The introduction of leaven

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

And I believe that possibly John, sitting on Patmos, looked back and saw this emergent trend, and the Spirit told him to take a scroll and write down what he saw and send it to the assemblies, to Ephesus and Smyrna and Pergamos...

In complete accord with my earlier speculations concerning why "all those in Asia" may have left Paul.

The Gentiles likely were never very kindly disposed towards the ways of the Jews, and not just with regard to the matter of circumcision upon which topic it is more than clear that Paul sided with them over against the Judaizers.

Hierarchy did not spring full grown from the throne of Constantine. The witnesses are much earlier than this, regardless of how you read "Nicolaitans."

Hierarchy is a creeping thing among those who bear some seeming preeminence or there is no explanation for the course of Christian history.

It was not possible then for interlopers to dominate any more than it is possible now for someone like me to walk up and lay claim to the legacy of Lee's ministry. Such a claim is surely laughable for those in the continuum.

Only those who appear as legitimate successors have a chance to uplift themselves and subjugate others.

It is critical that all the saints recognize this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

In complete accord with my earlier speculations concerning why "all those in Asia" may have left Paul.

The Gentiles likely were never very kindly disposed towards the ways of the Jews, and not just with regard to the matter of circumcision upon which topic it is more than clear that Paul sided with them over against the Judaizers.

Hierarchy did not spring full grown from the throne of Constantine. The witnesses are much earlier than this, regardless of how you read "Nicolaitans."

Hierarchy is a creeping thing among those who bear some seeming preeminence or there is no explanation for the course of Christian history.

It was not possible then for interlopers to dominate any more than it is possible now for someone like me to walk up and lay claim to the legacy of Lee's ministry. Such a claim is surely laughable for those in the continuum.

Only those who appear as legitimate successors have a chance to uplift themselves and subjugate others.

It is critical that all the saints recognize this.

No disagreement on any of this. It is interesting that we seem to promote those "who bear some seeming preeminence" rather than defer to those who serve us well. Surely the power struggles were well underway when Constantine offered access to the power of the sword.

We may prefer to see it as the elimination of heresy, but the power offered by Constantine ended many debates without sufficient consideration. Surely there were serious errors eliminated. But are we sure that is the case for all issues? Have we continued to this day based on the doctrinal position of the ones with the legal authority rather than the ones with the spiritual authority?

(I do not have any particular issue in mind, just the general thought that many of the issues with which we now grapple may have been simply silenced then by power rather than settled by council (not necessarily something like at Nicea).)

While no one person has yet ascended to the top of Mt LSM to claim succession to Lee's ministry, they are busy uplifting themselves, albeit in unison and outward harmony at this point in time.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

Surely there were serious errors eliminated. But are we sure that is the case for all issues? Have we continued to this day based on the doctrinal position of the ones with the legal authority rather than the ones with the spiritual authority?

This was one of my questions/realizations a few months ago.

I'm not out and out denying Paul's instruction in scripture to have and submit (appropriately) to elders.

I am, however, on the one hand, curious as to where Paul got the notion to appoint elders as he did. Surely we should find some authority in scripture somewhere for such a thing, besides Paul's own instructions, right? Or at the least, shouldn't he have stated that such a thing was or wasn't a commandment of the Lord? But that's just my own speculation on the one hand.

On the other hand, accepting that Paul was 100% divinely inspired in appointing elders, where do we get our notions concerning elders other than through the traditions that we have received? We got an episcopacy which was reactionary to earlier error and that was modified and refined over time but was it ever really just based upon an erroneous model in the first place passed down from one generation to the next on the Protestant side of the tree?

The Local Church got it from The Brethren who got it from whoever who got it from somebody else and back on and on to the first time someone went back to an eldership model from the exclusive and annointed priesthood model.

But, really, hasn't it mostly been unexamined all along?

Most of what I've seen is a post-hoc justification for existing practice rather than an honest reexamination of the very premise of our traditional notions of having an eldership.

It is a fact: the Local Church has never gone back to "the pure word of the Bible" regarding their practice of having an eldership. They have merely perpetuated what The Brethren did before them.

Think about it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Think about it.

No! Please don't make me! My brain hurts too much already!!

Seriously, I agree with you. We may see certain aspects differently, but you are correct. And those pesky little problems, whatever the source, that began oh so early grew into the mess we have today.

Yes. It has mostly been unexamined. I think that most presume that a true servant effectively corrects whatever error might otherwise exist. There may be some truth in that, but it requires that the pattern of service that one gives himself/herself to must be a genuine service to the church. But the fact that hierarchies are often filled with the ambitious casts shadows over a lot of it.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that most presume that a true servant effectively corrects whatever error might otherwise exist. There may be some truth in that, but it requires that the pattern of service that one gives himself/herself to must be a genuine service to the church. But the fact that hierarchies are often filled with the ambitious casts shadows over a lot of it.

