Should Members Obey or Submit to Church Leaders?

[John]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Turns out the ways things are done in "Christianity" are the healthiest and most biblical.

There there are a variety of ministries (1 Cor 12:5) serving many different churches. These churches are led by leaders who have the right and obligation to vet ministries for the sake of those they lead (Heb 13:17; Rev 2:2). Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute (Acts 5:29). A leader is no longer your leader if you move from his church to another, nor if his words violate your conscience.

Paul's attitude reflects that of one who understood that churches had the right to question his ministry (2 Cor 6:11-13; cf. Rev 2:2). Paul spends half of 2 Corinthians appealing to the Corinthians to consider his ministry trustworthy and worthwhile. But he stops short of commanding them to submit to him. This shows he knew they had the right to reject him if they viewed his ministry as damaging.

Igzy,

I was bothered by the quoted post from you. Let me try and get out the problems that I have with it, and maybe you can help me with some explanation or correction.

To begin, you move from the universal statement that [all] things done in “Christianity” are the healthiest and most biblical, which seems to be put in juxtaposition to the way that things were done in Witness Lee’s Local Church. I would agree that some things done in “Christianity” are better (more healthy and, possibly, more biblical) than some things done in the Local Church; but, I would not agree that all things are best.

I don’t want to go too far in my comments, since I don’t know how universally you really intended to go with your statement, even though your statement went all the way. For one thing, I don’t know for sure what you meant by “Christianity.” I know that you seemed to be playing off Witness Lee’s usage, and he applied it derogatorily to everything Christian that was not a part of his Local Church; but, I hope you do not believe that everything in all of established Christianity is healthier and more biblical than all things that were done in the Local Church.

After this all-encompassing opener, you presented us with a discussion of leaders. By your presentation, it seems that you feel that the way that Christianity “does leaders” falls into the category of being “the healthiest and most biblical.” The way that much of Christianity controls the way that leaders function is generally healthier, I would say, than the way that the Local Church does it; but, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s the healthiest. As to being the most biblical, that would be really difficult to prove, I would think, and I disagree that it’s the most biblical.

For myself, I admit that I do not know all about how Christianity does leaders. The Roman Catholics do it one way, and the Brethren do it another. There are surely unhealthy aspects to the Catholic way, as a number of abused Catholics have attested. There are leaders in other Christian groups that have been accused of abuses against their members. In fact, as one person recently wrote to my wife on this forum about The Thread of Gold, many Christians outside of the Local Church have experienced abusive churches (and these should be considered a part of the Christianity that you appear to be endorsing as a whole). After my experiences with the leaders in the Local Church and experiences with leaders in a large Bible church, I would state that it is the leaders and the leadership model that is a large part of the problem. In my opinion, these few examples refute your proposition that “the ways things are done in ‘Christianity’ are the healthiest.”

As to your claim that the ways Christianity does things are the most biblical, let me put forward a few comments about your statements regarding leaders. Before I do, however, I will state that I do not think that the Bible mandates that all churches must have leaders in a leadership structure like I have seen and heard about in Christianity. (Of course, I do not presume to know about all leaders and all leadership structures in all of Christianity.)

Now, on to what I disagree with in your presentation as regards it being biblical. First, I do not see that Hebrews 13:17 supports leaders having the obligation to vet ministries as you claim:

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you (KJV).

As I hope that you will agree, the verse does not address vetting ministries at all. Therefore, this claim, so far as you have tried to show, is lacking in biblical support.

Second, I noticed that you did not give a biblical reference for the following statement: “members are charged to obey and submit to leaders.” I could assume that you would use Hebrews 13:17 to support it, since maybe it was what you meant to do when you used it to try to support vetting. Reading what the King James translators did with it sure seems to authorize some kind of heavy-handed ruling and obedience. Unfortunately, this verse has been used, I think, by leaders in some Christian churches to force submission, producing an environment in which abuse can take root and grow. The problem with leaning on this verse is that the translation is grossly inaccurate and does not actually support rendering obedience to church leaders. The literal Greek goes like this:

be you being persuaded to the ones leading you and be you deferring (scripture4all.org).

