Eldership

[Peter Debelak]

My focal interest is what kind of structure of gathering the Lord is after and even whether there is a particular structure at all that He prescribes in His word. Does the Lord prescribe that each of us meet in a formally recognizable congregation (and therefore, if we no longer meet in the LC, must find another one)? Or is His call to something less specific - as general as 1) were two or three are gathered and 2) don't forsake the gathering of yourselves together.

On this broad question - whether the Lord prescribes "groups" as such - we could all argue all day long. However, I think another means by which to determine whether the Lord prescribes we meet in a formal congregation/group/etc... is whether He prescribes the eldership as an office. That is, if He prescribes the eldership, then He necessarily prescribes that we are members of an outwardly identifiable congregation (the only other possibility, if he does in fact prescribe the eldership, is that he only does so when saints determine to gather regularly as a consistent group, but I'll bracket this possibility for now). So, if the eldership is a prescribed office, then observable congregations are also prescribed - and if so, each of us should be in one and under an eldership.

So, that said, I wish to pursue the question of whether the office of eldership is one which is prescribed in the NT, or whether its presence in the NT (which no one can deny) is a description of circumstance, or just a pattern (but not a prescription) of healthy practice.

The two competing lines of thought on this are summed up:

1) The apostles obviously did appoint elders (thus, eldership seems to be an office and the apostles deemed them necessary)

2) eldership was a Jewish office and the Jewish tradition relied much on order and structure. The early Christians adopted and merged many of the Jewish practices and structures with the early church practice (many early church leaders were likely Jewish elders, or at least used to being under Jewish elders...). To the extent that these tradition were powerful and not easily purged (and not inherently unhealthy), Paul and the other apostles permitted it and, to the extent they were permitting it, gave instructions to guide the most healthy exercise of an otherwise unnecessary practice.

This second point could be restated: the early Jewish Christians were stuck on keeping the tradition of Jewish elders - and, at that, they were prone to let some "wolves" into that position - so, to the extent they were stuck on this tradition, which had potential for destruction, the apostles said "fine, if you're going to insist on your traditions, let's at least lay out some healthy guiding principles for choosing elders..."

I submit that it is not obvious from the scripture that either of these views is right. But does the scripture lean in one direction more than another?

Thoughts?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. I will state here that I don't think the office of eldership is prescribed. But I will add that I don't think the Lord is against being a member of a "group." And, whereever the Lord leads us, there may be some folks there that, situationally (or even most of the time), to whom He wants us to submit. We don't look for it because its prescribed. We follow His leading which may, in some contexts, entail submitting ourselves to others. I add this P.S. lest anyone think that this inquiry into eldership is an attempt to eschew all restraint in favor of an "individualistic" Christian life. Even if someone believes that their only prescription is to simply follow the Lord's leading as an individual, does not mean they won't be lead to be part of a group and under an eldership...

P.P.S. If the eldership is prescribed, then that means that formal recognizable congregations are also prescribed and that each individual must be under an eldership. Of course, that doesn't answer the question of which congregation... which is a question being wrangled with all over this forum...

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

The two competing lines of thought on this are summed up:

1) The apostles obviously did appoint elders (thus, eldership seems to be an office and the apostles deemed them necessary)

2) eldership was a Jewish office and the Jewish tradition relied much on order and structure. The early Christians adopted and merged many of the Jewish practices and structures with the early church practice (many early church leaders were likely Jewish elders, or at least used to being under Jewish elders...). To the extent that these tradition were powerful and not easily purged (and not inherently unhealthy), Paul and the other apostles permitted it and, to the extent they were permitting it, gave instructions to guide the most healthy exercise of an otherwise unnecessary practice.

This second point could be restated: the early Jewish Christians were stuck on keeping the tradition of Jewish elders - and, at that, they were prone to let some "wolves" into that position - so, to the extent they were stuck on this tradition, which had potential for destruction, the apostles said "fine, if you're going to insist on your traditions, let's at least lay out some healthy guiding principles for choosing elders..."

I submit that it is not obvious from the scripture that either of these views is right. But does the scripture lean in one direction more than another?

Peter:

Can you please provide a good citation or citations you may have as to the latter view?

This is my recent speculation. I've been digging into the so-called pastoral epistles with this as a working thesis. I've corresponded briefly with a British theologian on the issue and, thusfar, I've got no proof of synagogue custom at all. I point to the mention of the "widows roll" as potential evidence of this premise. But I'd hate to spend the next 10 years studying first centurty synagogue custom if I don't need to. I posit that the supposedly well-developed "church offices" seen in the supposedly later "pastoral epistles" were in fact earlier practice with heavy synagogue influence, just as you have said here. But I'm not aware of anyone besides myself, and now you, who has put forward this postulate in a serious fashion. I think this could be a key to understanding both \ekklesia\, as you have suggested here, as well as \apostolos\, which is commonly understood as the top office. I've intended to get to elders and deacons at some point but I'm ready to join in with you on elders right now to see if we can make some headway there.

