Eldership

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by 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.

Here is my first thought in response:

If a believer's spiritual authority pre-exists holding an official "office," then why the need to appoint to an "office"? If the believers recognize the spiritual authority as such, why the need to implement a formal structural arrangement? I cannot see the value of "appointing to an office" except in historical context or situationally. It is self-contradictory otherwise, no?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Here is my first thought in response:

If a believer's spiritual authority pre-exists holding an official "office," then why the need to appoint to an "office"? If the believers recognize the spiritual authority as such, why the need to implement a formal structural arrangement? I cannot see the value of "appointing to an office" except in historical context or situationally. It is self-contradictory otherwise, no?

I don't know about this word "office" either, BTW, Peter.

I may end up concluding that the Bible says we must have the appointment of elders to the office of overseers in every assembly, for all I know, but I just know that I don't have one single verse that does that and that when you start adding verses together you have to do so carefully and prayerfully.

[Peter Debelak]

KSA:

For the record, I hope you will press me (and others) on this subject. I am not clear. I do have serious questions that come out of certain convictions that I feel strongly about. But I am willing to be challenged, provided we each approach the Word with a mutuality and not a preconceived assumption of meaning and consequence. We are all, in some sense, "emerging" - some of us with more confidence in how to move forward than others. The one place where I hope we can all have a mutual relationship (rather than a student-teacher relationsihp) is here where we are attempting to re-establish the nature of our corporate life in Christ. Forgive me if I press too hard in the "liberal interpretation" direction. I am open to harsh correction. But I will not necessarily buckle when confronted with a standard interpretation of verses which I have seen abused numerous times. That history - while not dictating my interpretation - does give rise to a desire to re-examine afresh. So, if I resist your classic interpretation of well-known verses, please understand where I am coming from. It is not a rejection, it is a pleading and an inquiry. As always, I appreciate and am pushed positively by your input. I hope it continues.

Grace to you,

Peter

[YP0534]

A practice of personal transdenominationalism, while laudable and interesting, seems particularly irrelevant to the point. That practice essentially guarantees no offices. Can one practice the one and simultaneously advocate that there must be these things? Isn't that at least partly inconsistent not to mention a recipe for disaster among those weaker in the faith?

Peter, you wanted me to agree that there should be a group-by-group freedom and that there should not be an attempt to impose anything on someone else. Please help me understand how you would have the appointed elders expressed in such a fluid environment. (I'm shying away from the term "spiritual authority" at this point because I don't know that verse either.)

I think you realize that my radical working thesis is that we must not have the old Hebrew artifacts among us, but most of the world will insist that we must.

I believe until now I have understood that you have proposed that we should have among us whatever form of "organization" we feel appropriate and not superimpose that upon others. Well, I'm rejecting anything like an organization while at the same time recognizing what the Bible says about elders and apostles, at least, as problematical to maintaining such rejection.

Peter, you've got a soggy piece of Utopian land. And one or two hard-sells at your open house now.

Go for it.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I think you realize that my radical working thesis is that we must not have the old Hebrew artifacts among us,

Nobody in the scriptures opposed "the old Hebrew artifacts among us" more than the apostle Paul. He was persecuted because he refused to preach circumcision. He confronted Cephas with regard to separating from the Gentiles and the holy diet. He wrote that it was up to the individual believer to keep the Sabbath or not.

Yet he appointed elders in every church, and advised Titus to appoint elders in every city. On his way to Jerusalem that last time, he called for the elders of the church to meet with him. He wrote regarding the eldership in the books of Timothy and Titus.

You can make a fair point that the eldership has been abused in the local churches, among the Roman Catholics, and elsewhere. However, in the light of the scriptures, to claim that the New Testament eldership is simply another "old Hebrew artifact" seems more than frivolous.

[YP0534]

Paul's appointment of elders is certainly a point that we plainly have before us in this thread. It has been repeatedly mentioned, in fact, by me. But I sure don't want to have a practice like the synagogues did, which, I believe, is what the Roman Catholics have done and which, to my appreciation, has been practiced via one type of hierarchy or another throughout all the centuries of Protestantism as well.

I am not able to find the word "eldership" in the Bible, though, and this is causing me problems at present. So many use this word as if they know what it means, but I do not. I would like to understand this idea as revealed in the Bible itself. I am aware that some denominations teach that elders and bishops are different and I am not ready to just assume they are the same things, as taught by the Local Church. I have gotten to know that the Local Church is not right all the time.

Thus, I cannot find the word "eldership" to refer to an office or position in the New Testament and I cannot equate overseers and elders to say that "overseership" just means "eldership" as some apparently do.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Nobody in the scriptures opposed "the old Hebrew artifacts among us" more than the apostle Paul. He was persecuted because he refused to preach circumcision. He confronted Cephas with regard to separating from the Gentiles and the holy diet. He wrote that it was up to the individual believer to keep the Sabbath or not.

Yet he appointed elders in every church, and advised Titus to appoint elders in every city. On his way to Jerusalem that last time, he called for the elders of the church to meet with him. He wrote regarding the eldership in the books of Timothy and Titus.