In the Greek, then, there is a whole different meaning than the one that had been told to me in the past. It is much less forceful of a statement and is about persuading and deferring, not about obedience and submission. Note that the Greek does not even recognize the permanency of leaders but uses “the ones leading you,” which could be interpreted as a fluid term (that is, I lead in this situation today, and you lead in that one tomorrow). Regardless of how you would interpret that phrase, the ones leading us are to be persuading us, not lording it over us, not insisting on their authority, not expecting us to agree with them, not thinking that they own the church and can dictate who can speak, etc. If you know of some other verse that clearly requires Christians to submit to church leaders, please share it with me. Until then, it seems that this claim, too, is not biblical.

My 1st Corinthians 14 has no vetting of speakers and no required submission of one brother to another, regardless of one’s giftedness or functioning, even if one happens to be one who is leading. Instead of one person determining what others are allowed to hear in a church meeting, the hearers are allowed to hear all who would speak and are to be those discriminating among what is spoken. No, I would definitely disagree with the idea that Christianity has it right with regard to leaders and their actions, especially in church meetings. In the large Bible church that I attended, I once heard the senior pastor say from the podium that he was very careful about whom he allowed to speak from his podium. This was directly after one from the congregation, during a Sunday-morning meeting, had given a testimony that had been pre-approved and scheduled. This was an example of absolute control by a pastor over his meeting. This is very far away from biblical, in my opinion; and, yes, the Local Church, at least in theory, had it much healthier and much more biblical as far as meeting theory goes, even if they didn’t usually practice what they preached.

To end on a less polemic note, I do agree with your last paragraph about Paul. What I would suggest is that he was acting in accordance with Hebrews 13:17 according to the literal Greek. He was trying to persuade the Corinthians. To sum up, this is the same way in which ones who are leading in a church should be acting, as those taking the time to persuade, just as any other brothers might do, rather than those who expect their words to hold absolute sway and effect obedience.

[Cal]

John,

Thanks for posting. You might have saved yourself some typing by asking me to clarify myself. We tend to write in shorthand around here and I assumed readers would know the context of my statement.

The "healthy and biblical way" I was referring to was how generally evangelical churches relate to Christians teachers who do not regularly meet with the church, but may be invited to speak or teach, as opposed to how the LC does it.

In the LC, extra-church teachers--those associated with the Living Stream ministry and part of the so-called "work"--are afforded an overarching authority, though often unspoken, yet still quite powerful. By and large, LC local leaders feel compelled to receive these teachers if they say they are passing through, give them a platform, and obey them. In short, there is little filtering of what guest LSM teachers say and little freedom to question it.

In the case of non-LC evangelical churches, the local leaders have full say of whether any teacher is invited, and there is little thought that obedience to whatever the teacher says is expected. Audiences listen and evaluate for themselves. In the LC, basically you are expected to submit and obey.

I feel the latter is more biblical. If we can try apostles (Rev 2:2), we can certainly try the teachings of latter day teachers.

So, yes, my statement had a definite context. I wasn't meant to be universal. When I said most biblical, I meant in comparison to the way the LC does it. It's one of those things where if you experienced the abuse of extra-local authority in the LC you would more easily know what I meant.

BTW, my reference to submitting to one another was from Ephesians 5:21, not 1 Cor 14.

[John]

Originally Posted by Igzy

John,

Thanks for posting. You might have saved yourself some typing by asking me to clarify myself. We tend to write in shorthand around here and I assumed readers would know the context of my statement.

The "healthy and biblical way" I was referring to was how generally evangelical churches relate to Christians teachers who do not regularly meet with the church, but may be invited to speak or teach, as opposed to how the LC does it.

In the LC, extra-church teachers--those associated with the Living Stream ministry and part of the so-called "work"--are afforded an overarching authority, though often unspoken, yet still quite powerful. By and large, LC local leaders feel compelled to receive these teachers if they say they are passing through, give them a platform, and obey them. In short, there is little filtering of what guest LSM teachers say and little freedom to question it.

In the case of non-LC evangelical churches, the local leaders have full say of whether any teacher is invited, and there is little thought that obedience to whatever the teacher says is expected. Audiences listen and evaluate for themselves. In the LC, basically you are expected to submit and obey.

I feel the latter is more biblical. If we can try apostles (Rev 2:2), we can certainly try the teachings of latter day teachers.

So, yes, my statement had a definite context. I wasn't meant to be universal. When I said most biblical, I meant in comparison to the way the LC does it. It's one of those things where if you experienced the abuse of extra-local authority in the LC you would more easily know what I meant.

BTW, my reference to submitting to one another was from Ephesians 5:21, not 1 Cor 14.