I think many of us here are in agreement that something went tragically wrong when all the elders signed that letter of allegience to brother Lee in 1986. A sober consideration of what is an elder may shed additional light into that unfortunate event.

I look forward to hearing from you!

PS: Just to keep us on track, Strong's does not include the word "eldership" at all. The word "apostleship" does appear, in a very few limited places. In my opnion, that provides at least some good evidence that there is no such thing as an "eldership" at all: "eldership" is not in the Bible. I know, I know, neither is "trinity."

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Peter:

Can you please provide a good citation or citations you may have as to the latter view?

Well, I...uh...well, this is just my speculation and I have not seen it seriously posited elsewhere.

It comes from my study of the Greek word "presbuteros" and its use in the NT.

Presbuteros is used nearly 70 times in the New Testament. Of that number, almost half are clearly referring to leaders within the Jewish community. In the Jewish society of Christ’s time presbuteros was used to refer to the respected leaders of the community, the synagogues and the Jewish Sanhedrin. Such common phrases as "traditions of the elders," "elders of the people," "priests, scribes, and elders," "elders of Israel," are such examples.

It seems to me to be pretty self-evident from the Word that "eldership" was part of the Jewish tradition, even if not official offices in the synagogue.

I don't think that my hypothesis has to be right, it only has to be possible - for, as such, then it would be impossible to say that "eldership" is prescribed.

I'll post more soon, I just wanted to follow up with this quick note...

Peter

P.S. aron, I do like the flock analogy and have some further thoughts on it, but not much time now to post. Grace to you!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Well, I...uh...well, this is just my speculation and I have not seen it seriously posited elsewhere.

It comes from my study of the Greek word "presbuteros" and its use in the NT.

Presbuteros is used nearly 70 times in the New Testament. Of that number, almost half are clearly referring to leaders within the Jewish community. In the Jewish society of Christ’s time presbuteros was used to refer to the respected leaders of the community, the synagogues and the Jewish Sanhedrin. Such common phrases as "traditions of the elders," "elders of the people," "priests, scribes, and elders," "elders of Israel," are such examples.

It seems to me to be pretty self-evident from the Word that "eldership" was part of the Jewish tradition, even if not official offices in the synagogue.

OK, so then, that makes two of us.

But there you go! The question I'd ask in that context is why would the appointment of elders fall to an apostle post-synagogue. Was there a practice of such appointment by someone else?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

OK, so then, that makes two of us.

But there you go! The question I'd ask in that context is why would the appointment of elders fall to an apostle post-synagogue. Was there a practice of such appointment by someone else?

I should rephrase my answer:

I have seen support for the proposition that the church-structure was inherented from the synagogue pattern - I just haven't seen this proposition be used for the further proposition that church-structure in the New Testament is therefore merely descriptive and not normative.

Here's some background on "elder" in the OT and into the NT:

Prominent member of both Jewish and early Christian communities. In the Old Testament, “elder” usually translates the Hebrew word zaqen from a root which means “beard” or “chin.” In the New Testament, the Greek word is presbuteros, which is transliterated in English as “presbyter” and from which the word “priest” was derived.

Elders in the Old Testament From the beginning of Israelite history, the elders were the leaders of the various clans and tribes. When the tribes came together to form the nation of Israel, the elders of the tribes naturally assumed important roles in governing the affairs of the nation. Moses was commanded to inform the “elders of Israel” of the Lord's intention to deliver Israel from Egypt and to take the elders with him to confront the pharaoh (Exodus 3:16,Exodus 3:18). Similarly, seventy of the elders participated with Moses at the covenant meal at Sinai (Exodus 24:9-11). As the task of governing Israel grew in complexity, part of the burden was transferred from Moses to a council of seventy elders (Numbers 11:16-17).

During the period of the Judges and the monarchy, the elders were prominent in the political and judicial life of Israel. They demanded that Samuel appoint a king (1 Samuel 8:4-5); they played crucial roles in David's getting and retaining the throne (2 Samuel 3:17; 2 Samuel 5:3; 2 Samuel 17:15; 2 Samuel 19:11-12); and they represented the people at the consecration of the Temple of Solomon (1 Kings 8:1,1 Kings 8:3). In the legal codes of Deuteronomy the elders are responsible for administering justice, sitting as judges in the city gate (Deuteronomy 22:15), deciding cases affecting family life (Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Deuteronomy 22:13-21), and executing decisions (Deuteronomy 19:11-13; Deuteronomy 21:1-9).

