View Full Version : Should Members Obey or Submit to Church Leaders?
Guys,
This is getting a little abstract, to say the least. Can we get back to the subject of Should members obey or submit to church leaders?. If you want a thread about whatever it is you are talking about I'll be happy to move relevant posts to it.
Thanks. :duck:
A total of 6 posts out of 252 (including this one) and you want it moved somewhere else? This one sprung off of one that sprung off of one that . . . . well, you get the picture. How far back was the last post actually talking about "submission to leaders"? I count about 18 (including this one).
And the actual discussion has gotten convoluted enough that the last time someone said something about sticking to the topic, when I went back to figure that out, I realized that it was not exactly what we were talking about anyway. Before the sidebars. Related. Has a link. But not really on topic.
I don't know if John just gave up on it a long time ago, or just wanted to start a discussion that he considered worth discussing. Either way, I'm not sure that we are really that close to the original. It was much more pointed at an analysis of leadership, vetting ministries, being in submission (or not being in submission, or no requirement to be in submission) and so forth. But so much since then has been somewhat about the way small independent groups do church when compared to large groups and which is preferable. The first post provided at least a couple of verses in support of what I would characterize as the core of the question. But it did not consider other verses that provided some answers.
But I'm not sure that we ever actually went there. It seems that we veered away from that long ago. Maybe Peter is accurately keeping John's question going. But I don't know. It actually seems like a different subject.
Not complaining about the subject. Just noting that I'm not sure that we have really been "on topic" for a long time. Assuming someone doesn't post before I do, this is #252.
Now, having said all of that, starting a different thread to discuss metaphors might be worthwhile. But sometimes the result is that it is over already and that one becomes either ignored, or turned into yet another off-topic discussion.
I honestly believe that unless there is a serious discussion actually on the stated topic going forward, it is probably better to just let the various side discussions continue. If they start to become heavily followed, consider breaking them into a new thread for their own sake. But referring to it as "abstract" sort of insinuates that you just want to be rid of it (not saying it is so, just noting the insinuation). I don't think this one is continuing, and the one that it is interspersed with is not really on topic either.
Yeah, John's question is not completely missing from some of the continuing discussion. But based on my reread of it just now, we haven't really talked about that in a long time.
UntoHim
10-04-2012, 02:51 PM
I honestly believe that unless there is a serious discussion actually on the stated topic going forward, it is probably better to just let the various side discussions continue.
The problem is that when people are constantly starting "side discussions" it's pret near impossible to get a serious discussion going. I believe this is very frustrating for lurkers and others just stopping by the forum to get a handle on any one thread. What's the use of having a thread title it we are going to let it wonder over all of God's green earth? Just sayin.....
......we now return you to your regularly scheduled program......
Now, having said all of that, starting a different thread to discuss metaphors might be worthwhile.
Then again, probably not.
It's just that you and ZNP have a history of getting into things and going at each other in a way just loses everyone else. You guys were going at it on iSpeak for months before you looked around and realized everyone else had packed up and left. :lol: Just kidding!
Then again, probably not.
It's just that you and ZNP have a history of getting into things and going at each other in a way just loses everyone else. You guys were going at it on iSpeak for months before you looked around and realized everyone else had packed up and left. :lol:Actually, we both knew that there was no one there when we started.
Actually, we both knew that there was no one there when we started.
Well, like I said I was kidding. But, anyway, you two push some kind of button in each other and you go into this mode where neither of you will back down and nobody else knows what you are talking about. I'm just asking you to be aware and try to keep it under control. Thanks.
The problem is that when people are constantly starting "side discussions" it's pret near impossible to get a serious discussion going. I believe this is very frustrating for lurkers and others just stopping by the forum to get a handle on any one thread. What's the use of having a thread title it we are going to let it wonder over all of God's green earth? Just sayin.....
......we now return you to your regularly scheduled program......I understand. But sometimes it sort of looks like the topic started wandering off from the very beginning. Not saying this one did immediately. But I'm not sure that the question originally posed has ever been dealt with seriously. I just went back through the early posts and by #20, it was wandering. We may like where it went, but are we on John's topic? If not, this issue should have been raised long ago.
But the problem may be that sometimes a particular question is not in a vacuum. It presumes other facts or premises. Or needs to stipulate some facts before it is sufficiently bounded to be a cohesive enough question to pursue.