Igzy,

Here is another post that is somewhat lengthy. Please do not be concerned about my typing. I don’t mind it if it means that I might be able to get my point across.

I do not want to appear overly pedantic with this further response, but it appears to me that you have missed my main points. I am simply seeking the truth, which is why I’m evaluating the biblical support you offered. I am asking you to evaluate the statements about leaders and members that you made while you were comparing “Christianity” to the Local Church; I am not asking about whether or not “Christianity” or the Local Church was better at inviting teachers to speak to churches and the expectations that accompanied those teachers and teachings. The statements I am questioning may not have been your main point, but I would like to have you take a look at the statements in the light of the verses you gave to support them.

Let me direct you to what I had hoped to be taken as the substance of my response to your post #64, which you did not fully address in your reply in post #74. To bring it into focus, here is what you wrote in post #64:

These churches are led by leaders who have the right and obligation to vet ministries for the sake of those they lead (Heb 13:17; Rev 2:2). Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute (Acts 5:29).

Here is my analysis of these statements along with questions to foster any clarification, comment, or retraction you might wish to make:

• Heb 13:17 does not give church leaders such a right and obligation. True or false?

• Rev 2:2 does not give only church leaders such a responsibility; the whole body has the responsibility. True or false?

• Acts 5:29 does not really address the matter of church members obeying and submitting to church leaders, does it?
  
  It is somewhat of a stretch in my mind to use Acts 5:29, where the apostles did not submit to Jewish leaders in the Council (those in a different religion, if you will) to apply to Christian church leaders not having absolute sway over the members in their churches.

In your #74, you added this clarification:

BTW, my reference to submitting to one another was from Ephesians 5:21, not 1 Cor 14.

Would you refer me to where you referenced submitting to one another in your previous post, because I can’t find it? The way I read your #64, you stated that leaders had the right to vet and then followed that with members being “charged to obey and submit to leaders” (strong words), as if submission by church leaders to other members was not a possibility. Rather than support those statements, or retract or alter them with an explanatin, you simply replied that Ephesians 5:21 was your reference for submitting to one another, which I did not understand to be your original claim. Using this verse does not support your original presentation that featured a one-sided obedience and submission. By referencing this verse, are you letting me know that all church members are to maintain a state of being in which all in the church are subject to one another? Where do you stand in relation to your original presentation (or did I misunderstand your shorthand and context)?

Ephesians 5:21 is a great verse, and I think that it is important to use it appropriately because it introduces Paul’s discussion about the marriage relationship. This verse is often overlooked by husbands when they want to require obedience from their wives by quoting Ephesians 5:22 in isolation. Actually, Ephesians 5:21, in context, speaks of an attitude of submission by all parties rather than one person having a necessity to obey another:

And be not drunk with wine, in which is profligacy, but be filled full with spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and playing music in your hearts to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, to our God and Father, being subject to one another in the fear of Christ. (18–21, Concordant Literal)

I hope that we can agree that husbands should not be bullying their wives, demanding obedience, determining what they can read, vetting whom they can listen to, insisting on being the only one who gets to talk, etc. The marriage is to be a partnership, if you will. In the same way, if someone in a church actually does have the gift of leading, they should lead according to this portion in Ephesians, in an attitude of submission to all the members of the church—in the fear of Christ.

Because of the emphasis in your presentation (possibly unintended?), I brought up 1 Corinthians 14 because that passage depicts a meeting in which those who will, so to speak, can participate rather than a meeting in which a leader controls who gets to speak. This chapter stands in contrast to the way in which meetings are generally done in much of Christianity. I am happy that you brought up Ephesians 5:21, since it supports my view of how brothers and sisters in the church should relate to one another. This verse does not support, however, what is often the case in much of Christianity and is, I think, most noticeable in Christian meetings: an expected and accepted one-way obedience to leaders.

Can I get an amen to my comments (a retraction?) or some further clarification from you with appropriate verses if you still think that your presentation of leaders vetting who can speak and members being charged to obey those leaders (as long as it doesn’t offend their consciences) has biblical support? In my mind, you made statements in #64, claiming that they were biblical, and then used verses as references that don’t really support those statements. What do you think?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by John

[LIST]Heb 13:17 does not give church leaders such a right and obligation. True or false?