Although elders were less prominent in the post-exilic period and the term was apparently not much used in Jewish communities outside Palestine, the “council of elders” was an integral part of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. In the New Testament, frequent reference is made to the elders of the Jews, usually in conjunction with the chief priests or scribes (for example, Matthew 21:23; Mark 14:43). In this context the elders, apparently members of leading families, had some authority but were not the principal leaders in either religious or political affairs. Elders did have leading roles in the government of synagogues and after the fall of the Temple became even more central to Jewish religious life.

Elders in the New Testament In the earliest Jewish Christian churches, at least the church in Jerusalem, the position of “elder” was almost certainly modeled after the synagogue pattern. Although there are few specific details about the function of elders in the Jerusalem church, they apparently served as a decision-making council. They are often mentioned in conjunction with the apostles, and some passages give the impression that the apostles and elders of Jerusalem considered themselves to be a decision-making council for the whole church (Acts 15:1; Acts 21:17-26). As the Jewish character of the Jerusalem church increased with the departure of Philip, Peter, and others more amenable to preaching to Gentiles, the synagogue pattern probably became even more pronounced in Jerusalem.


- - from Holman Bible Dictionary found here (admittedly, I do not know the pedigree or reliability of this source - but the references check out!).

[Peter Debelak]

If "eldership" was inhereted from the Jewish custom, then Christ's words in Matthew 15 could shed some light on the normative/descriptive nature of eldership:


1 Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus (B)from Jerusalem and said,

2"Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they (C)do not wash their hands when they eat bread."

3And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

...
12Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?"

13But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.

14"Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Thus, I would say that if the "eldership" does not have an independant NT prescriptive foundation (as opposed to being an inhereted OT prescription), then it got abolished with Christ (at least as a prescription).

Except, I'm not sure how then to reconcile Matthew 23:1-3:

1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2saying: "(B)The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

The bolded sentence is odd and I'm not sure how to comport it with the rest of Matthew 23 (or Matthew 15):

8"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

9"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

10"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

I think these passages should be at the forefront of our minds in any interpretation of potential "offices" in the church.

Peter

P.S. YP: I haven't the first clue - regardless of the descriptive/prescritive nature of eldership - why their appointment would fall to the apostles if the practice was derived from Jewish tradition. I don't know if there is an analogue

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Elders in the New Testament In the earliest Jewish Christian churches, at least the church in Jerusalem, the position of “elder” was almost certainly modeled after the synagogue pattern. Although there are few specific details about the function of elders in the Jerusalem church, they apparently served as a decision-making council. They are often mentioned in conjunction with the apostles, and some passages give the impression that the apostles and elders of Jerusalem considered themselves to be a decision-making council for the whole church (Acts 15:1; Acts 21:17-26). As the Jewish character of the Jerusalem church increased with the departure of Philip, Peter, and others more amenable to preaching to Gentiles, the synagogue pattern probably became even more pronounced in Jerusalem.[/COLOR]


- - from Holman Bible Dictionary found here

Scant evidence for making the connection between the two "elderships," however. "Almost certainly" doesn't quite do it for me, although it DOES show a contradiction within that entire school of analysis whereby the supposed "offices" are later features of assembly practice, which is an important consideration that I have been grappling with. If it is "almost certainly" something derived from synagogue custom, transmitted through the Jewish believers in the assembly at Jerusalem, then that's a very early feature, not a very late, potentially post-apostolic, one.

Hmmm.

See, this is why I'm keyed in on the "widows' roll" concept. It's so distinctive that if it finds itself firmly ensconced in common synagogue practice, it then becomes far less unreasonable to propose that other items, such as an appointed eldership, find their source in a similar place, specifically, in a traditional practice of first-century Palestinian Judaism.

This would really make several things make a whole lot more sense, in my opinion, not the least of which is Paul's subjugation of the functioning of the sisters by means of an appeal to the Law...

[Peter Debelak]

I came across a "defense of the rule of Elders" recently, in which the author set up the framework for this inquiry thus:

"The Bible is the rule of faith and practice. This fact constitutes a reason to accept its descriptions of certain features of church organization as normative unless there are compelling reasons to feel that they are not. The burden of proof rests on those who hold that the patterns are merely descriptive."

I don't have a problem with the burden of proof being on me to put forth "compelling reasons" to feel that church organization, as described in the Bible, is not normative. The first is not an historical or factual one, but rather a logical one:

Formal church structure, it seems to me, is logically contrary to the New Covenant.

You cannot say there is a prescription of obedience to anyone other than Christ and still maintain that there is, in fact, a New Covenant wherein the only Head of the Body is Christ - who indwells every believer and makes them into the new priesthood.