You can make a fair point that the eldership has been abused in the local churches, among the Roman Catholics, and elsewhere. However, in the light of the scriptures, to claim that the New Testament eldership is simply another "old Hebrew artifact" seems more than frivolous.

Toledo:

I just want to make a quick distinction here:

Paul vigorously opposed those "old Hebrew artifacts" which were insidious and undermining of the gospel. It very well could be the case that the Jewish practice of the "eldership" was, in fact, simply inherented by the early church, but was a fairly innocuous practice. If such were the case, it would not be incongruous that the practice was still "an old Hebrew artifact" and Paul nevertheless did not oppose it.

Refusing to eat meat of strangled animals was "an old Hebrew artifact," and yet Paul did not seem to take its presence in the early church as something to oppose in Acts 15. Just because Paul didn't oppose it, or even perpetuated it, does not mean it isn't neverthelss descriptive and not universally prescriptive.

Does that make sense?

Peter

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Refusing to eat meat of strangled animals was "an old Hebrew artifact," and yet Paul did not seem to take its presence in the early church as something to oppose in Acts 15. Just because Paul didn't oppose it, or even perpetuated it, does not mean it isn't neverthelss descriptive and not universally prescriptive.

Yes, and I believe a larger example of what you are speaking about here may be the widows' roll. I am still not certain about the Jewish customs of the day concerning care for the widows but since I'm not really aware of the widows' care being much of an issue throughout the remainder of Christian history, I'm led to believe this may have been more or less a cultural thing among the Jews and subsequently the Jewish believers.

We had at one point in Acts a dissention about the dispensing to these which led directly to the "appointing of the seven" and then we got some really explicit directions from Paul on precisely which women could and couldn't qualify for the assembly's widows' benefits. (Widowers need not apply.) But I'm not really aware of any modern denominational expression of this practice as defined by Paul. I'll admit my probable ignorance but my point would stand that this seems to have been a kind of big deal in the day and it's like it just doesn't exist any longer. Certainly not in our Western culture where it would appear that we have mostly brought the practice onto the side of general civil government, but what about in other nations who don't have something like Social Security and Medicare?

Do believers in less-developed countries have the common practice, or take it as a prescription, that they must maintain a scriptural roll of widows, excluding those under a certain age and requiring a specific set of qualifications? If they practice this in varience to the "apostle's teachings," by what authority might they do so? Can we care for a 58 year old widower but just not officially on the books lest we cross brother Paul?

I don't want to get off topic, of course, but to the extent that there may be a way of having "elders" which is culturally-based, rather than purely Biblical, I would like to identify what that is. If there is merely a Jewish custom of having "elders," I don't need to practice that any more than I need to practice abstaining from strangled animals, maintaining a widows' roll, recommending head coverings for sisters, remaining single and celebate, washing feet, or any number of other Biblical activities which are commonly dismissed as unnecessary for faithful contemporary Christian practice.

By the same token, if we are eventually led to conclude the entire matter that there is indeed a Biblically-based, titled position of "elder" which we must have among us as authentic believers, as essential as assembling itself, a further inquiry is still warranted to describe the complete ambit of such an office, rather than merely relying upon the familiar customs of our culture in having a similarly-named practice. I don't think you can legitimately dismiss the breaking of bread as a mere cultural practice but surely there is something of culture in the way that is practiced by the Roman Catholics. Similarly, if we maintain that there is the Biblical "office" of "elder," we are at least on notice that the way this or that group has their "eldership" doesn't help us define what the Bible says about that at all or, perhaps more importantly, doesn't help us know best practices in our situation.

Thus, that the Bible says that Paul appointed "elders" or even that he defined the kinds of people who should hold "ecclesiastical" offices of "presbyters," "bishops," "deacons," "apostles," etc., is only the very beginning of the inquiry which needs to be undertaken. (Isn't it funny, all those transliterations we can use?)

If every time we ask the question, "How to have elders?" we answer with reliance upon the group that came before us, we will again in short order erect a papacy, I would think.

That's kind of what I see in the Local Church example.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

A practice of personal transdenominationalism, while laudable and interesting, seems particularly irrelevant to the point. That practice essentially guarantees no offices. Can one practice the one and simultaneously advocate that there must be these things? Isn't that at least partly inconsistent not to mention a recipe for disaster among those weaker in the faith?

Peter, you wanted me to agree that there should be a group-by-group freedom and that there should not be an attempt to impose anything on someone else. Please help me understand how you would have the appointed elders expressed in such a fluid environment. (I'm shying away from the term "spiritual authority" at this point because I don't know that verse either.)

I think you realize that my radical working thesis is that we must not have the old Hebrew artifacts among us, but most of the world will insist that we must.

I believe until now I have understood that you have proposed that we should have among us whatever form of "organization" we feel appropriate and not superimpose that upon others. Well, I'm rejecting anything like an organization while at the same time recognizing what the Bible says about elders and apostles, at least, as problematical to maintaining such rejection.

Peter, you've got a soggy piece of Utopian land. And one or two hard-sells at your open house now.

Go for it.