Ephesians 5:21 is a great verse, and I think that it is important to use it appropriately because it introduces Paul’s discussion about the marriage relationship. This verse is often overlooked by husbands when they want to require obedience from their wives by quoting Ephesians 5:22 in isolation. Actually, Ephesians 5:21, in context, speaks of an attitude of submission by all parties rather than one person having a necessity to obey another:

And be not drunk with wine, in which is profligacy, but be filled full with spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and playing music in your hearts to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, to our God and Father, being subject to one another in the fear of Christ. (18–21, Concordant Literal)

I hope that we can agree that husbands should not be bullying their wives, demanding obedience, determining what they can read, vetting whom they can listen to, insisting on being the only one who gets to talk, etc. The marriage is to be a partnership, if you will. In the same way, if someone in a church actually does have the gift of leading, they should lead according to this portion in Ephesians, in an attitude of submission to all the members of the church—in the fear of Christ.

Because of the emphasis in your presentation (possibly unintended?), I brought up 1 Corinthians 14 because that passage depicts a meeting in which those who will, so to speak, can participate rather than a meeting in which a leader controls who gets to speak. This chapter stands in contrast to the way in which meetings are generally done in much of Christianity. I am happy that you brought up Ephesians 5:21, since it supports my view of how brothers and sisters in the church should relate to one another. This verse does not support, however, what is often the case in much of Christianity and is, I think, most noticeable in Christian meetings: an expected and accepted one-way obedience to leaders.

What do you think?

A brother I knew in the local churches quoted Hebrews 13:17 when I brought out the concerns unveiled in Speaking the Truth in Love. Implied, submission is absolute. Wait a minute, these brothers were leaders too. If submission is absolute, submission to whom?
As for Ephesians 5:21, Amen John! Many have missed the mark on Ephesians 5:21. Given the husband bears the greater responsibility, that does not mean they lord over their wives. Rather as verse 25 says; "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by John

Igzy: These churches are led by leaders who have the right and obligation to vet ministries for the sake of those they lead (Heb 13:17; Rev 2:2). Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute (Acts 5:29).

Here is my analysis of these statements along with questions to foster any clarification, comment, or retraction you might wish to make:

• Heb 13:17 does not give church leaders such a right and obligation. True or false?

• Rev 2:2 does not give only church leaders such a responsibility; the whole body has the responsibility. True or false?

I have to believe that Heb 13.17 does give healthy church leaders the responsibility to oversee and vet outside ministries which impact their congregation. The metaphor of sheep and a shepherd is apt here. Are not elders primarily shepherds caring for the feeding of the sheep? Should not they be watching also for false teachers disguised as wolves, ready to prey on their charge? This is not to say that the Recovery way of exclusively feeding on Lee is in any way healthy, but to go from one extreme to another, does not serve God's people very well either.

I have to believe that the elders in Ephesus took the lead to try these false apostles, but that does not indicate that only church leaders have such a responsibility. Perhaps it was some praying sister who first signaled the elders of problems with these outside ministries. Perhaps the Ephesian leaders sought out other church leaders for input. I do believe, however, that such a serious decision as proving evil men posing as apostles must include all the elders, deacons, or spiritual ones for prayer and fellowship.

It's hard to place this responsibility on the "whole body." Would that be the "whole body" in Ephesus, or the "whole body" of Christ? It's not possible to simply answer your true/false question. The first part is somewhat true, though misleading. The second part is only true with caveats and clarifications.

[John]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have to believe ....

I have to believe ....

It's hard to place this responsibility on the "whole body." Would that be the "whole body" in Ephesus, or the "whole body" of Christ? It's not possible to simply answer your true/false question. The first part is somewhat true, though misleading. The second part is only true with caveats and clarifications.

Ohio,

You began both of your first two paragraphs with “I have to believe ….” I would like to make it plain that my purpose in posting was this: “What does the Bible say?” That was and is my only concern in these posts.

You stated that it’s not possible to answer my true/false question. I will assume, looking at the context, that you were referring to this question: “Rev 2:2 does not give only church leaders such a responsibility; the whole body has the responsibility. True or false?”

I would say that it is possible to answer the question in the affirmative, because that is what Rev 2:2 indicates when you consider the passage in which it occurs:

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: “I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false ... He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.” (Rev 2:1–2, 7 NASB)

Further, you asked me if I was referring to the whole body in Ephesus or of Christ. I hope that the context of Rev 2:2 quoted above makes it clear. In the Revelation passage, we can see that the writing is addressed to the angel of the church in Ephesus and ends with the plea to any who has an ear to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The passage, then, applies to all believers, not just leaders, since leaders are not even mentioned and whoever will is given the opportunity to overcome. As anyone can see, the passage does not even mention leaders, much less limit itself to them; therefore, it cannot support a claim about leaders as a separate class.

