Quote:
Originally Posted by KSA
Allow me to disagree! Eldership is not only described but also prescribed in the New Testament. Take, for example, Heb. 13:17 - "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account..". It is a clear prescription.
|
KSA:
Here’s is my framework for inquiry:
The Bible contains
1)
Truth
2)
Prescriptions
a. For all time (these, then, are like “truth” since they are universally applicable)
b. Situational (these may be imperatives in the Scripture, but are not necessarily meant for all time
3)
Descriptions
If a facial reading of a passage seems to establish a prescription for all time, but yet I can contemplate situations where abiding that prescription would contradict a more universal truth, then I gather that the passage must have an alternative interpretation other than being a universal prescription. It may be an imperative sentence structure, but perhaps a situational one. Cf. the “prescriptions” of the Acts 15 creed.
For example, it is a truth that we are all part of a holy priesthood – with direct access to God. Old Testament priests were chosen by God, not self-appointed; and they were chosen for a purpose: to serve God with their lives by offering up sacrifices. The priesthood served as a picture or "type" of the coming ministry of Jesus Christ--a picture that was then no longer needed once His sacrifice on the cross was completed. When the thick temple veil that covered the doorway to the Holy of Holies was torn in two by God at the time of Christ's death (Matthew 27:51), God was indicating that the Old Testament priesthood was no longer necessary. Now people could come directly to God through the great High Priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:14-16). There are now no earthly mediators between God and man as existed in the Old Testament priesthood (1 Timothy 2:5).
But reading "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account.." as a “clear prescription” – as a universal prescription, creates real problems. Under what circumstances do I “obey those who rule over” me? In every circumstance, no matter what the command I am to obey? The verse doesn’t make caviats. In fact, a strict reading of the verse implies that even if the leader is wrong, you still should obey – since it says “as to those who must give an account.” This strict reading of the verse means that, even if obeying a leader in some circumstance would violate my conscience, the fact that the leader holds an office to which I am to submit is all I need to know in order to obey. The leader will be held accountable if he is wrong, not me. Do you agree with this reading of the verse? That is it’s most obvious facial meaning. But that obvious facial reading seems to me to contradict the more unviversal truth that there are no mediators between us an God after Christ's death and resurrection.
So, if you don’t agree, under what circumstances can you interpret it differently? I am subjecting verses like this to scrutiny under Scriptural truths I know to be true: such as “there is no mediator between God and me other than Christ Himself” (even if, on occasion, He speaks through other believers). Under the scrutiny of this truth, the strict reading of Hebrews 13:17 cannot stand and an alternative interpretation which comports with that truth is necessary.
You are painting a very black-and-white picture and then passing serious judgments on those who disagree (e.g. “It is very simple….” or “In my experience, those who are afraid of strong church ties, close relationship with other Christians and being under the authority of leadership are those who were either spiritually abused, or are introvert in their disposition and don't generally like to be around people. It is a serious spiritual problem that must be dealt with. It is especially dangerous when a theological basis is developed to support that kind of attitude.”)
It is not that simple. What eldership are you under? One in your house church – or one in the larger group you occasionally go to? Which leaders do you “obey” as “ones who must give an account”? Under what criteria did/could you reject the leaders who were previously over you? (I am not asking for specific answers, I am asking rhetorically). As we get into these questions, it becomes clear that it is not that clear. The governing motivator, in my view, is our personal accountability to God. If He confirms within us to submit to others, we do so – but NOT because they hold an “office,” but rather because we have confirmation within to do so. There will “elders” in the office of “eldership” who you cannot obey – and there will be non-elders who do not hold an office to whom the Lord would like us, in some context, to submit to. It becomes clear that it is not about the ‘office’ or the ‘position,’ but rather the Lord’s leading and command. Thoughts?
In Love,
Peter
P.S. I posted this before I saw your last post. I will consider your reply and respond (but this post is not a response to your last one...)