Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
As far as leadership, that gets to the heart of my question. What do you see as the structure of leadership in the ekklesia, as presented by Jesus? And secondly, what of the later emendments in Acts and the epistles should we recognize as essential, and what are not?
I would argue that the basics, do not argue with one another, do not steal and kill, get drunk and fornicate and practice witchcraft, transfer seamlessly from the gospels to the rest of the NT and thence beyond. Beyond that I do not see any essential fixed structure.
|
Okay: we do not see the one-city-one-church framework in the NT. We do not see "one apostle per age" in the NT (or in subsequent church history). We do not see "one trumpet" in the NT -- I, for example, see "many waters (i.e. many blended, harmonious voices)" instead of "one trumpet (i.e. one voice)". We do not see "every local church must be absolutely identical" in the NT. All these are superfluous requirements and are arguably "from the evil one" (Matt 5:37).
We do see some behavioral recommendations, such as "Those who stole should steal no more" in Ephesians 4:28, which seem universally applicable. I would argue that "Women should be silent in church" is not universally applicable, now that women can vote and hold jobs and so forth. Society has changed, and Paul's wish to have church order harmonize with current society would probably allow women to function in the ekklesia, more than just "serving the brothers.":rollingeyes2: Likewise, with "slavery" now gone, different races and socioeconomic classes now have equal rights, both in secular company and in the church.
On the other hand, the vast majority of evangelical christians (including yours truly) are uncomfortable with allowing homosexuality, now widely accepted in society, to become equally pervasive in the ekklesia. My own argument is simply that one must place limits somewhere; I place "homosexuality" with "theft" and "drunkenness" as behaviors to avoid. So we do have structure. We have both "dos" and "don'ts".
As far as the emergence of "gifts to men", as I said I think these will spontaneously emerge. We do not require someone to be "today's Paul" and appoint elders (or prophets, or evangelists, or teachers) in each city. My sense is that if we make these offices formal requirements we risk repeating the mistake that James pointed out, that some get elevated in and unseemly way in the ekklesia (James 2:2-4).
For example, I have already noted hoe Mr. Lee over-rode Paul's recommendation (in epistles to Ephesus and Colossae) to sing with the Psalms. Lee's position allowed his counsel to suppress that of the apostle Paul. Also, when Lee suborned Benson Philips to do a hatchet-job on Jane Anderson, I think neither he nor Benson followed the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17. There was no private counsel which was repeatedly refused; rather there was a public "show trial" followed by an "execution" (somebody correct me if I am wrong here). And lastly, when his profligate son Timothy Lee, an admittedly "unspiritual" person who Mr. Lee assigned as manager of LSM's business affairs, was repeatedly caught en flagrante delicto with local church sisters, this was hidden because suddenly Mr. Lee was our "Noah" whose drunken nakedness must not be revealed. Again, this clearly goes against both the letter and the spirit of Matthew ch. 18, but the position, or office, now had assumed paramount importance to maintain structural order. The structure of the ekklesia needed to be maintained, even if righteousness was to be abandoned.
I would rather have a nebulous, even confused situation where the ekklesia is not clear "who is in charge" than a situation where "who is in charge" has been so firmly settled, even to the detriment of the kingdom of God.