That does not mean that Christ, within each believer, will not lead a believer - even potentially all believers - to enter into a particular structural arrangement - but that is a description of someone obeying Christ within - not a prescription of obeying a normative structure. Some may say this is "mere semantics" - I say it is absolutely not.

SOme, who are convinced that "eldership" is prescriptive, use the prior practice of "eldership" in the Jewish tradition as positive evidence (not negative evidence, as I would) that eldership in the church is prescribed. Here is one such example:

"It can be plausibly argued that the reason why the New Testament is not more explicit in regard to church government is that it presupposes, as prescriptive, familiar principles of organization in use in the Old Testament, the synagogue, and perhaps in Hellenistic institutions. "

This approach, it seems to me, gives short-shrift to the massive paradigm-shift that was Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection.

Thoughts?

Peter

P.S. the two above quotes are from The Biblical Case for Elder Rule by
Dan Dumas, Executive Pastor of Southern Baptist Church. This article (outline actually) can be found here

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Some, who are convinced that "eldership" is prescriptive, use the prior practice of "eldership" in the Jewish tradition as positive evidence (not negative evidence, as I would) that eldership in the church is prescribed. Here is one such example:

"It can be plausibly argued that the reason why the New Testament is not more explicit in regard to church government is that it presupposes, as prescriptive, familiar principles of organization in use in the Old Testament, the synagogue, and perhaps in Hellenistic institutions. "

This approach, it seems to me, gives short-shrift to the massive paradigm-shift that was Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection.

Thoughts?

Peter

Can't I manage to post anything without using the phrase "universal church"?

Nope.

Rome is the ultimate source of the post hoc continuation doctrines of this sort, my friend, and "short-shrift" is a massively-kind understatement.

You and I are in solid agreement on this point. It really seems to me that the problem of the continuation of administration is ultimately what we're talking about.

Wish I had time to do more right now but I will apply myself in this direction as soon as I can...

[KSA]

The authority in the church is not in the office. It is in the godly character and the anointing of a minister. When he is appointed for the office, it is just a recognition of the spiritual authority that he already posseses. If he has fallen from the Lord, then, of course, he loses his spiritual authority. But he should be removed by proper means. For example, the Word says that an accusation against an elder should be confirmed by two or three witnesses.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Formal church structure, it seems to me, is logically contrary to the New Covenant.

You cannot say there is a prescription of obedience to anyone other than Christ and still maintain that there is, in fact, a New Covenant wherein the only Head of the Body is Christ - who indwells every believer and makes them into the new priesthood.

That does not mean that Christ, within each believer, will not lead a believer - even potentially all believers - to enter into a particular structural arrangement - but that is a description of someone obeying Christ within - not a prescription of obeying a normative structure. Some may say this is "mere semantics" - I say it is absolutely not.

You got my vote on this one, and kudos to you for stating what I have inchoately held in mind for some time, and have tried to stammer out to all and sundry.

Ad hoc structure is one thing - there are always situations that need structure. Someone to wait on the tables, someone to study the word for next week's meeting. But to formalize the process quenches the leading of the Spirit, and ruins our ear for Christ. We end up with the Rule Book (Bible), and the Designated Promulgators of the Rules. Sounds a lot like the Scribes with the scrolls of Moses and Isaiah, and we know how that turned out!

Every time I come into a "room" with Hope and TJ present I am aware of my "elders", and I do acknowledge that. But to formalize is to formaldehyde-ize God's living and vital (and adaptable) arrangement. I don't like that. (Most folks probably know this already, from reading my posts. But I'm happy to repeat myself!).

Look at John's letters to the seven assemblies of the called-out ones in Asia. Six out of the seven are called to repent, only one is asked to hold fast. Lest you think these collections of saints are not a representative sample of a wider problem, read Revelation 1:3: "Blessed are those who read the words of this prophecy, and who keep them." John is writing to us all.

If Diotrephes had not been there, wanting to be first, someone else would have stepped in and filled the role quite nicely, I am sure. John and James had been there before, wanting to sit at the right and left hand of Jesus; John now was aware how deep the problem was. It was rooted in the fallen human nature. The old man had waltzed into the New Age of Christ, and his formalization of the gatherings of saints exemplified this tendency to build things in his own image, try as he might to replicate God's Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I don't have a problem with the burden of proof being on me to put forth "compelling reasons" to feel that church organization, as described in the Bible, is not normative. The first is not an historical or factual one, but rather a logical one:

Formal church structure, it seems to me, is logically contrary to the New Covenant.

