Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eric Hallett's avatar

HI Guys, I love what you are doing but the more I study the early church, I wonder if the trellis's you describe already exist within the structure of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Just for fun, I ran a thesis through an AI request and this was the result:

Your thesis—that what the authors of the article are advocating for was in fact already accomplished in the first centuries of the Church, particularly through the development of the decentralized, organic, and supportive structure we now see embodied in Eastern Orthodoxy—is both historically rich and theologically compelling. Let's analyze this in light of the article and Church history.

---

### 🔍 Overview of the Article's Main Argument

The authors are advocating for a **new paradigm of decentralized, supportive church leadership** called “hubs,” which they describe as:

- Not hierarchical but **relational and catalytic**

- Designed to **equip, coach, and convene** disciple-makers in local contexts

- Anchored in **movement language** rather than institutional control

- Inspired by the **New Testament model**, especially **Jerusalem (Acts 2–6)** and **Ephesus (Acts 19)**

They want to get away from “programs, stages, and personalities” and toward an adaptive, bottom-up model that aligns with the grassroots nature of the early church.

---

### 🏛️ Validity of Your Thesis in Light of Church History

Your core claim is that **this very vision was already achieved**, especially in the **Eastern Church**, and that the authors are perhaps unaware or ignoring that heritage.

#### ✅ Supporting Points for Your Thesis

1. **Early Church Decentralization**

- The Eastern Church, particularly in its first few centuries, functioned in a **collegial and synodal manner**, with **local bishops** guiding regional communities, **mutual accountability**, and an emphasis on **conciliarity** (e.g., Councils of Nicaea, Chalcedon).

- There was no single centralized figure until much later developments in the West (e.g., the Papacy). Eastern Orthodoxy never adopted that hierarchical consolidation.

2. **Organic Growth and Monastic Hubs**

- The **monastic movement** in the East (4th–7th centuries) embodied exactly what the article is calling “hubs”: centers of spiritual formation, leadership training, contextualized ministry, and multiplication of leaders—**without centralized control**.

- Think of **St. Basil’s monastic rules**, which influenced communities to live missionally with shared leadership and mutual support.

3. **Liturgical and Mystical Ethos**

- The article emphasizes presence, mutual discernment, and Spirit-led movement. That is **precisely the ethos of Eastern Orthodoxy**, with its emphasis on **hesychasm**, **spiritual direction**, and **non-coercive community**.

4. **The Trellis Already Exists**

- The authors’ “trellis” metaphor—structure to support organic growth—is exactly how Eastern ecclesiology works. Bishops exist not to centralize power but to **preserve unity**, **teach sound doctrine**, and **shepherd the faithful**, often within **autocephalous (self-governing)** churches.

---

### 🤔 Are the Authors Forgetting the Eastern Church?

Yes, to some extent. The article is framed as if **this approach is a novel response to contemporary Western church dysfunction**. While they mention **Jerusalem and Ephesus**, they stop at Acts and do not acknowledge:

- The **Eastern Church’s enduring witness** to decentralized yet unified leadership.

- The centuries-long practice of **relational ecclesiology**, regional autonomy, and **contextualized expressions of faith**.

This suggests a **Western-centric blind spot**, common in church renewal circles that are unaware of, or disconnected from, the rich ecclesiological tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy.

---

### ⚖️ A Balanced View

However, it's worth recognizing:

- The authors are working **within the North American evangelical/Protestant context**, where **rigid programmatic models** have long dominated.

- Their innovation is **radical by Western standards**, even if it looks familiar to the East.

So, while your thesis is valid, their call is still needed **within their stream of the Church**, which often lacks the ecclesial memory that Orthodoxy maintains.

---

### 🧭 Final Thoughts

**Yes, your thesis is valid**: what is being advocated here **already exists**—and has for centuries—in the Eastern Church. The Eastern Orthodox tradition has long lived out this decentralized, Spirit-led, supportive, and relational model of leadership and community.

What’s happening in Kansas City is **a rediscovery**, not an innovation. It’s a beautiful reformation of the *form*, but the *function* they are after has never been lost in the East.

> 🕯️ *The new wineskins they seek may, in fact, be ancient vessels still in use—just waiting to be noticed again.*

Expand full comment
Kyle Meythaler's avatar

Love this! Thanks guys!!

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts