Eldership

aron · 10-13-2008, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Paul is saying if you are qualified for leadership you will at least meet these minimum qualifications. He is giving the lowest standard, not the highest standard. Why did he use this approach? Because pool of potential leaders is imperfect, glaringly so, but the church still needs leaders. Yet there still must be be minimum qualifications. Those are these. Leaders can reach much higher though, and the really good ones do.

This discussion made me think of the verse in Matthew chapter 19: "[Jesus] said to them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." (KJV).

Maybe Jesus' Beatitudes can be seen in this context as the 'from the beginning' words, and Paul's admonitions to the assemblies of saints that the leaders should not be drunkards and womanizers was a concession to the hardness of hearts yet remaining in many.

As Igzy is saying, Paul is giving the lowest standard, not the highest standard. So shouldn't we approach Paul's words through Jesus', not vice versa? We set up "churches" based on the "template" of Paul's experiences, then we assemble in these "biblical" arrangements and try to figure out what Jesus wants us to do. But we're already in a man-made cage.

I am thinking that maybe some of Paul's writings and experiences were "concessions" to the birds fast roosting in the great tree (Luke 13:19) of Christendom. Like Moses' words, they are part of the divine record. But shouldn't we go back "to the beginning", to Jesus' words, for our standard, our model?

Cal · 10-13-2008, 06:40 AM

aron,

I really don't see the "problem" you are addressing. What's the problem with groups using Paul's guidelines to help choose leaders? I don't think anyone thinks these verses should be taken in a vaccuum as the only needed word on the character of leaders. To me they just are general, bottomline principles, not for what qualifies a leader, but for what disqualifies one.

A brother who can't control his drinking, who is argumentative, who is unqualified to teach, who is a new convert, etc, is simply unqualified to be in a major leadership position. (Brawler doesn't mean a physical fighter, it means argumentative.)

These verses are applicable to all believers, but that doesn't mean all believers measure up to them. Those who don't aren't qualified to be leaders. So I really disagree with YP's statement that these verses "don't really help determine anything at all." They clearly help determine who is unqualified for leadership. If the state of a congregation is that all the members can pass the test of these verses then more power to them. Perhaps some of them should relocate to bolster more immature congregations.

10-13-2008, 06:40 AM	#2
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: "From the beginning it was not so" aron, I really don't see the "problem" you are addressing. What's the problem with groups using Paul's guidelines to help choose leaders? I don't think anyone thinks these verses should be taken in a vaccuum as the only needed word on the character of leaders. To me they just are general, bottomline principles, not for what qualifies a leader, but for what disqualifies one. A brother who can't control his drinking, who is argumentative, who is unqualified to teach, who is a new convert, etc, is simply unqualified to be in a major leadership position. (Brawler doesn't mean a physical fighter, it means argumentative.) These verses are applicable to all believers, but that doesn't mean all believers measure up to them. Those who don't aren't qualified to be leaders. So I really disagree with YP's statement that these verses "don't really help determine anything at all." They clearly help determine who is unqualified for leadership. If the state of a congregation is that all the members can pass the test of these verses then more power to them. Perhaps some of them should relocate to bolster more immature congregations.