Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
As for your discussion of the qualification of elders, I start with the general premise that like the OT, where the Torah is God’s word and the rest is commentary (in the mind of the Jew), the gospels are God’s word and the rest is commentary. (Yes, it is all God’s word. And a lot of what is in the OT “commentary” is clearly quotes of God speaking.”) “Commentary” does not mean lower than the Word of God. Just that it is explanation. The core is in the Torah and the Gospels.
So when I read qualifications for elders written by Paul, I do not presume that it is God moving Paul’s hand (or his lips) to get some precise “this is it” list of qualifications. It is a sound representation of the core of what should be the qualified candidate. And so you trot out some pithy dichotomy as if how we would judge that one is proof of concept. There are many problems with it. First, if those are your choices, someone didn’t look very far for candidates. And they didn’t even bother to use the ultimate criteria to put them on the “list” in the first place. But assuming that we can get past that, the fact that 10 percent of the congregation would actually leave over a certain one becoming an elder says a lot. Some of it may be about the ones who would leave. But some of it is about the one chosen as elder. If there is that little respect, then maybe you (whoever) have not looked at the parts of the qualifications about their stature in the community. If 10 percent of Christians have a problem, then what about the unbelievers. What do they think?
But the worst part of it all is that I was not talking about trying to select an elder. I was making a point that we do not judge non elders by the criteria for eldership. There is a standard for some Christians that is not applied to all Christians. We do not reject from membership those who could not be elders. We do not declare that everyone who has divorced and now lives with a second spouse is simply continually living in sin. (There are some who take this kind of stance. And I was aware of your situation, although I did not think of it before I wrote what I did before.) So when you read the passage(s) where that seems to be indicated, it cannot be simply stated as true because we have reason to limit the applicability of that statement.
|
Let me respond to the three points in red
1. "It is a sound representation of the core of what should be the qualified candidate." This is why I said that they should be treated with the utmost respect, not followed blindly. Second, the reason i used examples is because there are always exceptions to the rule, but in my experience, people make exceptions because they want to, not because they need to. I believe the reason for this is that too few among Christians appreciate why Paul would make these criteria. There is no criteria that says a man who had been imprisoned for a felony before receiving the Lord, could not become an elder. It says the man has to be of good repute, but lets be real, Malcolm X, had he been a Christian, would have been a man of good repute. This is not a holier than thou, or being judged by a higher standard. It is a job description. One of the key jobs of an elder is in counseling and shepherding the married saints in the congregation. It undermines your ability to counsel others to not get divorced if you have been divorced. There is nothing in the qualifications of an elder that talk about being charismatic, or an electrifying preacher, yet in many congregations that is their first choice. What happens? They get thousands of people, TV and radio, and then the man's sinfulness is exposed, and just like Gideon, all the children are slain on one rock. You end up with 0.
2. "the fact that 10 percent of the congregation would actually leave over a certain one becoming an elder says a lot." Which leads us to your second point. Yes, it does say a lot. We have many congregations that are concerned about filling pew seats, paying mortgages, etc. We have many superficial Christians who view meetings as entertainment. This sad story has repeated itself over and over again on the front pages of the newspaper to the shame of all Christians. If you choose the elder according to your flesh, then you will reap of the flesh destruction. The way of the Cross is a narrow way. If you choose the elder according to Paul's instructions you will have to crucify the flesh.
3. "I was making a point that we do not judge non elders by the criteria for eldership. There is a standard for some Christians that is not applied to all Christians." What do I have to do to get my point across? You are complaining that I won't even countenance your position and yet it is you who refuse to countenance my position. My point is that Paul's criteria are not a matter of judging elders by a higher standard. My point is that it is a job description. Firemen need to be strong enough to carry a person out of burning building, does that mean that they are being judged by a higher standard than say a jockey who has won the triple crown? The fireman could not do the job of the jockey and the jockey cannot do the job of the fireman. This is common sense, not being judged by a higher standard.