It’s one thing to state what one thinks, feels, or believes, which you are free to do; it’s quite another to state that the Bible supports a statement, or to give a reference as if it supports a statement, when the reference doesn’t fully address the statement or is taken out of context. All I am bringing out is what the Bible says and what it does not say.

[John]

Igzy,

After reading your last two paragraphs in #78, I feel that I should try once more to communicate. I hope that this abbreviated presentation will promote understanding:


Your claims

Turns out the ways things are done in "Christianity" are the healthiest and most biblical.

. . . These churches are led by leaders who have the right and obligation to vet ministries for the sake of those they lead (Heb 13:17; Rev 2:2). Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute (Acts 5:29). A leader is no longer your leader if you move from his church to another, nor if his words violate your conscience.

My comments about your verse references

• Heb 13:17 (from post #64):
  From the Greek, “be you being persuaded to the ones leading you and be you deferring” (scripture4all.org). The language in this verse carries a much different sense than “obey and submit.”

• Rev 2:2 (from post #64):
  This verse applies to he whoever will and not just to someone who is leading.

• Acts 5:29 (from post #64):
  This verse applies to the apostles not yielding to clerical authority in the Jewish religion.

• Eph 5:21 (from post #74):
  This verse applies to one another and not just to someone who is leading.

• Rom 13:1 (from post #78):
  This verse applies to civil authorities and not to someone who is leading in a church.

My conclusion

In these verses, I find no injunction compelling a member of a church to obey anyone leading in a church. With the exception of Heb 13:17, the verses are taken out of context and, thus, do not support the claim. As to Heb 13:17, your claim is much more forceful (obey and submit) than is justified by the meaning of the Greek words or the intent of the language used in that verse.

These are not my interpretations, unless you want to discuss nuances of meanings between what’s in your head and in mine regarding any particular English word or phrase. I am just bringing out the plain text of the Bible, not adding or subtracting anything.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by John

Ohio,

You began both of your first two paragraphs with “I have to believe ….” I would like to make it plain that my purpose in posting was this: “What does the Bible say?” That was and is my only concern in these posts.

You stated that it’s not possible to answer my true/false question. I will assume, looking at the context, that you were referring to this question: “Rev 2:2 does not give only church leaders such a responsibility; the whole body has the responsibility. True or false?”

I would say that it is possible to answer the question in the affirmative, because that is what Rev 2:2 indicates when you consider the passage in which it occurs:

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: “I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false ... He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.” (Rev 2:1–2, 7 NASB)

Further, you asked me if I was referring to the whole body in Ephesus or of Christ. I hope that the context of Rev 2:2 quoted above makes it clear. In the Revelation passage, we can see that the writing is addressed to the angel of the church in Ephesus and ends with the plea to any who has an ear to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The passage, then, applies to all believers, not just leaders, since leaders are not even mentioned and whoever will is given the opportunity to overcome. As anyone can see, the passage does not even mention leaders, much less limit itself to them; therefore, it cannot support a claim about leaders as a separate class.

It’s one thing to state what one thinks, feels, or believes, which you are free to do; it’s quite another to state that the Bible supports a statement, or to give a reference as if it supports a statement, when the reference doesn’t fully address the statement or is taken out of context. All I am bringing out is what the Bible says and what it does not say.

John, you may think that you only desire to know “What does the Bible say?” but I found that it was really your own interpretation of what you thought the Bible said. That's fine with me, but since I tried to be as gentlemanly as possible, I used the expression “I have to believe ….” the scripture says such and such to indicate how I view these scriptures. Without arguing the validity of my expression “I have to believe ….”, suffice it to say that it is my own understanding of these verses.

I also found your questions to be manipulative. They force an answer which reinforces your own interpretation of scripture. Instead of dodging the obvious trap, I tried my best to answer the questions by explaining why they forced the reader into an unacceptable yes/no position.

For example, the letter was addressed to the messenger of the church. Who is this messenger? Do you really know that it was not some particular brother in the lead? The Lord speaks to them "I know your works ... and you have tried them." This sounds to me, not as a collective, but that the Son of Man was commending each one for their works, each one for their part in not bearing evil men, and each one for their part in trying the so-called apostles.

