Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
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.