I know a little about John, and from that little, I might presume that he has certain things in mind when he asks about leadership and submitting. But I could be wrong. And either way, until those side issues are settled, anything said on the main topic will not be clear.
And we are talking about the meaning of things like "messenger" or "angel" relative to the 7 letters in Revelation 2 and 3. About who is being addressed and what they are being told.
But I have not seen anything on that topic in a long time. The one you think we have interrupted is not really that topic. It does include "leaders" so it has a relationship. But it is not the topic.
The topic was whether there is a command in Hebrews to obey and submit to the leadership, and whether that, or any other passage, gives the responsibility, authority, or right to "vet" ministries that might be allowed access to the "pulpit" in their assembly.
The kind of church, the linkage to other assemblies (denominations or loose associations), the size of the group, and a lot of other things are not relevant to the question. The question of the responsibility and/or authority of leadership is either provided for in scripture (clearly or unclearly) regardless of the type of assembly. Regardless of the history of abuse by certain kinds of leaders or of the leaders of certain groups. And no matter how we come down on the issue, I'm pretty sure that it does not give authority that would support the abuses, so talking about the abuses does not answer the question about whether there is a proper authority and/or responsibility.
Shall we return to the original topic? I think it is a valid question. And it has not been answered. And not discussed for what is probably the preponderance of the posts (by number of posts, not necessarily number of words, although that is probably similar).
I actually have the beginnings of thoughts on the subject. I doubt they will be satisfactory to some. Probably not entirely satisfactory to anyone. But just getting back to that topic is a little like getting a response that talks about basketball that does not really give a hint (to me, at least) of what it was supposed to be saying. I provided what I would have expected from Lee, followed by an alternative. ZNP then responded and we chatted a little. It is probably over.
But when we return to the original topic, I will note that I asked at least a couple of questions and made a couple of observations that should indicate that I'm not sure that we really have the question clearly framed. The answer is not just in one verse. Or in one "simple" principle. It is in a complete discussion of what biblical leadership looks like. And there will be some who will require a verse (a fortune cookie) that specifically states the principle that will rule that particular aspect or it will be rejected. Others will take in the pattern under which the early church actually operated (which somewhat borrows from Jewish traditions) and find a reasonable direction. That will not be comfortable for some.
And to some degree, the sort of "off topic" discussion that Peter has been having really is trying to get at part of this question. But it isn't the actual topic. But it may be necessary as a means of getting to an answer to John's original question and/or concerns.
So do we actually try to go back to the original topic, devise a plan of attack, and follow through with it? I don't think most actually remember the original topic other than as a one-liner at the top of every post.
ZNPaaneah
10-04-2012, 05:16 PM
My 1st Corinthians 14 has no vetting of speakers and no required submission of one brother to another, regardless of one’s giftedness or functioning, even if one happens to be one who is leading.
My 1st Corinthians says 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
Now I personally think that this law was based on a social situation that has changed quite a bit in the last 2,000 years.
But even if you feel this rule no longer applies it doesn't negate the fact that some in the congregation were not permitted to speak during the meeting and they were required to be under obedience. So if you want to use 1Cor 14 as a yardstick there was a vetting of speakers and there was a required submission concerning who spoke and who didn't.
Looking back at the first post in this thread, I find the following:
From John:
Now, on to what I disagree with in your presentation as regards it being biblical. First, I do not see that Hebrews 13:17 supports leaders having the obligation to vet ministries as you claim:
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you (KJV).
As I hope that you will agree, the verse does not address vetting ministries at all. Therefore, this claim, so far as you have tried to show, is lacking in biblical support.
Second, I noticed that you did not give a biblical reference for the following statement: “members are charged to obey and submit to leaders.” I could assume that you would use Hebrews 13:17 to support it, since maybe it was what you meant to do when you used it to try to support vetting. Reading what the King James translators did with it sure seems to authorize some kind of heavy-handed ruling and obedience. Unfortunately, this verse has been used, I think, by leaders in some Christian churches to force submission, producing an environment in which abuse can take root and grow. The problem with leaning on this verse is that the translation is grossly inaccurate and does not actually support rendering obedience to church leaders. The literal Greek goes like this:
be you being persuaded to the ones leading you and be you deferring
(scripture4all.org).Now I agree that this reading says it somewhat softer than the old KJV. And the NIV says it this way:
Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.
