Eldership

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I don't think prescriptive vs. descriptive is merely semantic but I think you have to nevertheless contend with the likes of the Local Church, for instance, asserting that, yes, the Bible describes what we do and it is not because the Bible says to do it that way that it is done but because we have felt led to do this and this is also approved in the Bible.

Where does this get us, in other words? Don't you end up, once again, with that horrible contention previously traversed around here about who's got the right "church" and who's got the right "eldership" and the right checkbook and such?

Just some thoughts on this specific part of your post (more thoughts on the rest and in response to aron later).

I agree with you that even if we could agreet that the church structure in the NT is just a description, that does not mean that groups today shouldn't have that same structure. Indeed, as you have pointed out, they could simply say, "Yes, we know the Scripture doesn't prescribe our way of doing things, but this is how we've been lead and the Scripture approves it."

That, however, does not inherently lead us to the debate about who is "right" etc... That stance inherently allows that different "groups" may have different leading concerning structure (or lack thereof) and solong as none of them violate the explicit prescriptions, then all are fine. It is when groups want to superimpose their self-admitted personal leading upon other groups that the problem arises. If they self-admit the bible doesn't prescribe a structure, and that their group (and presumably all groups) are permitted by the Word to organize according to the Lord's leading, then there is no standing to criticize others: all these groups, with potentially different organizational structures (none of which contradict Biblical prescriptions) should co-exist without a debate on who is "right." As soon as a group begins arguing about who is "right" - they are implicitly arguing the Bible prescribes their structure, which they admitted was not the case... Follow?

More later...

Peter

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Just some thoughts on this specific part of your post (more thoughts on the rest and in response to aron later).

I agree with you that even if we could agreet that the church structure in the NT is just a description, that does not mean that groups today shouldn't have that same structure. Indeed, as you have pointed out, they could simply say, "Yes, we know the Scripture doesn't prescribe our way of doing things, but this is how we've been lead and the Scripture approves it."

That, however, does not inherently lead us to the debate about who is "right" etc... That stance inherently allows that different "groups" may have different leading concerning structure (or lack thereof) and solong as none of them violate the explicit prescriptions, then all are fine. It is when groups want to superimpose their self-admitted personal leading upon other groups that the problem arises. If they self-admit the bible doesn't prescribe a structure, and that their group (and presumably all groups) are permitted by the Word to organize according to the Lord's leading, then there is no standing to criticize others: all these groups, with potentially different organizational structures (none of which contradict Biblical prescriptions) should co-exist without a debate on who is "right." As soon as a group begins arguing about who is "right" - they are implicitly arguing the Bible prescribes their structure, which they admitted was not the case... Follow?

More later...

Peter

I follow and I'll buy it for now. That property stands a bit too close to the border of Greater Utopia for me to be entirely comfortable with it, but I'd love to live there if I thought I could. I don't think I'm really the target market, though. I guess I'm really concerned about where the hard-sell residents will want to live. I think there may be an restrictive covenant covering the neighborhood which precludes such a "live and let live" existence.

(OK, so, sorry about the extended analogy but it was working for me and I went with it. )

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I follow and I'll buy it for now. That property stands a bit too close to the border of Greater Utopia for me to be entirely comfortable with it, but I'd love to live there if I thought I could. I don't think I'm really the target market, though. I guess I'm really concerned about where the hard-sell residents will want to live. I think there may be an restrictive covenant covering the neighborhood which precludes such a "live and let live" existence.

(OK, so, sorry about the extended analogy but it was working for me and I went with it. )

Does the covenant run with land? If not, we could run all the folks living there off and start fresh without the restrictive covenant in effect. Or we could establish another restrictive covenant - we could call it the New Covenant - which states "for freedom Christ has set me free" and requires all those living on the land to "live and let live to the Lord".

(Stretching my memory to recall property law... shame on you... )

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

... different "groups" may have different leading concerning structure (or lack thereof) and so long as none of them violate the explicit prescriptions, then all are fine. It is when groups want to superimpose their self-admitted personal leading upon other groups that the problem arises.

I have another way of looking at this same issue. Remember Peter's oft-quoted (here, anyway, if not in the LC's) directive that the shepherds of the flock should not lord it over the sheep, but should rather lead by example? Might we not apply that same directive to the different fellowships of believers as well? Some groups will by dint of being there 'first' or having a charismatic leader or simply being bigger want to tell others how they should conduct their affairs. Doesn't that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Peter's fellowship?

And Peter's word seems strengthened, and widely applicable, by being so in line with the sentiment expressed by our Lord: If you want to be the greatest, you should then become the least. Any collective aggregation of believers that includes in its charter an aspiration to be "great" should seek how to be "least", and "imposing" meekness on others seems to fly in the face of it, doesn't it?

I don't disagree with your logic, either; it just seems that I am using a different train of logic to reach the same conclusions.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by aron

I have another way of looking at this same issue. Remember Peter's oft-quoted (here, anyway, if not in the LC's) directive that the shepherds of the flock should not lord it over the sheep, but should rather lead by example? Might we not apply that same directive to the different fellowships of believers as well? Some groups will by dint of being there 'first' or having a charismatic leader or simply being bigger want to tell others how they should conduct their affairs. Doesn't that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Peter's fellowship?

And Peter's word seems strengthened, and widely applicable, by being so in line with the sentiment expressed by our Lord: If you want to be the greatest, you should then become the least. Any collective aggregation of believers that includes in its charter an aspiration to be "great" should seek how to be "least", and "imposing" meekness on others seems to fly in the face of it, doesn't it?

I don't disagree with your logic, either; it just seems that I am using a different train of logic to reach the same conclusions.

The parallel is a very good one. There is just one thing that I wonder about. Even the notion that a leader/shepherd should not "lord it over the flock" entails the notion that the leader is still convinced he is "right" and the "flock" need his guidence - its just, he has to be careful about how he conveys that belief.

In the parallel, then, the various groups would still be convinced their organization/institutionaliztion is "right" (i.e. prescribed by the Scripture) - they just won't brow-beat other congregations about it.

My question is whether the sentiment of being "right" about a structure is healthy in the first place. Thoughts?

Peter