[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

ZNP is right. The problem is if someone like an elder is the one who is going to make a judgment and they are already biased as to the outcome, or have an outward appearance of a lack of separateness from the parties or decision to be made.

If they are merely like witnesses for a purpose, then they should be heard. It is also appropriate for someone to question, for the record, whether their association with the person or their participation in some discipleship might either blind them to reasons contrary to their assertions, or might cause others to simply accept their assertions despite some evidence that runs contrary.

But, on the other hand, if there is nothing that is known to be contrary to a person's taking on the role of (say) deacon, the fact that a pastor or elder has some personal knowledge should not disqualify his/her valid input. That would be somewhat like suggesting that Peter should have had no say in the question about what to do with the Gentile believers who were not following OT ordinances. He got a direct word from God and had been in close fellowship with many of the Gentiles after their conversion, even partaking in their food. This would tend to suggest that Peter should have disqualified/recused himself.

And I know that none of us are going there.

I know that we have been hurt by poor leaders. But we cannot take the position that they are never to be trusted or that we need to do everything for ourselves. There is ample evidence in the NT that having teachers, leaders, elders, deacons, etc., is a good thing for the functioning of the church. Don't let bad apples cause a permanent "FDA warning" against eating apples of any kind.

Interesting post OBW. In principle I agree with what you and ZNP have had to say. I will need to elaborate later on this thread or on another thread.