[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

it would seem that you simply distrust the entire account as reflecting something positive from God. You have now even questioned the appointing of the deacons as indicating a flaw in the apostles' character []. if an organization is actually feeding the hungry are persons who help organize and see that it actually happens considered of lesser importance or connection to the activity because they are not the ones who might actually be standing in the soup kitchen with a ladle?

Well, maybe, maybe not. Don't simply dismiss the idea out of hand. I work for a very large corporation where a paper clip costs $4 because sixteen people are involved in its purchase. It is extreeeemely inefficient (like GM; only we have a monopoly, for now, so we get away with it). What I have found is that generally the "persons who help organize" tend to lounge in paneled offices, while someone is sweating down below trying to do 3 different jobs (management fodder I ain't).

At some point, the more "organized" things get, the more the "servant of all" tends to sleep on silken sheets and the ostensible recipients get an empty slogan. So the idea that an organization that supposedly cares for the poor becoming a bloated mass that only really cares for its own stomach isn't out of the realm of possibility. But, like you said, "organization" doesn't necessarily mean "corrupted"; however, in my view that has tended to be the case. How often this has occurred, where, and how far back into the record (i.e. into the biblical text) is open to discussion, I think.

Anyway, I don't think YP was questioning the apostles' character as much as simply wondering if they hadn't quite grasped it yet. Like Apollos -- you know, full of enthusiasm but preaching the wrong baptism.

Originally Posted by OBW

Did Luke suggest a negative thing when he recorded that the apostles and elders sent a letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia? It would seem that these men (the apostles and elders who were the ones sending the letter) wrote to the whole of the believers. How does that demean the elders in any location or deny them their “position.” It would seem that when they called themselves “brothers” and then wrote to everyone that they were admitting to the perceived authority they might or might not actually hold, but that they considered themselves brothers and that they were writing to all the believers and not just some similarly situated authorities.

Good point, except for the part about Luke's opinion. That's not relevant. Luke was a chronicler of events, not a characterizer. Other than that, your point is well taken.

Originally Posted by OBW

I cannot find the flaw in the NT record that you seem to see. I see plenty of flaw in what flawed humans have done with the NT on many subjects, not the least of which has been leadership. But in any group, there will be leadership. Even in an informal gathering of people, there eventually begins to be one or two that will stand out as the one(s) that the others follow. The one(s) that suggest the next time they are going to get together. You can buck it if you want. But the result will either be discord or you will become a/the leader. And in a spiritual context, the natural leader may not be the best choice. Having some guidelines for the willful selection of leaders is quite helpful if something more that a type A personality is required.

Well, let's see...it seems that the criteria for leadership, pre-resurrection, was something like that of James and John, i.e. ambition. And the rest are on record as quarreling among themselves twice (Luke 9:46, & 22:24) about who was greatest. Jesus corrected them, patiently (thank You Lord for Your patience!) and repeatedly. The question is: did they get it? Or perhaps the better question is: did they get it all, 100%, on the day Jesus resurrected? In Acts chapter 1 they were drawing straws to replace one of the twelve. We all know they were on board "The Jesus Express" there. But were they fully on board or still partly on board?

Jesus told them that He still had a lot to teach them, and that the Spirit of reality would guide them into all the reality (John 16:13). I take that to mean "not instantaneous enlightenment on all things, but instead gradual enlightenment, over the course of time and experience." Maybe with different guidelines, sister Dorcas would have been "the leading one". And maybe that would have been better for all concerned. Again, we are just thinking aloud here. Please allow us to possibly appear foolish/ridiculous.

Originally Posted by OBW

It would appear that God stopped Paul from participating in that purification vow. But he did not stop him from setting up elders. And those 7 letters at the beginning of Revelation would have been a good time to mention the eldership thing. Not a word. But the next chapter has 24 elders sitting on 24 thrones with 24 golden crowns. Now this does not indicate that these were “elders” of churches or “elders” of the Jewish tradition. It just says they are there.

And yes, why did Jesus select 12 for his inner circle? But I think it is recorded that he sent out 70 at one point. So there were the 12, plus another 58, plus how many others who followed regularly? Do we just say it was what happened? Did it have meaning as it was done to those whom he called, selected and sent? Did this tie into Jewish practice? Would this be meaningful to those very Jewish men? Would Jesus have expected them to practice just as he did? Or do we presume that it just happened and those same 12 (well, 11) made something out of it that was not?

God, and by definition/extension Jesus, likes order. Some are given to reign over 10 cities, some over 2 cities. And maybe the one reigning over 10 cities is overseeing 5 ones that have 2 cities each. So hierarchy isn't bad, at least to me. But God's organization, ordering, and ranking, are completely opposite to ours, at least when I look at and listen to Jesus the Nazarene. And when I look at His ostensible servants (e.g. RCC & LCs) I see more of a worldly pattern than a spiritual one. Even though it is, somewhat, "biblical".

Originally Posted by OBW

It seems to me that you are trying to find the error captured in scripture so that we can have a clear scriptural basis for dealing with it. I think the basis already exists. The leader is a servant. The first shall be last. Love God and your neighbor as yourself. When you find "leaders" outside of these and other principles, then they are not spiritual leaders.

Sister Dorcas, anyone?