Quick thought in response:

I think there are two conversations going on:

1) What the Bible sets forth, if anything, as the proper structure in the church

2) How we (each individually) respond, today, in an environment where there exists a multitude of structures, many of which are not in obvious violation of Scriptural prescriptions, but which differ greatly nonetheless

They are only somewhat different inquiries.

I was not advocating, per se, that there should be a multitude of structures (so long as they aren't obviously violative of Biblical normatives). I was only suggesting that, so long as there is a multitude - none of which violate the SCriptures - each group should allow latitude to the others.

As far as what the Bible sets forth as what should be, well, I'm still sorting that out...

So, I don't think I'm in disagreement with your radical working thesis as yet...

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

KSA:

Testing your position, could you apply the Scriptures you quote to this not-so-hypothetical organization:

A group meets together regularly, does not have formal leadership, but there are numerous believers of more maturity and experience to whom the others quite often defer. Yet, in some matters, and at certain times, some who were "sheep" rise up due to a leading or a burden, and the others give defenrence to his speaking and experience in that matter. As such, the set of those who "lead" in this group is a different "set" at different times (even if usually just a few, recognized brothers). Many members of this group also have frequent fellowship with others in different congregations, including their "leaders".

By my reading of the Scriptures you quoted, this group is in violation of Biblical prescriptions: they haven't appointed anyone to an office; there was no laying on of hands; there is not a definitive "set" of identifiable leaders to whom submission and obedience should be given - but, descriptively, there is - at any given time - much submission and much obedience.

If your identified prescriptions are indeed prescriptions, then this is an unBiblical group. Do you agree?

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

I will attempt to make my way through the Scriptures which reference "elder" or perhaps "eldership" - because I do acknowledge their obvious place/occurance in the Scripture, and the first glance reading that the Scripture prescribes their existence. I just think that, after 2000 years of traversing the same ground, with persistent and compelling disagreement on this issue, it is a least a little worthwhile to at least entertain another hypothesis... So...

A look at 1 Timothy 5

The context of this chapter is that Paul is speaking concerning the “seniors” of the congregation (i.e. the presbuteros).

Many translations read verse 1 as “Rebuke not an elder…” (GK. presbeturos" and it is assumed that “elder” refers to the man who holds the office of eldership. However, in context of the sentence:

“Do not rebuke presbeturos (m) harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2 presbeturos (f) as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.”

It seems pretty straight-forward that Paul is referring to the elderly – not the “elders” who hold office in a congregation. The chapter goes on to discuss elderly widows (vv. 3-16). This suggest, even more, that the discussion of presbeturos thoughout the chapter, refers to "seniors" or elderly and not the person who holds the position of "elder".

Many read verses 17-20 as Paul referring to those who hold the office of eldership when he says:

17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,"[b] and "The worker deserves his wages."[c] 19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

Just a plain reading of this passage, however, the word prespeturos in verse 17 cannot be read as referring to the title of “elder” – but rather just an elderly believer. Otherwise, the phrase is redundant: “the elders who direct the affairs of the church…” The very definition of the “office” of “elder” (if it exists) is that he directs the affairs of the church. Thus, the phrase would read, “Those who direct the affairs of the church who direct the affairs of the church…”. Redunant.

Instead, presbeturos in verse 17 is simply those “elders” (i.e. more mature believers) who have taken up a burden for the church. This may be a shifting set of folks at any given time. When they do so, they are worthy of double honor. An “elder” – if titled as such in an official position – has as his job description to “direct the affairs of the church” – and thus, by this verse, would be “worth of double honor” even when his actions weren’t, in fact, laboring for the church. Thus, the ad hoc reading of “who direct the affairs of the chuch” is one which is linguistically more accurate and, in my view, more righteous – as far as according “double honor” is concerned.

In the light of this reading of verse 1 and verse 17, I have a hard time reading prespeturos in verse 19 as anything other than “elderly believer.” Whether they have an official title or not, the senior believers among us carry a weight of experience and of Christ to which we should afford respect. We should not interact lightly – especially with accusation – against such ones. And that is regardless of whether they have an “official” title/position or not.

So, that’s 1 Timothy 5 – and I don’t think there’s much there that prescribes an “office” of “eldership” – in fact, the more natural reading of presbeturos in this chapter is “senior” or “elderly” rather than “elder/bishop/overseer” etc…

Thoughts?

Peter

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Here is my first thought in response:

If a believer's spiritual authority pre-exists holding an official "office," then why the need to appoint to an "office"? If the believers recognize the spiritual authority as such, why the need to implement a formal structural arrangement? I cannot see the value of "appointing to an office" except in historical context or situationally. It is self-contradictory otherwise, no?

Appointing to an office has several purposes. First, it is a recognition of the gift in the Body. In Acts 13 when the Holy Spirit called Barnabus and Saul (authority given to them), brothers still laid hands on them as an act of recognition and identification. Second, it is more than recognition. According to 1 Tim. 4:4 when Timothy was appointed by laying of hands, he received a spiritual gift and he got a prophecy. And take a notice that it was the eldership that laid hands on him. Therefore, I do not believe that "appointing to an office" is a formal structural arrangement. I believe there is some spiritual reality behind it.

PS. And by the way, the verses that I mentioned where office is clearly mentioned are still not addressed.