the new covenant because there are examples of one on one fellowship as well as examples of groups. If our hearts are pure before the Lord and we worship Him in Spirit and in Truth then where two of us (or more) are gathered in His name, there He is right in the middle.

Tim, you have zero right and zero ability to attempt to judge another person's faith based on what you think is correct for church preaching. It may be time for you to place yourself under an elder's authority for correction and reproof. That is one thing you cannot do, and only God can do. Do you remember the qualifications for deacons and elders, or have you swung so far away from the biblical description of churches now that you can't recall?

Elegance
This is not a rabbit trail at all. Mr. Bowen's faith was stunted by his experience in one-way communication driven teaching with very little if any mutual relationship with "the teacher".

" I cannot find a direct set of rules in the New Testament for the structure of the church under the new covenant..."

I gave you this very scripture but you either did not read it or have filtered out it's deep significance. Read Heb. 10 - the whole chapter. At the beginning the uniqueness of the new covenant - the new and living way" - is layed out. The specific application of it's reality is that believers "consider how they can spur one another on to love and good works, not giving up the habit of meeting as some is but encouraging one another...."

There is your structure for new covenant meeting - one another dynamic. It is repeated through out the NT. There are NO instructions for crowd oriented - platform driven dynamic. There are just a couple examples of a larger group at the very beginning of Acts, but nothing there after and no instructions for that.

"...because there are examples of one on one fellowship as well as examples of groups."

Can you build a system that consumes millions of $ of "giving" on a couple examples or occurances that contradict progressively explained specific instructions? Organic church saints are accused of building their theology on situations in Acts rather than the whole NT. Our orthopraxy is based on the Epistles instructions, not the situations in Acts. If you base your function on situations in Acts, as you are doing, then it is the institutionalized form that is falling short.

I was clueless to the full structure of Heb. 10 and ALL the one another specific instructions for many years even though I had memorized them. But then I learned. Once we know the truth and continue in old ways, our hearts are no longer pure. The end of Heb. 10 has a VERY stern warning on this.

Deanna
You confuse my teaching, rebuking, correcting and instructing in righteousness ( 2 Tim. 3:16) with judging. I am merely a messenger of God's Word. A requirement of an elder is that he is "able to teach". I'm doing it in one another dynamic, where the richness of the Word of Christ will dwell with all wisdom. See. Col. 3:16. Of course I have no right to judge. I'm not doing that. Elders have no authority. They only have oversight, not over bossing, over talking, over thinking, over visioning or over anything else. Jesus has been given all authority so we can make disciples, baptize, and teach obediance in everything - including one another driven meeting. Elders are not to do lording or bossing, just teaching, watching and example setting. 1 Peter 5. Verses translated elders who "rule" are miss translated because this directly contradicts 1 Peter 5. Your faith is suffering from centuries of power oriented leadership that flows from bad translation and bogus traditions of men, rather than servant driven teaching straight from Jesus and the apostles teaching. Serving and ruling do no mix except in the corrupt rules of men that "nullify the commands of God for the sake of their traditions." Be a Berean, look up all I have said for yourself. Acts 17:11. Do you have permission to test the teaching of your elders or do you just take it all in? "Test everything, hold on to that which is good" 1 Thes. 5.

"I cannot find a direct set of rules in the New Testament for the structure of the church under the new covenant because there are examples of one on one fellowship as well as examples of groups..."

The current structure of the church is a amalgam of religious traditions stemming from the melding of Judaic and Roman (read: Gentile) traditions.
Rabbis in the gentile church were replaced by "Pastors" or, as time went by, priests, though with a centralization of authority being a bit more dogmatic in the gentile development.

As this system of tradition developed in Europe the systems of single source teaching stems from the early days of the Roman Church where only select individuals versed in the scriptures were allowed to teach due to the gnostic heresies.
As time goes on you can see that this developed into single source teaching up through the Reformation, and then moving across the ocean where this process of has been modeled for quite some time.

This is a historical tradition, right or wrong, it is what we have right now.

The functionality of having a single source voice box has the advantage of specialized knowledge locked up in one person, or, as in some churches, a group of persons while the rest of the "laity" willingly pays someone else for the effort they themselves should be expending in their spiritual growth.

In general, it's a tradition we're dealing with, and not really so much a biblically mandated structure.
If we were to articulate a biblical mandate it would be an oligarchy of elders doing the organizing, while the teaching would be an "open ended" discussion from the communal group.

Not sure how that communal form would work with today's American individualistic "don't cross this line of my life" structure or expectation.

A difficult conundrum to figure out.

Tim and Sheer, I do think we need to filter our American individualism into this mix, and recognize the inherent disdain we seem to have inherited in this culture for authority--and not just its abuse. In light of that, I am interested to hear, as was Deanna, about who or what holds Tim accountable for the integrity of his Christian life and the exercise of his spiritual gifts, i.e., what are the practical instruments of the Holy Spirit's conviction in Tim's life, apart from the Scriptures themselves (or at least his take on the Scriptures). He speaks a lot about mutuality. He has some perceived sense of his own responsibility/authority or he would not be involved in a community as elder or speaking into this forum. How, in practical terms, is his own obedience (by this I mean willing submission out of reverence for Christ) to others in the Body a part of his life?

Just one final thought for Tim. You have chided us for not wanting to do our own Bible study and I'll give you that - sort of. But just something to think about: the printing press was not invented until the 1400's and the Bible did not become available to average folk like you and me for a very long time after that. The average middle class person did not even know how to read until the last hundred and fifty years or so. So what were all those Christians supposed to do, sit around and chat about what their own concept of God was? I submit that a thorough and logical reading of both the Old and New Testaments would lead any logical person - whether they were a born again believer or not - to conclude that God's plan for the post ressurection church included growing, organized groups of people who had a hierarchy of authority among them. Your one-on-one-only prototype doesn't really go anywhere or accomplish the great commission that has been seen as the Good News has been preached throughout the world. My husband was saved at a Billy Graham crusade over 40 years ago. Thank the Lord for the great evangelists and preachers who have helped us along the way.

Another verse that some would prefer not be in the Bible is this:
"In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel."
1Cor 9:14

The NT talks about preachers, deacons, elders, and teachers. Their qualification for these roles is also written about. It talks about them meeting on Sundays and also collecting money and people being held accountable. The KJV mentions Bishops also.