Eldership

[aron]

From YP's list: Qualifications for elders

Blameless as a steward of God; above reproach (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6-7)
Husband of one wife; a one-woman man (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6)
Temperate, sober, vigilant (1 Timothy 3:2)
Sober-minded, prudent (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:8)
Of good behavior; orderly, respectable (1 Timothy 3:2)
Given to hospitality (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8)
Apt to teach; able to teach; he can exhort believers and refute false teaching (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9)
Not given to wine (1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7)
Not violent, not pugnacious (1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7)
Patient, moderate, forbearing, gentle (1 Timothy 3:3)
Not a brawler; uncontentious; not soon angry or quick tempered (1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7)
Not covetous; not a lover of money; not greedy of base gain (1 Timothy 3:3, Titus 1:7)
Rules well his own house; his children are faithful, not accused of rebellion to God (1 Timothy 3:4, Titus 1:7)
Not a novice; not a new convert (1 Timothy 3:6)
Has a good report or reputation with outsiders (1 Timothy 3:7)
Not self-willed (Titus 1:7)
A lover of what is good (Titus 1:7)
Just, fair (Titus 1:8)
Holy, devout (Titus 1:8)
Self-Controlled (Titus 1:8)

Reading again the list of qualifications of elders, I was touched again, strongly, with something that's been bugging me for a long time now. Paul's list of qualifications are compared to what?

Did Apollos or Peter recommend leaders in the assembly who were brawlers, given to wine, keepers of more than one wife? Who was recommending something different than Paul here? Why did he have to write these words?

Or was it okay for the "rank & file" to drink & fight & fornicate; just not the "leading ones"?

Where do these admonitions come from? Why is Paul writing these words? I don't get it. It seems to me to be a huge dropoff from "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" and "Blessed are the pure at heart, for they shall see God", to "Don't drink and fight". It seems to be a big dropoff to go from "It was written, do not steal, but I say to you, do not even covet", to "Those who stole should steal no more".

The spiritual, mystical, deep, even unfathomable, limitless teachings have been replaced by prescriptions for outward behavior that even most unbelievers would shrug at. Don't steal, don't punch one another, stay sober. What happened here?

Just a little contextual question for the "eldership" discussion. Something clearly happened to the fellowship, from Acts chapter 2 to Paul's epistles.

Compare Paul's prescriptions for the "leaders of the flock" to Jesus' "Beatitudes". The latter is clearly at another whole level of reality. What happened?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

The spiritual, mystical, deep, even unfathomable, limitless teachings have been replaced by prescriptions for outward behavior that even most unbelievers would shrug at. Don't steal, don't punch one another, stay sober. What happened here?

Thank God for that. Who wants to try to recognize qualified leaders based on something unfathomable?

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.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thank God for that. Who wants to try to recognize qualified leaders based on something unfathomable?

Hmm.

With what faculty are we "recognizing" spiritual authority? Based on outward criteria, of which our leaders must meet a minimum? The very notion of "recognize" is that there is something - already there to recognize. Surely it isn't some set of minimum standards that we already "recognized" - but rather a spiritual experience and heft that carried weight amoung a population, no? And surely that "recognition" couldn't necessarily be broken down into criteria. Isn't that "recognition" a spiritual and organic on - one of a natural relationship which has developed between certain elder believers and others? If so - if that "higher" standard of intuitive recognition of spiritual authority is the pre-requisite for "recognition" by an assembly - why the need for the very minimal outward standards? That is, either spiritual authority is, in fact, spiritually recognizable or it is recognizable because some set of outward criteria have been met. Either way, a minimum standard doesn't (seemingly) do us much good.

All that to say, I think aron's questions are still pressing and unanswered ones, Igzy. The standards are clearly in the Word. I echo aron's questions however, about what Paul is getting at with them. Thoughts?

Peter

[aron]

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]

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.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Reading again the list of qualifications of elders, I was touched again, strongly, with something that's been bugging me for a long time now. Paul's list of qualifications are compared to what?

Did Apollos or Peter recommend leaders in the assembly who were brawlers, given to wine, keepers of more than one wife? Who was recommending something different than Paul here? Why did he have to write these words?

Or was it okay for the "rank & file" to drink & fight & fornicate; just not the "leading ones"?

You are right, aron.

These minimal standards are so broadly applicable to all believers that they don't really help determine anything at all. It is a very good question as to why Paul would bother to articulate that an overseer must not be one given to violence and must be holy. Only non-brutal faithful (male) believers need apply. Huh. I wouldn't really think there would be any question about appointment of brutal, unholy men to an "office" in God's own assembly, but, then again, maybe some in Ephesus were into that sort of thing or something.