You cannot say there is a prescription of obedience to anyone other than Christ and still maintain that there is, in fact, a New Covenant wherein the only Head of the Body is Christ - who indwells every believer and makes them into the new priesthood.

I was considering your point, and my response, and decided I had a better word for what I am addressing here. You used the word "formal", as in 'formal church structure'; I had used the word "organize", and others.

I decided I like better the word "institution", or "institutionalize", as a good label to capture what might be happening here. We believers gather, or rather are gathered, by our Shepherd. We are "assembled" together, as when you buy a bicycle for your son and it says "Some assembly required". God is assembling us together. Naturally, some are "elders" and some are "youngers". Fine.

But what we have tended to do is "institutionalize" these relationships. We create institutions out of our assemblies. So at first, a man has a ministry to transfer to his neighbors, who have been languishing in darkness; he shares, or ministers, something of the reality that has come to him in Christ Jesus. Fine. But then he mistakenly institutionalizes his ministry, and those to whom he ministered eventually end up not ministering Christ to one another, but rather serving "The Ministry", an institution, rather than the Lord.

I see the question of eldership in this light. Having a ministry is not wrong. In fact, it is probably necessary. You want to serve God. Wonderful. Also, having elders is not wrong on its face. As I said, when two or three gather, one will be elder, one younger. But do we need to institutionalize the process? I think the NT gives us a description of what happened, not necessarily a prescription to follow. The apostle John, I believe, realized this trend, and wrote about it. As I said in the previous post, the epistles to the seven assemblies in Asia are meant to be read by all, not merely those seven. The call to 'repent' is a broad one.

And not unrelated, I think, are the two great women in Revelation. One is seen in chapter 12, clothed with the sun. She is the glorious assembly of the called-out ones. The woman riding the beast in chapter 17, clothed in scarlet and having a golden cup full of abominations, is the institutionalized "church".

[aron]

I submitted the "geese" form of leadership on another forum (I was 'alan' there). I said that when geese are flying, the stronger one takes the lead to 'cut' the air for the others, then when it gets tired it falls back and another one takes the lead for a bit.

Some are naturally more constituted to lead than others. But nobody is relegated to the "lead" position 24/7. You can shift. You can say, "I'm tired. Gonna fall back for a bit." And someone else gets to lead for a while.

The disciples, post-resurrection, were in this position. Someone needed to wait on tables, someone needed to study the word for next week's meeting, to share something from the Lord. Unfortunately it got, what is the word? Ossified? Calcified? Bureacratized?

I know! Organized! Unfortunately, they organized. My thesis is that to whatever extent the believers organize, to that extent the Spirit is hindered. God allows it, yes, but His blessing is diminished.

There is always leadership. Always. But do we organize the leadership? If we do, we end up with popes, bishops, and "apostles of the age"...

If you have something to say, say it. If not, step back and listen. The Lord will always provide leadership for the flock. But to expect someone to speak for God 24/7 elevates man to a place reserved for Christ alone. This seems to be what happened with Lee. A good, useful brother got sucked into a role not meant for sinful man.

[YP0534]

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.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

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?

Just some thoughts on this specific part of your post (more thoughts on the rest and in response to aron later).

I agree with you that even if we could agreet that the church structure in the NT is just a description, that does not mean that groups today shouldn't have that same structure. Indeed, as you have pointed out, they could simply say, "Yes, we know the Scripture doesn't prescribe our way of doing things, but this is how we've been lead and the Scripture approves it."

That, however, does not inherently lead us to the debate about who is "right" etc... That stance inherently allows that different "groups" may have different leading concerning structure (or lack thereof) and solong as none of them violate the explicit prescriptions, then all are fine. It is when groups want to superimpose their self-admitted personal leading upon other groups that the problem arises. If they self-admit the bible doesn't prescribe a structure, and that their group (and presumably all groups) are permitted by the Word to organize according to the Lord's leading, then there is no standing to criticize others: all these groups, with potentially different organizational structures (none of which contradict Biblical prescriptions) should co-exist without a debate on who is "right." As soon as a group begins arguing about who is "right" - they are implicitly arguing the Bible prescribes their structure, which they admitted was not the case... Follow?

More later...

Peter

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Just some thoughts on this specific part of your post (more thoughts on the rest and in response to aron later).

I agree with you that even if we could agreet that the church structure in the NT is just a description, that does not mean that groups today shouldn't have that same structure. Indeed, as you have pointed out, they could simply say, "Yes, we know the Scripture doesn't prescribe our way of doing things, but this is how we've been lead and the Scripture approves it."