Here is the issue with leadership in general: followers trust leaders. We must believe and be convinced on some level that the one ahead of us knows where he (or she) is going. Institutions and hierarchies make this question automatic - you follow the one with the correct title on his name tag. (In Christian bookstores I always get a kick out of the various kinds of little "USHER" and "DEACON" badges you can buy. I want one that says "BISHOP" but they don't seem to make those.)

There's been some discussion elsewhere about "titles in the LC" and I don't intend to embark on an exploration of whether there's a meaningful difference between the LC terminology and the corresponding words in other denominations. But the key question is certainly based upon the same underlying issues - by virtue of what authority is anyone designated leader?

I know Hope said he's explored this topic in detail, though I haven't had the benefit of his study. Someone else frequently points out the problem of identifying the correct "elders" as evidence of the impracticality of the LC doctrine of locality. There is also considerable criticism of the doctrine of "Deputy Authority," particularly in its practical application.

Elders appointed by Paul could say that they had Paul's appointing as the evidence of their authority. But if we deny the denominational authority as a legitimate source and also deny an individual's ability to simply declare himself (or herself) an authority, as I do believe is appropriate, how do we have the ability to know, and more importantly, trust those whom we should follow?

The Lord said that His sheep know His voice.

I really think maybe that's all we get.

The pure and living Word burns in our ears and hearts when we hear it. If we strip away the superstition that one who has spoken for the Lord once is His appointed and anointed forever, perhaps we come to the place where we are able to follow Paul as he follows Christ and also avoid following him should he misstep into error. The Spirit witnesses with our spirits that we are the children of God. Does the Spirit not witness that we should submit to any particular one at any moment? Or do we need to have some external imprimatur to verify what is the Lord's voice?

And to tie it back to the thread, was Paul's appointment of elders even necessary?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

The Lord said that His sheep know His voice.

I really think maybe that's all we get.

The pure and living Word burns in our ears and hearts when we hear it. If we strip away the superstition that one who has spoken for the Lord once is His appointed and anointed forever, perhaps we come to the place where we are able to follow Paul as he follows Christ and also avoid following him should he misstep into error. The Spirit witnesses with our spirits that we are the children of God. Does the Spirit not witness that we should submit to any particular one at any moment? Or do we need to have some external imprimatur to verify what is the Lord's voice?

And to tie it back to the thread, was Paul's appointment of elders even necessary?

The first sentence I quoted above says so much to me. And if it is true, then I think the sheep know who their leader(s) is(are). No matter what they do, how many there are, what kind of structure is present, if there is willful acknowledgment by the flock, then I have little complaint.

Now when the leadership includes persons far away, like a denominational headquarters, or a structure of bishops, archbishops, etc., then there is the possibility of direction from beyond the sphere of the flock that might not be something they would "know" or "hear."

But if I am hearing the Lord's voice in my environment, whether denominational or independent, then maybe what man has interposed outside of my local assembly is not truly relevant for me. Maybe arguing about it as some kind of spiritual evil is just a red herring.

In my particular case, there is nothing outside of the "walls" of our assembly that controls besides scripture and the Spirit. And coming back to the idea that the sheep know the master's voice, that tends to leave me content with the idea that we are capable of determining who really are our elders, and further knowing who are elders who do not have "position."

I think that Paul took it upon himself to appoint elders in environments in which the sheep were only just beginning to have some appreciation for the shepherd's voice. If I were to assume that his appointment meant that someone outside, like an apostle, was always going to be responsible for making that determination, I might not think so highly of it. Once I have ears to hear, I am capable of listening. I'm not sure that someone who is not here to listen will know, or alternately they will send in an outsider (a hireling?) as the one they promote (or hear) but it may not be the experience of the flock.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that Paul took it upon himself to appoint elders in environments in which the sheep were only just beginning to have some appreciation for the shepherd's voice.

Doesn't seem to fit the known facts, to me.

In Acts 11, after the scattering of the disciples from Jerusalem following Stephen's martyrdom, some wound up in Antioch, although at first they were only preaching to Jews until the Cypriots and Cyrenians showed up preaching to the Hellenists. By the end of Acts 11, there were a large number of believers in Antioch already when Barnabas retrieved Saul from Tarsus, and they stayed with that assembly for a whole year.

Acts 13 expressly states that there were "prophets and teachers" in Antioch and that assembly eventually sent forth Saul and Barnabas in accordance with the speaking of the Holy Spirit.

Yet Acts 14:21-23 seems to fairly clearly say that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in Antioch as one of the "every" assemblies.

Then, oddest of all, the letter from Jerusalem in Acts 15 strikingly omits reference to any "elders" in Antioch, although making express reference to the "apostles and elders" in Jerusalem.

Were there "elders" in Antioch or not?

Why weren't they addressed by the big shots in Jerusalem?