This reveals that the REAL "qualification" must come from elsewhere.

I believe Lee taught that it was "revelation" that was the basis of this sort of thing but I'd like to continue to dig into the issue and see if the Bible itself doesn't yield some additional light on the topic. Paul clearly promoted his own apostleship as based in revelation but does this necessarily translate to anyone who claims some crazy revelation? Clearly not. How do we test and approve or reject the revelations?

Paul wrote that the Jerusalem above is free, who is our mother. (Gal. 4:26) I think maybe the New Jerusalem is more like a Waldorf salad than a mommy. OK, so the Waldorf salad recipe can't be found in the Old Testament, but aside from the Book of Revelation, where else can I see that there's a city in the heavens someplace? Where'd Paul get that kind of stuff and then commend us to believe it? And, more to the point, what do I do about THAT guy and what HE says God showed him? Is my revelation of the Waldorf salad really THAT inconsistent with the New Testament revelation of God's eternal purpose? Lee taught that Christ is the reality of every positive thing in the universe, right? Does that stop short of the Waldorf salad? Who says so?

Or maybe revelation and "church offices" have no relationship one with another?

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by YP0534

You are right, aron.

These minimal standards are so broadly applicable to all believers that they don't really help determine anything at all. It is a very good question as to why Paul would bother to articulate that an overseer must not be one given to violence and must be holy. Only non-brutal faithful (male) believers need apply. Huh. I wouldn't really think there would be any question about appointment of brutal, unholy men to an "office" in God's own assembly, but, then again, maybe some in Ephesus were into that sort of thing or something.

This reveals that the REAL "qualification" must come from elsewhere.

I believe Lee taught that it was "revelation" that was the basis of this sort of thing but I'd like to continue to dig into the issue and see if the Bible itself doesn't yield some additional light on the topic. Paul clearly promoted his own apostleship as based in revelation but does this necessarily translate to anyone who claims some crazy revelation? Clearly not. How do we test and approve or reject the revelations?

Paul wrote that the Jerusalem above is free, who is our mother. (Gal. 4:26) I think maybe the New Jerusalem is more like a Waldorf salad than a mommy. OK, so the Waldorf salad recipe can't be found in the Old Testament, but aside from the Book of Revelation, where else can I see that there's a city in the heavens someplace? Where'd Paul get that kind of stuff and then commend us to believe it? And, more to the point, what do I do about THAT guy and what HE says God showed him? Is my revelation of the Waldorf salad really THAT inconsistent with the New Testament revelation of God's eternal purpose? Lee taught that Christ is the reality of every positive thing in the universe, right? Does that stop short of the Waldorf salad? Who says so?

Or maybe revelation and "church offices" have no relationship one with another?

YP -

I think I get the gist of your post, but this uncultured fellow needs a little help with the Waldorf salad analogy....

Peter

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

YP -

I think I get the gist of your post, but this uncultured fellow needs a little help with the Waldorf salad analogy....

Peter

I aimed to be somewhat nonsensical in that.

I'd have said "Caesar salad" but "Caesar" is kind of a loaded term in the New Testament and it definitely doesn't sound as funny. At least, I think "Waldorf salad" sounds funny, probably because of an episode of Fawlty Towers.

Sorry to disappoint but I don't actually have a Waldorf salad revelation. Although I could probably make something up if I tried.

Something containing "The Apple" and "nuts" should be easy to relate to Christianity.

According to the American Century Cookbook, the first Waldorf Salad was created in New York City in 1893, by Oscar Tschirky, the maître d'hôtel of the Waldorf Astoria. The original recipe consisted only of diced red-skinned apples, celery, and mayonnaise. Chopped walnuts were added later to this now American classic.

Waldorf Salad Recipe

Ingredients
1/2 cup chopped, slightly toasted walnuts
1/2 cup celery, thinly sliced
1/2 cup red seedless grapes, sliced (or a 1/4 cup of raisins)
1 sweet apple, cored and chopped
3 Tbsp mayonnaise
1 Tbsp fresh lemon juice
Salt
Pepper
Lettuce

Method
In a medium sized bowl, whisk together the mayonnaise (or yogurt) and the lemon juice. Add 1/2 teaspoon of salt, 1/4 teaspoon of fresh ground pepper. Mix in the apple, celery, grapes, and walnuts. Serve on a bed of fresh lettuce.

Serves 2.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I think I get the gist of your post, but this uncultured fellow needs a little help with the Waldorf salad analogy...

My gist of YP's gist was that a Waldorf Salad was a "kitchen sink" salad. Everything and the kitchen sink, to boot.

