Eldership

[Peter Debelak]

I don't have any particular thoughts about "appoint" or "appointment" just yet, but I thought I compound the issue a bit and tie it in to something we've been discussing in 1 Timothy 5.

19Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

So the traditional reading is that the reader today should not accuse/receive accusation against an elder except before 2-3 witnesses. Then, in my experience, many read "them that sin" verse 20 as anyone who sins in the congregation should be rebuked before all.

I think it should be obvious that verse 20, though, refers to elders who, if proven to have sinned before 2-3 witnesses, should be rebuked publically as an example to the congregation. (this does not mean this shouldn't happen with others, just this context is talking about elders - be they officers or elderly).

The second issue, then, with this traditional reading is that it wasn't written to the general audience, it was written to Timothy who was in a super-leadership role - someone who we are not sure has a modern day counterpart.

Thus, the person whom Paul contemplates 1) receiving accusations against elders and 2) publically rebuking elders is Timothy (if you take 1 Timothy as words spoken as specific admonitions for our authority/role, you raise larger questions). If we don't have a framework for having a modern day Timothy-type, then I have no idea how these verses would or even could be applied today. Whatever modern day counterpart there is to Timothy, his role, I suppose, would include to reprove, rebuke and exhort (2 Tim 4:2).

But he got his "office" or "role" from the apostle and the apostle gets his office/role from... which brings us back to "doh!, a deer, a female...."

Just some more fodder for thought while I contemplate further the points you brothers bring up and kick around some other contemplations (actually, I thinking of the concept of "recognition" - i.e. whereby "appointments" or "canonization" are not installations but rather recognitions. I'll probably start a separate thread...)

Peter

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Is it indeed the case that elders must only be appointed by someone with superior authority? If not, then how shall they be appointed? Where is the instruction of the New Testament on this imprtant and practical point? ... I am really bothered by this.

Though Paul (probably) appointed some or all of the elders in Ephesus, he told them that the "Holy Spirit placed them as overseers to shepherd the church of God." This was crucial. Too many LC's have human appointees, which has created conflicts during times of trials.

The Open Brethren confronted many conflicts like this, and some eventually agreed on the practice of Unanimity of agreement -- waiting on the Holy Spirit thru prayer until unanimity was reached among the saints. This practice prevented the "top-down" management style we see today -- "here's your new elder, you will like him."

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

But he got his "office" or "role" from the apostle and the apostle gets his office/role from... which brings us back to "doh!, a deer, a female...."

Just some more fodder for thought while I contemplate further the points you brothers bring up and kick around some other contemplations (actually, I thinking of the concept of "recognition" - i.e. whereby "appointments" or "canonization" are not installations but rather recognitions.

I have long contended that the appointments we see in the LC's are not made by apostles, but by those acting as "bishops." Of course, in today's LC practice, the word "bishop" is totally taboo, and instantly evokes images of a dreaded hierarchy and headquarters. But isn't that a far better description of what we have today? Let's call things what they are!

Bishops give regional conferences, oversee churches by raising up brothers who can lead, and have authority over their appointees. Isn't that what we have today?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I don't have any particular thoughts about "appoint" or "appointment" just yet, but I thought I compound the issue a bit and tie it in to something we've been discussing in 1 Timothy 5.

19Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

So the traditional reading is that the reader today should not accuse/receive accusation against an elder except before 2-3 witnesses. Then, in my experience, many read "them that sin" verse 20 as anyone who sins in the congregation should be rebuked before all.

I think it should be obvious that verse 20, though, refers to elders who, if proven to have sinned before 2-3 witnesses, should be rebuked publically as an example to the congregation. (this does not mean this shouldn't happen with others, just this context is talking about elders - be they officers or elderly).

I think it's obvious.

Realizing some can argue straight hair into curly, I don't think there's any real controversy with your reading there. And I'm not certain it should be done generally with the saints but that is definitely a whole nuther topic.

That said, I think this significantly undercuts your theory about "elderLY" as a reading. Why would the old men be called out in such an especially prescribed manner?

While we're at it, v. 18 of this section speaks directly to the concept of a paid clerical class, no? Isn't this the real intent of v. 17's "double honor" phrase?