We don't know the details, but we cannot assume that this was done by a democratic committee of every single church member. Such a church as Ephesus surely had those more mature ones, those less mature but learning, and those young ones not sure what was going on, like John speaks of in his epistle -- the fathers, the young men, and the young children. (I John 2.13) John was active in Ephesus, so his first epistle was also directed to them in part and also read by them. Why would the church even judge these evil ones unless there were young ones and new believers in the church that were adversely affected by these evil men and false apostles. The Lord here is commending the older saints within the church for their works and their labor and their endurance which preserved the young ones and the future of the church and was a needed education to the "young men" who would one day lead the church of God.

Of course the charge to overcome applies to all the believers, "let him hear what the Spirit says." Peter instructs us that "no verse is of private interpretation," and that we need the scripture to interpret the scripture. You seem to want to discredit the place for leaders and the role they have in the church. The N.T. is filled with exhortations for both the leaders and the saints in general. I must take this in view when I approach a verse like Revelation 2.2.

[OBW]

Ohio has noted that he has an interpretation of the scripture and John has indicated another. I look at the passage quoted in one recent post and find uncertainty as to the answer to the question.

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this: “I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false ... He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.” (Rev 2:1–2, 7 NASB)

Who is this written to? To the messenger (angel) of the church. We can argue till the cows come home what that means and you will not have a definitive answer. We could decide to go with one of those interpretations, but we should be prepared to give grace to others who might still think otherwise.

The "messenger" . . . . Are they the one to whom the letter is addressed? Or are they simply the one taking the message. The words as translated into English seem to indicate that the messenger is the recipient of the letter. And if that is the case, to what extent should the messenger take the letter as instructions directed at him/her (I'll be generous) or as something to deliver to the church at large? I can find reason to treat some of it like Paul's letters to Timothy — directed to a leader in his role — and some directed to the church as a whole. Since there is no stated break between the two, which is which is not absolutely clear. And it is not absolutely clear that it is not simply a directive to the leadership of a church, or simply a message to everyone. (Remember that only a few could read, so there was no hint that this would be posted online for everyone to read. It could have been directed to the leadership for their willful change in direction.)

I am not arguing for or against any particular point on the spectrum.

I am suggesting that the kind of certainty that is being displayed is actually no more certain that the interpretation of other verses that gave us the doctrine of dirt. It is not entirely ridiculous that there could be such a position taken. But there is entirely too little to support it to make it a centerpiece, definitive doctrine by which you exclude others.

These positions based on Revelation (and other passages) are about as solid as a Southern California hillside during torrential rains. It is probably a good idea to think about it. And possibly to have at least a tentative conclusion for yourself. But not to use it for judgment upon any others.

This seems to fall into a discussion about doctrinal statements that I once heard. You need a general statement for the membership that tells them what you believe. To become "members," they need to be OK with it. If they want to teach anything, like a Sunday School class, they need to agree to not teach contrary to it (although discussion of alternatives is OK). And to be part of the leadership, you need to be able to stand by it even where you might personally think differently. (Remember that even the Acts 15 council did not declare unanimous agreement, only that it seemed good to go that way.)

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have to believe that Heb 13.17 does give healthy church leaders the responsibility to oversee and vet outside ministries which impact their congregation. The metaphor of sheep and a shepherd is apt here. Are not elders primarily shepherds caring for the feeding of the sheep? Should not they be watching also for false teachers disguised as wolves, ready to prey on their charge?

I agree with this in the context of a congregation but I also think each individual (who is not a newborn Christian) is responsible to know enough of basic Christian truth to know whether a teacher is straying into unhealthy teachings that do more damage than good or worse are heresy.

Logistically for most congregations the leaders will be those who invite guest speakers and individuals will listen and evaluate the content for themselves and openly discuss around lunch or on the way home or in the courtyard what they liked and/or disliked about the message and delivery. But in addition to this many members will hear/read various ministries via radio, books, visiting other churches, etc.

In no instance outside the LC system have I ever seen church leaders adhere to one publisher's materials, guest speakers and events and expect their members to do likewise.

[Cal]

Here is my analysis of these statements along with questions to foster any clarification, comment, or retraction you might wish to make:

Heb 13:17 does not give church leaders such a right and obligation. True or false?

The verse says that leaders keep watch over the members. Would they be doing a good job of keeping watch if they did not vet the ministries they allowed to come teach the church?