I keep thinking of the verse that starts Galatians chapter 5. "For freedom Christ has set us free..."

Paul was free to set up leadership in the new fellowships as he saw fit; we seem to be free to set up leadership, or not, as we see fit. Look at the different set-ups in christian history God has blessed with His outpoured Spirit. Some were highly structured arrangements, like formal "churches", and some were loose aggregates of coal miners and whatnot.

The Lord's ability to manifest Himself on earth is not limited to a specific structure, nor is it necessarily prevented by any structure.

I have just found that when we focus on the structure we tend to ignore the Lord. I think of Nee's "The Normal Christian Church Life" as a paragon. It is as "biblical" a template for organizing the fellowship(s) as one could want; but it turns Paul's "freedom" into "the letter of the law".

The only thing we are not free to do is sin. In that regard, we have been clearly captured by Christ, and are imprisoned in His righteousness. Other than that, "The Spirit blows where it wills, and you know not..." (John 3:8)

And that's my "Waldorf Salad" speech for the day.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Paul was free to set up leadership in the new fellowships as he saw fit; we seem to be free to set up leadership, or not, as we see fit.

Well, let's look at something, here, shall we?

In 1 Tim., Paul told Timothy to remain in Ephesus to straighten some things out in that assembly, including with regard to overseership.

We also have the epistle to the saints in Ephesus, containing some of the highest revelations in the New Testament concerning Christ and His Body, which was squarely directed to Gentile believers (Eph. 2:11) who most likely would not have automatically conducted themselves in accordance with synagogue practices as some other places may have.

This we also know - at a certain point, according to 2 Tim. 1:15, all in Asia had left Paul.

Then, we come to Revelation 2 and, Lo! here's a letter to Ephesus! Among the things discussed there is that they have left their first love and that they hate the works of the Nicolaitans.

Maybe the brief letter to Ephesus in Revelation should be read together with the Pauline epistles to Ephesus and Timothy?

Maybe the Ephesians rejected too much else when they rejected hierarchy?

At this point, the evidence seems strong to me to say that the practice of a clerical hierarchy in the assemblies had Paul as its ultimate source, even though it seems pretty clearly unintentional given the entire New Testament context.

Here's a question that occurs to me: if Nicolatianism refers to a priestly class (I know some here do not agree but I'm referring to my KJV Criswell Study Bible today) and, more clearly, since the Lord in the gospels taught that we should call none "Teacher" or "Father" (which I don't think any can argue with), where is Paul's admonition along this line? Paul was clearly concerned with BAD leaders but where is the balancing word to say, for instance, as Witness Lee taught, that the elders are slaves and their wives are the wives of slaves? (Or perhaps some think Lee was wrong about that and the elders are to be like little kings?)

We can say definitively that clerical hierarchy was firmly established right at the close of the apostolic period and we can certainly say that the Lord Himself taught against such a thing. But the practice did not spring to life full grown - it had to have developed over some span of time and must have had some way to flourish against the Lord's own words.

Could Paul himself have been the source?

If he called Timothy "genuine child," did Timothy answer, "Yes, Father?"

I see several places where Paul's teachings are at least colorably the source of a clerical system. But to be fair to brother Paul, have I just missed the place where he spoke a balancing word against such a system or men who would set themselves up over others for titles of respect?

It seems likely that this would have been an issue somewhat quickly and in any event factually must have been since the clergy was a common practice so soon after Paul's time. Could this have somehow escaped Paul's notice entirely? If so, why might that have been?

The Lord be with your spirit this day!

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I keep thinking of the verse that starts Galatians chapter 5. "For freedom Christ has set us free..."

Paul was free to set up leadership in the new fellowships as he saw fit; we seem to be free to set up leadership, or not, as we see fit.

...I have found that when we focus on the structure we tend to ignore the Lord. I think of Nee's "The Normal Christian Church Life" as a paragon. It is as scripture-based a template for organizing the fellowship(s) as one could want; but it turns Paul's "freedom" into "the letter of the law".

I was reading 1 Cor. 9 this morning: "Am I not free?...do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a sister to wife, even as the rest? (vv 1,4,5).

To me, the real "imitation" of Paul is to say "Aren't I, also, free?", and not to slavishly adopt his eldership-appointment patterns, his church-organizing admonitions to Titus and Timothy, and such. If we take the letter of Paul, and not the spirit, we are slaves again. Ultimately, that is my whole problem with the so-called "Bible-based" organizations I've dealt with, including the LC model.

I suppose I'm just repeating myself here, but it's probably worth repeating.