Evaluation of Elders

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

ZNP, Witnesses who witness something may or may not make a difference. In regard to Matthew 18, as I understand it's not what they can offer verbally as a witness but to participate as a third party to somehow reconcile two parties brothers or sisters in conflict.
My emphasis in quoting 1 Timothy 5:21 is in regard to elders. The key phrase being "doing nothing in a spirit of partiality". The following verse in 1 Timothy 5:22 begins by saying "Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily".

Elders responsibility is not strictly to be their church's administrators, but spiritually "for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account." They cannot be those who quickly react before knowing the facts.

Again, it is very difficult to read these cryptic posts.

It appears you feel an elder has "laid his hands on someone hastily" and that was done in a "spirit of partiality".

This would be impossible to judge based on the information you have provided. It seems the elder has chosen someone from a family that has had a history with the church but the person in that family that has been chosen is in your opinion unfit or immature.

The act of selecting church leaders very often leads to a rift in the congregation. Personally I think this is a process I would want to have nothing to do with. If you raise up the saints in a locality through the gospel, establish the meetings and build this meeting up into a church, you will then be in a position to make these decisions. Also, you will be in a position to do this process without feeling the pressure of politics.

However, if your "appointment" was political to begin with you have no choice but to make your decision according to the same partiality that you were chosen with.

So what you are probably being offended at is an offense that has been there for quite some time.

This reminds me of an interesting story about the church I am currently meeting with. The original pastor did just that, he came from Texas to NY, preached the gospel, built up a meeting and established a church. He then contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion during an operation in the hospital prior to when they could test for AIDS. At this same time the Lord called another pastor who had done the same thing in India to leave India and come to NY for the gospel. He had raised up 3 churches and had a congregation of several thousand but felt he needed to drop everything and heed the Lord's call. So he was preaching the gospel on the streets of NY when he came in contact with someone who gave him a gospel tract from our congregation. He decided to come out and visit. When he arrived he met a man he mistook to be the gardener who said "What took you so long?" It was the first pastor who was dying of AIDS, but happened to be working in the yard at the time. He had prayed, the Lord had spoken to him and apparently he recognized this man to the be the one the Lord had sent in answer to his prayers.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Again, it is very difficult to read these cryptic posts.

It appears you feel an elder has "laid his hands on someone hastily" and that was done in a "spirit of partiality".

This would be impossible to judge based on the information you have provided. It seems the elder has chosen someone from a family that has had a history with the church but the person in that family that has been chosen is in your opinion unfit or immature.

The act of selecting church leaders very often leads to a rift in the congregation. Personally I think this is a process I would want to have nothing to do with. If you raise up the saints in a locality through the gospel, establish the meetings and build this meeting up into a church, you will then be in a position to make these decisions. Also, you will be in a position to do this process without feeling the pressure of politics.

However, if your "appointment" was political to begin with you have no choice but to make your decision according to the same partiality that you were chosen with.

So what you are probably being offended at is an offense that has been there for quite some time.

This reminds me of an interesting story about the church I am currently meeting with. The original pastor did just that, he came from Texas to NY, preached the gospel, built up a meeting and established a church. He then contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion during an operation in the hospital prior to when they could test for AIDS. At this same time the Lord called another pastor who had done the same thing in India to leave India and come to NY for the gospel. He had raised up 3 churches and had a congregation of several thousand but felt he needed to drop everything and heed the Lord's call. So he was preaching the gospel on the streets of NY when he came in contact with someone who gave him a gospel tract from our congregation. He decided to come out and visit. When he arrived he met a man he mistook to be the gardener who said "What took you so long?" It was the first pastor who was dying of AIDS, but happened to be working in the yard at the time. He had prayed, the Lord had spoken to him and apparently he recognized this man to the be the one the Lord had sent in answer to his prayers.

I do not think speaking in generality is being cryptic. Certainly with the LC history we have seen through this forum, there has been a pattern of partiality and condemnation without investigation. I had been doing a word search and suprised to see partiality mentioned 19 times in the Bible. I regret the message I am getting at is not obvious.

Allow me to place it in these terms:
Brothers are quarantined (Nigel Tomes, Titus Chu, etc)
you must honor the feeling of the body.
Based on reading www.afaithfulword.org, it is co-workers leading Living Stream Ministry, as representatives of the Body who express the feeling of the Body.
Based on this definition from our brothers at DCP, partiality endorsed as a standard practice.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

I do not think speaking in generality is being cryptic. Certainly with the LC history we have seen through this forum, there has been a pattern of partiality and condemnation without investigation. I had been doing a word search and suprised to see partiality mentioned 19 times in the Bible. I regret the message I am getting at is not obvious.

Allow me to place it in these terms:
Brothers are quarantined (Nigel Tomes, Titus Chu, etc)
you must honor the feeling of the body.
Based on reading www.afaithfulword.org, it is co-workers leading Living Stream Ministry, as representatives of the Body who express the feeling of the Body.
Based on this definition from our brothers at DCP, partiality endorsed as a standard practice.