Sorry. This is what I'm talking about that I'm trying to understand the whole of the classical context. This appears to me to the plain reading of the section and it is corroborated in 1 Cor. 9.

Paul appears to expressly sanction a compensated professional clergy. He himself, he says in 1 Cor. 9, declined to exercise his right to compensation but that it was in fact his due, even as the oxen had a legal right.

Without making too much here of the fact that Paul AGAIN makes an appeal to the Law in 1 Cor. for proof of his position (the other being in chapter 14 concerning submission), doesn't the fact that he's got people designated to receive compensation weigh heavily in favor of the existence of an "office" of "elder" and not merely the more mature informally taking the lead?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I think it's obvious.

Realizing some can argue straight hair into curly, I don't think there's any real controversy with your reading there. And I'm not certain it should be done generally with the saints but that is definitely a whole nuther topic.

That said, I think this significantly undercuts your theory about "elderLY" as a reading. Why would the old men be called out in such an especially prescribed manner?

While we're at it, v. 18 of this section speaks directly to the concept of a paid clerical class, no? Isn't this the real intent of v. 17's "double honor" phrase?

Sorry. This is what I'm talking about that I'm trying to understand the whole of the classical context. This appears to me to the plain reading of the section and it is corroborated in 1 Cor. 9.

Paul appears to expressly sanction a compensated professional clergy. He himself, he says in 1 Cor. 9, declined to exercise his right to compensation but that it was in fact his due, even as the oxen had a legal right.

Without making too much here of the fact that Paul AGAIN makes an appeal to the Law in 1 Cor. for proof of his position (the other being in chapter 14 concerning submission), doesn't the fact that he's got people designated to receive compensation weigh heavily in favor of the existence of an "office" of "elder" and not merely the more mature informally taking the lead?

I considered that it could cut against my "elderLY" reading and it very well might. But it does inherently do so. Even if the section is talking about the "elderLY" who take the lead, such ones - that is ones who take on work for others, such ones take on greater accountablity, whether they have office or not. If someone, without office, takes on a burden to labor for the church and, "especially" to teach, then such a one takes on greater accountability. I think this prinicple is valid regardless of "office" or station.

So, I think the 1 Tim 5 reading is still a valid one. That said, even accepting such a reading does not mean there weren't, in fact, offices at the time of Paul - prescribed or inherited. And, as such, its entirely possible that Paul saw an "office" of elder who deserved pay...

Peter

[Peter Debelak]

aron:

Frankly, I'm not even sure yet what to do about your analysis of John! I don't think I've ever contemplated his approach (i.e. politician of sorts, by your description). Reading your precis of the scriptural account of his life/work, you make a compelling argument. I don't think I'm inclined to conclude his position on "eldership" based upon a conception of his "political" approach to ministry at the time, but it is a backdrop worth giving contemplation to.

As far as his specific writings, I was in Revelation again and had this thought:

churches, as such, were skrewing up in every way you could imagine (and some you wish you couldn't). These were first century churches, the one we'd love to use as examples. John's word was not to the church, as a group. His word - actually, the Spirit's word - was (in paraphrase): I don't care your situation, whatever it is - you, the individual must overcome. Yes, the Spirit is speaking to the churches. But John seems to think the only response contemplated is by individuals, not by groups.

Peter

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

aron:

Frankly, I'm not even sure yet what to do about your analysis of John! I don't think I've ever contemplated his approach (i.e. politician of sorts, by your description). ... I don't think I'm inclined to conclude his position on "eldership" based upon a conception of his "political" approach to ministry at the time, but it is a backdrop worth giving contemplation to.

in Revelation ... John's word was not to the church, as a group. His word - actually, the Spirit's word - was (in paraphrase): I don't care your situation, whatever it is - you, the individual must overcome. Yes, the Spirit is speaking to the churches. But John seems to think the only response contemplated is by individuals, not by groups.

Part of my analysis of John was to give a backdrop, yes. This backdrop was meant to show that: a) John's absence from the record of the nascent divisions evident in First Corinthians chapter one is perhaps noteworthy; b) that he presents another, complementary "model" in a low-profile, even hidden way, making individual disciples (Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias) without "raising up churches" as others were doing(appointing elders and so forth); and c) that his word in First John chapter 2, verses 12 - 14, on "little children...young men...fathers..." may be in this line of 'keeping good order within the assembly' versus the more explicit line of 'order' suggested by Paul's appointments of elders and writings on this matter.