That, however, does not inherently lead us to the debate about who is "right" etc... That stance inherently allows that different "groups" may have different leading concerning structure (or lack thereof) and solong as none of them violate the explicit prescriptions, then all are fine. It is when groups want to superimpose their self-admitted personal leading upon other groups that the problem arises. If they self-admit the bible doesn't prescribe a structure, and that their group (and presumably all groups) are permitted by the Word to organize according to the Lord's leading, then there is no standing to criticize others: all these groups, with potentially different organizational structures (none of which contradict Biblical prescriptions) should co-exist without a debate on who is "right." As soon as a group begins arguing about who is "right" - they are implicitly arguing the Bible prescribes their structure, which they admitted was not the case... Follow?

More later...

Peter

I follow and I'll buy it for now. That property stands a bit too close to the border of Greater Utopia for me to be entirely comfortable with it, but I'd love to live there if I thought I could. I don't think I'm really the target market, though. I guess I'm really concerned about where the hard-sell residents will want to live. I think there may be an restrictive covenant covering the neighborhood which precludes such a "live and let live" existence.

(OK, so, sorry about the extended analogy but it was working for me and I went with it. )

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I follow and I'll buy it for now. That property stands a bit too close to the border of Greater Utopia for me to be entirely comfortable with it, but I'd love to live there if I thought I could. I don't think I'm really the target market, though. I guess I'm really concerned about where the hard-sell residents will want to live. I think there may be an restrictive covenant covering the neighborhood which precludes such a "live and let live" existence.

(OK, so, sorry about the extended analogy but it was working for me and I went with it. )

Does the covenant run with land? If not, we could run all the folks living there off and start fresh without the restrictive covenant in effect. Or we could establish another restrictive covenant - we could call it the New Covenant - which states "for freedom Christ has set me free" and requires all those living on the land to "live and let live to the Lord".

(Stretching my memory to recall property law... shame on you... )

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

... different "groups" may have different leading concerning structure (or lack thereof) and so long as none of them violate the explicit prescriptions, then all are fine. It is when groups want to superimpose their self-admitted personal leading upon other groups that the problem arises.

I have another way of looking at this same issue. Remember Peter's oft-quoted (here, anyway, if not in the LC's) directive that the shepherds of the flock should not lord it over the sheep, but should rather lead by example? Might we not apply that same directive to the different fellowships of believers as well? Some groups will by dint of being there 'first' or having a charismatic leader or simply being bigger want to tell others how they should conduct their affairs. Doesn't that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Peter's fellowship?

And Peter's word seems strengthened, and widely applicable, by being so in line with the sentiment expressed by our Lord: If you want to be the greatest, you should then become the least. Any collective aggregation of believers that includes in its charter an aspiration to be "great" should seek how to be "least", and "imposing" meekness on others seems to fly in the face of it, doesn't it?

I don't disagree with your logic, either; it just seems that I am using a different train of logic to reach the same conclusions.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by aron

I have another way of looking at this same issue. Remember Peter's oft-quoted (here, anyway, if not in the LC's) directive that the shepherds of the flock should not lord it over the sheep, but should rather lead by example? Might we not apply that same directive to the different fellowships of believers as well? Some groups will by dint of being there 'first' or having a charismatic leader or simply being bigger want to tell others how they should conduct their affairs. Doesn't that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Peter's fellowship?

And Peter's word seems strengthened, and widely applicable, by being so in line with the sentiment expressed by our Lord: If you want to be the greatest, you should then become the least. Any collective aggregation of believers that includes in its charter an aspiration to be "great" should seek how to be "least", and "imposing" meekness on others seems to fly in the face of it, doesn't it?

I don't disagree with your logic, either; it just seems that I am using a different train of logic to reach the same conclusions.

The parallel is a very good one. There is just one thing that I wonder about. Even the notion that a leader/shepherd should not "lord it over the flock" entails the notion that the leader is still convinced he is "right" and the "flock" need his guidence - its just, he has to be careful about how he conveys that belief.

In the parallel, then, the various groups would still be convinced their organization/institutionaliztion is "right" (i.e. prescribed by the Scripture) - they just won't brow-beat other congregations about it.

My question is whether the sentiment of being "right" about a structure is healthy in the first place. Thoughts?

Peter

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

P.S. I will state here that I don't think the office of eldership is prescribed.

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. In 1 Pet. 5:1-2 the elders are commanded to shepherd the flock of God, serving as overseers. And they are promised the reward from the Lord for their service. Then 1 Tim. 3:1 says that if a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. And then we are given qualifications of a bishop. I am convinced that eldership is not some kind of Jewish hangover, but a very important principle for the church life.

P.P.S. If the eldership is prescribed, then that means that formal recognizable congregations are also prescribed and that each individual must be under an eldership.

Exactly!!! Check Heb. 10:24-25! It is very unhealthy to be on our own, or in some kind of small groups that are detached from the rest of the body in our city.