Rev 2:2 does not give only church leaders such a responsibility; the whole body has the responsibility. True or false?

Well, the leaders are part of the body, so they are given that responsibility, too. Vetting guest speakers would be a legitimate fulfillment of that responsibility in the light of their position as leaders. Your statement implies that the leaders shouldn't take the lead in vetting apostles. If not, why not? And if they shouldn't take the lead in vetting apostles, what exactly should they take the lead in, given that they are leaders? Unless you want to suggest that leaders aren't really supposed to lead.

Acts 5:29 does not really address the matter of church members obeying and submitting to church leaders, does it?

Only if you think church leaders are not men, i.e. people. The verse says to obey God rather than men (people). Obviously the meaning is do not obey people when their words go against God's, since elsewhere the Bible does tell us to obey leaders (Rom 13:1; Heb 13:17). In other words, to obey leaders is not an absolute command, but to obey God is absolute and trumps the command to obey leaders.

In your #74, you added this clarification:

BTW, my reference to submitting to one another was from Ephesians 5:21, not 1 Cor 14.

Would you refer me to where you referenced submitting to one another in your previous post, because I can’t find it?

I mentioned submitting in general, e.g. "Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute." My point was that obedience to any other than God is never absolute. This connects to Eph 5:21 because clearly submitting to one another cannot be absolute in the sense of obeying. If you expect me to obey you and I expect you to obey me, who should do the submitting? Since submission cannot be absolute, then obedience cannot be absolute either.

The way I read your #64, you stated that leaders had the right to vet and then followed that with members being “charged to obey and submit to leaders” (strong words), as if submission by church leaders to other members was not a possibility.

Not at all. Church leaders should submit to members as well. We all should submit to one another in the sense of being willing to hear the Holy Spirit speaking from each other. That's the way I interpret it, anyway.

Ephesians 5:21 is a great verse, and I think that it is important to use it appropriately because it introduces Paul’s discussion about the marriage relationship.

It is not necessary to deduce that Ephesians 5:21 applies only to the marriage relationship. I believe it is a general command to all of us about our relationship with every other member.

Can I get an amen to my comments (a retraction?) or some further clarification from you with appropriate verses if you still think that your presentation of leaders vetting who can speak and members being charged to obey those leaders (as long as it doesn’t offend their consciences) has biblical support? In my mind, you made statements in #64, claiming that they were biblical, and then used verses as references that don’t really support those statements. What do you think?

I stand by my interpretation. Nothing you have stated has refuted it. You've only shown you have a different interpretation, though what it is I'm not sure. That's your right, but shouldn't expect me to agree with you.

Then again, I'm only guessing at what your belief is because you never make it clear exactly what you believe about obedience and submission to leaders, only that you think I'm somehow wrong about it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by John

My 1st Corinthians 14 has no vetting of speakers and no required submission of one brother to another, regardless of one’s giftedness or functioning, even if one happens to be one who is leading.

My 1st Corinthians says 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

Now I personally think that this law was based on a social situation that has changed quite a bit in the last 2,000 years.

But even if you feel this rule no longer applies it doesn't negate the fact that some in the congregation were not permitted to speak during the meeting and they were required to be under obedience. So if you want to use 1Cor 14 as a yardstick there was a vetting of speakers and there was a required submission concerning who spoke and who didn't.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My 1st Corinthians says 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

Now I personally think that this law was based on a social situation that has changed quite a bit in the last 2,000 years.

But even if you feel this rule no longer applies it doesn't negate the fact that some in the congregation were not permitted to speak during the meeting and they were required to be under obedience. So if you want to use 1Cor 14 as a yardstick there was a vetting of speakers and there was a required submission concerning who spoke and who didn't.

We may not like what ZNP just posted. And we may argue that some of it is cultural and no longer applicable. But you have to get out your verse removal shears if you just want to ignore it and declare that there is no place for authority and submission. (Still nothing like the authority and submission as defined by Nee in his book of two names — Spiritual Authority, and Authority and Submission.)

[OBW]

Looking back at the first post in this thread, I find the following:

From John:

Now, on to what I disagree with in your presentation as regards it being biblical. First, I do not see that Hebrews 13:17 supports leaders having the obligation to vet ministries as you claim:

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you (KJV).

As I hope that you will agree, the verse does not address vetting ministries at all. Therefore, this claim, so far as you have tried to show, is lacking in biblical support.