I did not use the word of a "political" approach as an interpretation of John, but it works for me. Religion and politics were tightly interwoven. For a time, after Jesus, they got freed from one another, but eventually they became interwoven again. So yes, John was a budding politician, before the death of Jesus and then the death of his brother.

In addition to John's ambitions and aspirations, mouthed by his mother in the famous lines to Jesus ("Make my sons sit at your right hand and left"), we have the concepts of John the Baptist, who was languishing in prison ("Tell us, are you the Christ, or should we expect another?"), and the words of Cleopas in Luke 24 ("We thought He would redeem Israel") to show that the "Sons of thunder" were not absolute anomalies in this regard. Several times the gospels say "For as yet his disciples did not understand what was to take place...", etc. People were looking for an outward, Solomonic-type kingdom to be established. The Romans would be banished and the throne of David would be set up for a thousand years. John was not an anomaly, he just wanted to be at the head of the line. But by the first few chapters of Acts, all that was gone.

So my question is, not how much did Paul set up the decline of the churches by appointing elders, but how much did his model serve in the decline when "the office" was adopted in the letter? Paul was free in the Spirit to appoint elders as he was led, but if later assemblies of believers chose to become slaves to the letter of Paul, was this not a decline? John's approach is helpful because his "little children, young men, and fathers" shows lives, not offices.

Lastly, your point on individual versus institutional response is certainly well taken.

Thanks, aron

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I considered that it could cut against my "elderLY" reading and it very well might. But it does inherently do so. Even if the section is talking about the "elderLY" who take the lead, such ones - that is ones who take on work for others, such ones take on greater accountablity, whether they have office or not. If someone, without office, takes on a burden to labor for the church and, "especially" to teach, then such a one takes on greater accountability. I think this prinicple is valid regardless of "office" or station.

So, I think the 1 Tim 5 reading is still a valid one. That said, even accepting such a reading does not mean there weren't, in fact, offices at the time of Paul - prescribed or inherited. And, as such, its entirely possible that Paul saw an "office" of elder who deserved pay...

Peter

I'm really distressed about the model Paul apparently lays out for a paid clergy. While he himself made tents and at least on this cited occasion declined to accept anything monetary, he has established that there are some who should get money for their Christian labor. Indeed, he has declared it a legal right on the principle of othe ox. The Lord said to go without a purse. Paul says he could demand money. Isn't there a contradiction there?

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I'm really distressed about the model Paul apparently lays out for a paid clergy. While he himself made tents and at least on this cited occasion declined to accept anything monetary, he has established that there are some who should get money for their Christian labor. Indeed, he has declared it a legal right on the principle of the ox. The Lord said to go without a purse. Paul says he could demand money. Isn't there a contradiction there?

See my closing question in post #92 in this thread. I am thinking that perhaps Paul was not out of line at all, that he was fully blessed by God in his endeavors (the power of the Spirit certainly is evident), but how much did he inadvertently have a hand in the decline by becoming the "model" for the New Testament christian living, instead of Christ?

Yes, the Lord said go without a purse. But the Lord was ministered to by his disciples. "And there were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary the Magdalene, and Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome, who, when He was in Galilee, followed Him and ministered to Him, as well as many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem." -- Mark 15:40,41.

Also look at Acts chapters 4 through 6; you see the disciples sharing, turning over posessions, giving to each according to need, setting up some to distribute provisions and not neglect the widows, with others laboring in the word and prayer. It is not stated explicitly, but it may well have been that not only the indigent got provided for out of the common store, but some of the "laboring oxen" also got a mouthful here and there.

The problem is when we codify this and set up offices. When the believers instititionalize the Spirit's move, the decline is inevitable. It follows as night follows day. We should not be surprised at the rapid and precipitous decline among those of the fellowship of faith.

I believe John stuck around long enough to see this happen, and he had the spiritual insight to recognize the trend, and he was inspired to write the book of Revelation. (Sorry, couldn't resist 'sticking' that last point in there ).