I regret not pursuing this matter as earnestly as I have intended but I have not forgotten about it and do intend to come back to it.
The thing is, I was wrestling with the "pastoral epistles" in brief, partly in relation to this topic, and now I find I have to take another step backwards and come back to the book of Acts, which has become somewhat of a longer detour than I had anticipated. I have come across a quite convincing argument that Acts is the factual background for the legal defense of Paul and his faith before the Roman court under the accusations of the ruling Jewish authorities. I'm not interested in discussing that theory in detail at present but having a better handle on what happened in Acts seems to me to be a necessary precursor to being able to say anything much about the "pastoral epistles" and what they might have to say on the topics of \presbuteros\, \apostolos\, \ekklesia\ or what-have-you.
Since in the New Testament we do have the practice of the appointment of elders, I don't know at this point how we could say that this isn't something of an institutionalization. If it was merely about who was eldest, how and why is there an appointment by an apostle? Within me, I feel it must be as has been fellowshipped here but without the confirmation of the scriptures, I don't know what to do with my sense.
Can anyone show where the term "elder" merely means "one who is somewhat more experienced and knowledgeable in the faith" rather than "one who bears a commissioned position of leadership"? I believe practically all of our brothers and sisters in Christianity would say that the second definition is the proper one and I think, at least superficially, I have to agree that is what the scriptures seem to demonstrate.
I don't think prescriptive vs. descriptive is merely semantic but I think you have to nevertheless contend with the likes of the Local Church, for instance, asserting that, yes, the Bible describes what we do and it is not because the Bible says to do it that way that it is done but because we have felt led to do this and this is also approved in the Bible.
Where does this get us, in other words? Don't you end up, once again, with that horrible contention previously traversed around here about who's got the right "church" and who's got the right "eldership" and the right checkbook and such? The solution cannot be in that realm whatsoever, is my sense. And yet, weren't there the false brothers who stole in to spy out our freedom in Christ? What shall we say in response to those who might support the "eldership" of a "false brother" in our midst?
I think it must be simpler than I'm making it but at present I don't know how to make it simpler.