Of course, that doesn't answer the question of which congregation... which is a question being wrangled with all over this forum...

This matter is quite simple. Be in a congregation where you feel at home, where your gifts are developed, and where you can serve and submit others. But at the same time remember that your group is only a part of the body in you city. Therefore, it is very healthy to seek out fellowship with other Christians and establish relationship with them. That is what I am trying to do. We have a small meeting - where we basically practice house church principles. But I keep in touch with many Christians (including pastors) in our city. Last week I had a spiritual need. Saints where I meet were not available. So I went to a big church in our city. And since I established relationship with many of them, I felt like I was home. They always rejoice when I visit them, and give me a warm welcome. I had a time of worship with them and my need was satisfied.

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.

[YP0534]

I think it would be best to retain the focus here on what the Bible actually says about "elders" instead of just giving our own thoughts and interpretations about all these other things.

We are, at least, I am, attempting to reexamine preconceived notions, not merely repeat them again.

I wish to know what the Bible says about it.

For instance, the word "eldership" is not in the Bible although clearly many people feel it is so natural to think and act as if it is something prescribed or described by the scriptures.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search...ldership&t=KJV

The Bible speaks of "elders" but not "eldership" so I think this is meaningful.

(The term as appears in some translations of 1 Tim 4:14 refers to a group of elders, not an office of elder.)

I would rather stick to what we can learn from the actual scriptures.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I wish to know what the Bible says about it.

For instance, the word "eldership" is not in the Bible although clearly many people feel it is so natural to think and act as if it is something prescribed or described by the scriptures.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search...ldership&t=KJV

The Bible speaks of "elders" but not "eldership" so I think this is meaningful.

(The term as appears in some translations of 1 Tim 4:14 refers to a group of elders, not an office of elder.)

I would rather stick to what we can learn from the actual scriptures.

It seems that your main objection is with the term "office" (by the way, I always use "eldership" meaning "group of elders"). However, the Word talks about office as well.

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is fine work he desires to do. (1 Tim. 3:1. NASB)

(And we know that elders and overseers are the same in NT).

"The office of overseer" in Greek is episkope. Greek dictionary says: episkope; fem., a purely biblical and patristic word. The office of an overseer or bishop in Christ's Church...

It is interesting that the same word is translated office in Acts. 1:20 where it talks about the office of an apostle - his office let another man take. If you check Ps. 109:8, where this quote was lifted from, then you'll see that the same Hebrew word is used as in 2 Chron. 23:18, where the offices in the house of the Lord are discussed.

So I think that this "there is no word eldership in the Bible talk" is just hair splitting. What really matters is that the church was a community with leadership, and that this leadership was to be obeyed and given honor to. There is no such a thing as the church without authority in the Bible. A person who does not know how to place himself under authority cannot progress spiritually.

What is the biblical authority is quite another matter, but that there is authority in the church goes without doubt.

[aron]

Originally Posted by KSA

What really matters is that the church was a community with leadership, and that this leadership was to be obeyed and given honor to. There is no such a thing as the church without authority in the Bible. A person who does not know how to place himself under authority cannot progress spiritually.

What is the biblical authority is quite another matter, but that there is authority in the church goes without doubt.

Yes, what is biblical authority? Anyone who "jumps rank" and declares themselves to be in charge is disqualified, in my view. Remember the case of Alexander Haig? He was Secretary of State when President Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981, and famously asserted, "I'm in control here." He later said he was misunderstood, he just meant he was in control of the room with the press asking questions, not the country. But it was a breach in appearance, anyway, and he was censured for it.

Likewise, any christians who assert, "I'm in control here", either individually or collectively, have left thier biblical standing. The Lord said to take the last place at the table, and then let the Master of the feast call you up higher. In this case, the church age, the stand-in for the Master of the feast is the believers. If they get fed and watered and shepherded and encouraged and strengthened and enlightened by you, they are going to invite you up higher, to the place of honor at the table. But if you "impose" your "authority" on them it is unbiblical.

I agree with the statements "There is no such thing as a church without authority in the Bible.", and "A person who does not place himself under authority cannot progress spiritually." But at the same time, I am wary of being bullied, intimidated, and oppressed by someone's twisted apprehension of the term "authority".

[KSA]

Biblical authority is determined by our subjection to the authority of the Lord. There is no authority in the church apart from the Lord.

There are abuses of the authority in the church. But to deny authority itself because of the abuses is to go way too far. It is the same as denying parenthood just because some parents abuse their children.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by KSA

(And we know that elders and overseers are the same in NT).

I do know know this.

How do you know this?