1. The "Sister's rebellion" was a smokescreen created by WL to distract attention from the sins of the WL cohort in the Daystar debacle. WL was willing to defame and damage innocent bystanders to hide the truth. That suggests how ugly the truth was.
2. The PL incident could have been handled a dozen different ways that would have resulted in PL no longer managing affairs and without the split that took place in the 80s. The fact that WL chose the path he did demonstrates how ugly the truth was that PL was hiding.
3. JI and others were booted out who would not condone the illicit behavior of PL. They were replaced with compliant brothers willing to cover their eyes, ears and mouth. BP and RG then brought in "company men" KR and EM to assist in this charade.
4. JI was not the only elder to stand up to WL, elders in Taipei were replaced wholesale, other elders in Asia were maligned, and some elders in the US, Europe, etc. were removed.
5. By this point the message was clear from Anaheim to every locality that the entire system was one of partiality. That is why you have "The Blendeds". There might be an elder somewhere who feels he doesn't need to behave in such a shameful way, For example TC stepped on LSM's toes so they call in the Blendeds to excommunicate him.

So then if you have a small locality in the LRC who had nothing to do with all of this, why do they stay in the LRC? Simple, either they want canned messages every week because they are too lazy to seek the Lord's speaking for themselves or they see the value added in fellowshipping with the other churches and think they can walk the line between being faithful to the Lord or being a sell out, they sit on this wall like Humpty Dumpty. In the end they have to choose, like John Meyers.

So then the LRC is composed of the monkeys (see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil), the henchmen (the Blendeds), the toady's (EM, etc), the lazy pretenders, and Humpty dumpty who either leaves (John Meyers) or they are pushed (TC).

There is no need to wait for the ugly conclusion to diagnose the disease of "partiality". As soon as brothers express "respect of persons" the disease has shown its ugly head. For example, the discussion of what great spiritual apostles WN and WL are. The discussion of how the LRC is more spiritual than other Christian assemblies, as soon as brothers are measured and judged by "how absolute they are for the ministry". These are all examples of the disease of having respect of persons and it is evil. These ones who are "rich in the spirit" are the same ones who drag you before the judge and sue you. What you are really doing is despising the saints who are supposedly "not rich in the Spirit or in the word".

[OBW]

Seems that we are all talking around at different aspects of the same problem. Terry is looking for a principle. ZNP is looking at specific issues of the LRC history. And Terry’s desire for a principle may be driven by different aspects of that same history.

But one of the problems that I see is that we still are too reliant on individuals to appoint rather than to take part in the process. I realize that this seems problematic in terms of the few examples we have in the NT. But remember that we only have “data” on the very early start-up. A time when there was no “history” in Christ for so many of the people involved.

So in some cases it would appear that Paul managed to find someone(s) who were well enough “versed” in the OT underpinnings, coupled with evidence of true understanding upon conversion to take the lead. In other cases, he left someone(s) behind to continue to teach while observing the new believers as they grew in faith, eventually coming to appoint some to take over the leadership.

But after that, despite some popular claims of all elders serving under election by an apostle, there is no actual evidence that this is so. In fact, it would seem that in Paul’s last years, enough of Asia Minor would desert him that he referred to it as “all in Asia.” Yet we do not find their elders treated as un-appointed. Or answering to someone else. And they did not cease to be churches on account of their desertion.

In this day and age, some groups/denominations appoint all the preachers. You get who the HQ sends you. Others rely on the selection of the particular assembly, although some kind of credentials are often needed to establish the “applicant” as being a group member in good standing and with reasonable training.

But in almost all cases, after that, it is the local assembly that is responsible for establishing its board — elders, deacons, or both. The elders/deacons may have some ability to deal with staff and to make decisions concerning direction, practice, etc. But even that is subject to scrutiny since there is the ever-looming election process.

This is a problematic process in some ways because it can put the very qualified out of favor over irrelevancies and put the very unqualified into position through political means or favoritism.

But it is funny that for all the claims (by some) that these voted positions are not scriptural, it would appear that the worst abuses of power are on the part of those whose position is by appointment. And it is often because the very appointment process is cancerous to the top. It is a closed system with no answerability to anyone but God. And they claim that they know God’s will so they can effectively ignore Him if it is not true because they think they are following. Why? Because they say they are.

So, returning to Terry’s concern, it would seem that the most honest position is that, whether by appointment or influence on a system of voting, those who have position need to be honest and upright in all they do. They need to be up-front with the reasons for their recommendations or their appointments. They need to be honest concerning reasons for their position. And if their “job” includes appointment, they need to be more than willing to do it all with full accountability and with input from all interested sources.

The “how” of this is far beyond my ability to direct or dictate (as if I could dictate anything). But wherever we are, I think that honorable men and women need to become part of the process within the system wherever they are. I know that is nearly impossible within some groups, including the LRC. And that could be a good reason to seek out different groups. Not saying to cut anyone off or declare them heretical. Just join with those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.