Eldership

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.