Second, I noticed that you did not give a biblical reference for the following statement: “members are charged to obey and submit to leaders.” I could assume that you would use Hebrews 13:17 to support it, since maybe it was what you meant to do when you used it to try to support vetting. Reading what the King James translators did with it sure seems to authorize some kind of heavy-handed ruling and obedience. Unfortunately, this verse has been used, I think, by leaders in some Christian churches to force submission, producing an environment in which abuse can take root and grow. The problem with leaning on this verse is that the translation is grossly inaccurate and does not actually support rendering obedience to church leaders. The literal Greek goes like this:

be you being persuaded to the ones leading you and be you deferring

(scripture4all.org).

Now I agree that this reading says it somewhat softer than the old KJV. And the NIV says it this way:

Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

But when I go back to the scripture4all.org Greek and the transliteration it provides, it does not seem quite as simple as was suggested. The first word is translated into “be-ye-being-persuaded !” The whole first phrase would look something like this:

“be-ye-being-persuaded ! to-the ones-leading of-you and be-ye-deferring !”

The addition of the exclamation marks was not by me, but by the translators. I would agree that “be being persuaded” is not as strong as “obey,” but when you make it an imperative, it is only slightly softer. It is as if saying “You must be being persuaded by those leading you.” That seems to suggest that your mind should be changing to align with them. It is not just a suggestion that you consider their words.

And the second odd phrase, “be ye deferring!” is hard to read as anything less than a soft command. It may only be “deferring,” but it is insisted upon.

But, like we so often read the “submits” in Ephesians, this is not written to the leader so they can demand obedience and submission. It is written to the follower to instruct them (for their benefit) to be persuaded and defer. If you are intentionally setting out to be persuaded, then it would be expected that something looking like obedience will arise. And if you set out to defer, then it will have the appearance of submission because it will be the suggestion given by the leader that is taken, not the direction given by the leader that is ignored.




It seems to me that there are two things in play here.

• First there is proper leadership. Someone posted concerning leadership that serves rather than orders around. That considers itself the least rather than the first.
• The second is the gratefulness of the flock for those who have given themselves to them to lead them. This comes with an attitude that these are God’s gifts to them. This is how they become equipped. It is not by figuring it out for themselves. They have trustworthy “men” who will give themselves for the flock.

And in this kind of relationship, who looks out for the wolves? It is the sheep!! (NOT!!) No! It is the shepherds.

We like to take Ephesians, and those five listed “gifts” to the church and read the following verses as saying that those gifts will make us into the same thing, so we will never need someone else to shepherd us again. To teach us again. But that is not what it says. It merely says to do works of ministry. The suggestion that “works of ministry” are just the very things that the five gifts are/do and that we simply become them (and without saying, we no longer need them — except for Lee) is a bare assertion made without obvious cause or evidence. We do not become our own shepherds. Imagine that, a flock of shepherds. Or a church full of elders.

Do we need a verse to directly say that the leaders should vet ministers? At any level? If we insist on it, then I would suggest that we have them. 1 Timothy has a few. That was written to Timothy, not the church in (wherever). Yes, we can read the words to him. And they should give us instruction enough to realize that not everything that calls itself a minister or ministry is worthy of the claim. But it doesn’t direct us to each make our own determinations. Not saying you can’t. But those were instructions given to leaders. Not to the flock.

Besides, what is a flock, and what is the need for a shepherd if they can all fend off the wolf by themselves?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But when I go back to the scripture4all.org Greek and the transliteration it provides, it does not seem quite as simple as was suggested. The first word is translated into “be-ye-being-persuaded !” The whole first phrase would look something like this:

“be-ye-being-persuaded ! to-the ones-leading of-you and be-ye-deferring !”

The addition of the exclamation marks was not by me, but by the translators. I would agree that “be being persuaded” is not as strong as “obey,” but when you make it an imperative, it is only slightly softer. It is as if saying “You must be being persuaded by those leading you.” That seems to suggest that your mind should be changing to align with them. It is not just a suggestion that you consider their words.

And the second odd phrase, “be ye deferring!” is hard to read as anything less than a soft command. It may only be “deferring,” but it is insisted upon.

I don't think we ought to be using the scripture4all.org transliteration as being authoritative. My post #39 addressed this "be ye persuaded" and "be ye deferring" as poor translations. One cannot use the root of the Greek work to properly translate the word.

Obviously John has not posted here for weeks, so it has made our discussion difficult.