Evaluation of Elders

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm not sure why this was posted, and what was the intention in posting it, but at the time this was spoken, I think WL should have been paying more attention to the moral fiber of his own ministry, and the "character" of the one placed in charge of LSM, commonly known as "The Office."

This quote seems to be nothing more than justification for WL going back to Taipei and taking over, firing the existing elders and hiring 80 young ministry loyalists as new elders.

Primarily in relation to a current event and secondly it's in contrast to the teaching of deputy authority.

Many may agree with you it's a time specific word trying to exhort longtime elders to step aside and let younger brothers take the lead. As it was older elders that were viewed as holding back the new way. Many on this forum would say the younger elders were "yes men". As they did not have the experience in life the older elders had.

However there's also been the slogan "the minister of the age". For the reader, if you believe Witness Lee was and is the minister of the age, how can you reject this word? If you have something in place to evaluate elders, I believe would provide policeman in localities so abuses as testified in Southern California would not transpire.

At least here locally as I have witnessed, elders tolerate "condemning all other Christians, and boasting in all their own riches" in prophesying meetings. If that doesn't require evaluating, that's not an environment I want to raise my children in.

[TLFisher]

Question for everyone's consideration, what approach should be taken when an elder is unable to remain impartial on a matter?

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Terry

Question for everyone's consideration, what approach should be taken when an elder is unable to remain impartial on a matter?

Is the elder directly or indirectly involved in the matter?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Is the elder directly or indirectly involved in the matter?

Directly involved or indirectly involved yet fully aware, but their word or their silence on the matter affects the outcome?

It could be something as general as which brother to bring in as a deacon or elder.
Or it could be something rare, specific, and serious as in Matthew 18:16.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Question for everyone's consideration, what approach should be taken when an elder is unable to remain impartial on a matter?

A judge, prosecutor or juror who is unable to remain impartial on a matter should be recused. What is the evidence that supports this assertion?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Terry

Question for everyone's consideration, what approach should be taken when an elder is unable to remain impartial on a matter?

Terry my brother I believe your question is too ambiguous for anyone to give you a clear answer. This is why you are getting questions about your question. So unless you feel it hits too close to home, can you just come out and give us some details about the situation. No need to give any names or places, just a more specific explanation of the situation.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Terry my brother I believe your question is too ambiguous for anyone to give you a clear answer. This is why you are getting questions about your question. So unless you feel it hits too close to home, can you just come out and give us some details about the situation. No need to give any names or places, just a more specific explanation of the situation.

Unto, it was vaguely brought out in the previous post. Ok, I'll elaborate further.

A prior church I met with within the last 5 years, a brother I'm acquainted with became a deacon. Knowing the background of the family life, I wondered about the decision makin process. Was it due to satisfying the assembly's procedure in becoming a deacon or was it due being discipled directly by the assemblies' elder/pastor?

As for the Matthew 18:16 example, if you're an elder brought into the situation as a witness and either the offended or offender is a fellow elder, there could perceived conflict of interest in regard impartiality versus personal favoritism.

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.1 Timothy 5:21

Do you follow through as a witness or being aware of your own partiaity, you step aside in support of someone unbiased?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

Unto, it was vaguely brought out in the previous post. Ok, I'll elaborate further.

A prior church I met with within the last 5 years, a brother I'm acquainted with became a deacon. Knowing the background of the family life, I wondered about the decision makin process. Was it due to satisfying the assembly's procedure in becoming a deacon or was it due being discipled directly by the assemblies' elder/pastor?

As for the Matthew 18:16 example, if you're an elder brought into the situation as a witness and either the offended or offender is a fellow elder, there could perceived conflict of interest in regard impartiality versus personal favoritism.

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.1 Timothy 5:21

Do you follow through as a witness or being aware of your own partiaity, you step aside in support of someone unbiased?

Unbiased or clueless? If I read you correctly a decision was made which you feel offends your conscience, but that is only because you know the family situation. Does knowing the family situation make you a compromised witness? No, you have witnesses who have witnessed something.

You don't recuse a witness because they might be "biased". You examine their testimony.

[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.

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

"Poor leaders" is a misnomer.

Apostle Paul says, "Beware of dogs! Beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilators!"

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If I read you correctly a decision was made which you feel offends your conscience, but that is only because you know the family situation. Does knowing the family situation make you a compromised witness? No, you have witnesses who have witnessed something.

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.

[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.