[aron]

YP's insertion of the 'widow's roll' into the discussion of elders provides some helpful context for me. It got me thinking about the 'cultural relics' we often unknowingly insert into our practices, religious and otherwise. Hopefully my comments here serve as an adjunct rather than an impediment to the discussion.

--short hair. Paul prescribes women not to have short hair. That is not followed in the church, even in the Local Churches today. Some women have short hair, most don't.

--head coverings. Same as above. Most LC women don't cover thier heads, some do.

--women being 'silent' in the church. Not followed much in any fellowship of believers. I did meet with one non-LC group that had strict adherence to the above 3 points.

--Paul & Silas getting the right hand of fellowship to go forth, and being told to "remember the widows and orphans, which we assured them we were eager to do". Not much in record follows concerning widows and orphans being helped by them. Today, helping widows and orphans seems to be optional in Christianity. In the LC's, we looked for "good materials", which meant young college students. Widows and orphans were looked after privately, by some. But it certainly was not stressed. It seems to be more stressed in the NT, in places like this, and in the Gospels.

--the widow's roll, mentioned by YP. Again, optional, it seems. To me, inserting a widows roll, or some such practice, in the early assembly is not so much a cultural artifact as it is an attempt by the adherents of the faith to follow the Master's teachings. He said, "It is better to give than to receive", and some of the disciples looked for ways to give, and latched on to this as a way to help others. So they weren't being "Jewish" as much as trying to be "good". The cultural element might have been irrelevant.

--slaves obeying the masters. This is clearly cultural. It did get rehashed in the U.S. prior to the Civil War, with pro-slavery/states' rights groups citing this verse and abolitionists citing the "there is not any free man or slave in Christ" verses. Actually, some of the NT verses on slavery might be called anti-cultural, because they fly in the face of prevailing sentiment by asserting the equality of all men, and women, in the household of faith. That is the opposite of a 'nod' to culture, and also it follows Christ, to some degree, who could be quite iconoclastic in his speaking. Overturning the established order, and such.

--wives obeying husbands. In the LC's, at least on paper, this is adhered to, but in many Christian groups it is downplayed or ignored. As society changed, so did the attention to admonitions such as this. Today women can divorce husbands, can own property, vote, run for president, run companies, perform open heart surgery; they are in most cases equal. And in many Christian groups, even strict 'Bible-based' groups, women have equal status. In the homes also.

--"I do not permit a woman to teach". Same as above.

--children obeying/honoring parents. This seems to transcend culture. Children lack experience, and those children who are not obedient eventually learn, sometimes with a steep price, that the things Mom & Dad lectured on had at least a modicum of reality attached to it. The price to pay, learning from Mom & Dad, usually is less steep than learing from 'the world'.

--elders/leading ones in the assembly not being lovers of money, not vain, not striking others, not having multiple wives, not drunkards. Partly cultural. Interpersonal violence may have been more common back then, thus the need for an admonition. But most of it is common sense, really. Pretty obvious, and as such, to me, mostly irrelevant. There is a cultural element here. Paul would not have to write such words today, just like "Slaves, obey your masters." It is clearly a cultural artifact from now-departed times.

My point in this little list (which came to me "off the top of my head" as I was writing; surely there are other examples also), is to suggest that there are things which the christian community has ignored and/or abandoned as unworkable or outmoded or irrelevant by the changing times. And some things which some have abandoned and some other ones hold to, even tightly. So it seems to be okay to give ourselves some latitude as we attempt to determine what is "biblical" and what is "cultural".

Lastly, the trump card is Jesus Christ, not letters to Timothy or Titus. Paul said "Imitate me as I imitate Christ". We ought to determine where Paul was imitating Christ, and where he was nodding to the prevailing culture. Just because God gave Paul latitude to be a Greek among the Greeks, that doesn't mean we all have to strictly adhere to Greek customs and culture in order to follow Jesus the Galilean. We can be American among the Americans, and so forth. America is a much more decentralized place. If we collectively prefer a more decentralized or ad-hoc form of group leadership, I don't think God's throne will shake.

[aron]

Originally Posted by KSA

... 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.

I agree. My point is on the institutionalizing of relationships in the fellowship. This leads to abuses, and obedience to "the office" rather than to the Lord. We have seen too many instances of this in the LC's, not to mention in christian history.

I recall the statement, "Philip Lee is the Office", for example. Remember that one?

Also see the thread "Letter from Romania". There, the "Office" is synonymous with "the feeling in the Body".

I am on very good terms with people in institutionalized christianity. Some of them, who don't like each other, think I am on too good terms with "the other party". But anyone who tries to flex thier institutional muscle on me, offering a few flimsy verses to basically say, Because I'm boss and I said so, finds me suddenly uncooperative.

[Peter Debelak]

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...)