Eldership

[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