Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534
Is it indeed the case that elders must only be appointed by someone with superior authority? If not, then how shall they be appointed? Where is the instruction of the New Testament on this imprtant and practical point? ... I am really bothered by this.
|
Though Paul (probably) appointed some or all of the elders in Ephesus, he told them that the "
Holy Spirit placed them as overseers to shepherd the church of God." This was crucial. Too many LC's have human appointees, which has created conflicts during times of trials.
The Open Brethren confronted many conflicts like this, and some eventually agreed on the practice of
Unanimity of agreement -- waiting on the Holy Spirit thru prayer until unanimity was reached among the saints. This practice prevented the "top-down" management style we see today -- "
here's your new elder, you will like him."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Debelak
But he got his "office" or "role" from the apostle and the apostle gets his office/role from... which brings us back to "doh!, a deer, a female...."
Just some more fodder for thought while I contemplate further the points you brothers bring up and kick around some other contemplations (actually, I thinking of the concept of "recognition" - i.e. whereby "appointments" or "canonization" are not installations but rather recognitions.
|
I have long contended that the appointments we see in the LC's are not made by apostles, but by those acting as "bishops." Of course, in today's LC practice, the word "bishop" is totally taboo, and instantly evokes images of a dreaded hierarchy and headquarters. But isn't that a far better description of what we have today?
Let's call things what they are!
Bishops give regional conferences, oversee churches by raising up brothers who can lead, and have authority over their appointees. Isn't that what we have today?