But when I go back to the scripture4all.org Greek and the transliteration it provides, it does not seem quite as simple as was suggested. The first word is translated into “be-ye-being-persuaded !” The whole first phrase would look something like this:
“be-ye-being-persuaded ! to-the ones-leading of-you and be-ye-deferring !”
The addition of the exclamation marks was not by me, but by the translators. I would agree that “be being persuaded” is not as strong as “obey,” but when you make it an imperative, it is only slightly softer. It is as if saying “You must be being persuaded by those leading you.” That seems to suggest that your mind should be changing to align with them. It is not just a suggestion that you consider their words.
And the second odd phrase, “be ye deferring!” is hard to read as anything less than a soft command. It may only be “deferring,” but it is insisted upon.
But, like we so often read the “submits” in Ephesians, this is not written to the leader so they can demand obedience and submission. It is written to the follower to instruct them (for their benefit) to be persuaded and defer. If you are intentionally setting out to be persuaded, then it would be expected that something looking like obedience will arise. And if you set out to defer, then it will have the appearance of submission because it will be the suggestion given by the leader that is taken, not the direction given by the leader that is ignored.
It seems to me that there are two things in play here.
First there is proper leadership. Someone posted concerning leadership that serves rather than orders around. That considers itself the least rather than the first.
The second is the gratefulness of the flock for those who have given themselves to them to lead them. This comes with an attitude that these are God’s gifts to them. This is how they become equipped. It is not by figuring it out for themselves. They have trustworthy “men” who will give themselves for the flock.
And in this kind of relationship, who looks out for the wolves? It is the sheep!! (NOT!!) No! It is the shepherds.
We like to take Ephesians, and those five listed “gifts” to the church and read the following verses as saying that those gifts will make us into the same thing, so we will never need someone else to shepherd us again. To teach us again. But that is not what it says. It merely says to do works of ministry. The suggestion that “works of ministry” are just the very things that the five gifts are/do and that we simply become them (and without saying, we no longer need them — except for Lee) is a bare assertion made without obvious cause or evidence. We do not become our own shepherds. Imagine that, a flock of shepherds. Or a church full of elders.
Do we need a verse to directly say that the leaders should vet ministers? At any level? If we insist on it, then I would suggest that we have them. 1 Timothy has a few. That was written to Timothy, not the church in (wherever). Yes, we can read the words to him. And they should give us instruction enough to realize that not everything that calls itself a minister or ministry is worthy of the claim. But it doesn’t direct us to each make our own determinations. Not saying you can’t. But those were instructions given to leaders. Not to the flock.
Besides, what is a flock, and what is the need for a shepherd if they can all fend off the wolf by themselves?
My 1st Corinthians says 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
Now I personally think that this law was based on a social situation that has changed quite a bit in the last 2,000 years.
But even if you feel this rule no longer applies it doesn't negate the fact that some in the congregation were not permitted to speak during the meeting and they were required to be under obedience. So if you want to use 1Cor 14 as a yardstick there was a vetting of speakers and there was a required submission concerning who spoke and who didn't.We may not like what ZNP just posted. And we may argue that some of it is cultural and no longer applicable. But you have to get out your verse removal shears if you just want to ignore it and declare that there is no place for authority and submission. (Still nothing like the authority and submission as defined by Nee in his book of two names — Spiritual Authority, and Authority and Submission.)
But when I go back to the scripture4all.org Greek and the transliteration it provides, it does not seem quite as simple as was suggested. The first word is translated into “be-ye-being-persuaded !” The whole first phrase would look something like this:“be-ye-being-persuaded ! to-the ones-leading of-you and be-ye-deferring !”
The addition of the exclamation marks was not by me, but by the translators. I would agree that “be being persuaded” is not as strong as “obey,” but when you make it an imperative, it is only slightly softer. It is as if saying “You must be being persuaded by those leading you.” That seems to suggest that your mind should be changing to align with them. It is not just a suggestion that you consider their words.
And the second odd phrase, “be ye deferring!” is hard to read as anything less than a soft command. It may only be “deferring,” but it is insisted upon.
I don't think we ought to be using the scripture4all.org transliteration as being authoritative. My post #39 addressed this "be ye persuaded" and "be ye deferring" as poor translations. One cannot use the root of the Greek work to properly translate the word.
Obviously John has not posted here for weeks, so it has made our discussion difficult.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.