Eldership

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

P.S. I will state here that I don't think the office of eldership is prescribed.

Allow me to disagree! Eldership is not only described but also prescribed in the New Testament. Take, for example, Heb. 13:17 - "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account..". It is a clear prescription. In 1 Pet. 5:1-2 the elders are commanded to shepherd the flock of God, serving as overseers. And they are promised the reward from the Lord for their service. Then 1 Tim. 3:1 says that if a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. And then we are given qualifications of a bishop. I am convinced that eldership is not some kind of Jewish hangover, but a very important principle for the church life.

P.P.S. If the eldership is prescribed, then that means that formal recognizable congregations are also prescribed and that each individual must be under an eldership.

Exactly!!! Check Heb. 10:24-25! It is very unhealthy to be on our own, or in some kind of small groups that are detached from the rest of the body in our city.

Of course, that doesn't answer the question of which congregation... which is a question being wrangled with all over this forum...

This matter is quite simple. Be in a congregation where you feel at home, where your gifts are developed, and where you can serve and submit others. But at the same time remember that your group is only a part of the body in you city. Therefore, it is very healthy to seek out fellowship with other Christians and establish relationship with them. That is what I am trying to do. We have a small meeting - where we basically practice house church principles. But I keep in touch with many Christians (including pastors) in our city. Last week I had a spiritual need. Saints where I meet were not available. So I went to a big church in our city. And since I established relationship with many of them, I felt like I was home. They always rejoice when I visit them, and give me a warm welcome. I had a time of worship with them and my need was satisfied.

In my experience, those who are afraid of strong church ties, close relationship with other Christians and being under the authority of leadership are those who were either spiritually abused, or are introvert in their disposition and don't generally like to be around people. It is a serious spiritual problem that must be dealt with. It is especially dangerous when a theological basis is developed to support that kind of attitude.

[YP0534]

I think it would be best to retain the focus here on what the Bible actually says about "elders" instead of just giving our own thoughts and interpretations about all these other things.

We are, at least, I am, attempting to reexamine preconceived notions, not merely repeat them again.

I wish to know what the Bible says about it.

For instance, the word "eldership" is not in the Bible although clearly many people feel it is so natural to think and act as if it is something prescribed or described by the scriptures.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search...ldership&t=KJV

The Bible speaks of "elders" but not "eldership" so I think this is meaningful.

(The term as appears in some translations of 1 Tim 4:14 refers to a group of elders, not an office of elder.)

I would rather stick to what we can learn from the actual scriptures.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I wish to know what the Bible says about it.

For instance, the word "eldership" is not in the Bible although clearly many people feel it is so natural to think and act as if it is something prescribed or described by the scriptures.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/search...ldership&t=KJV

The Bible speaks of "elders" but not "eldership" so I think this is meaningful.

(The term as appears in some translations of 1 Tim 4:14 refers to a group of elders, not an office of elder.)

I would rather stick to what we can learn from the actual scriptures.

It seems that your main objection is with the term "office" (by the way, I always use "eldership" meaning "group of elders"). However, the Word talks about office as well.

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is fine work he desires to do. (1 Tim. 3:1. NASB)

(And we know that elders and overseers are the same in NT).

"The office of overseer" in Greek is episkope. Greek dictionary says: episkope; fem., a purely biblical and patristic word. The office of an overseer or bishop in Christ's Church...

It is interesting that the same word is translated office in Acts. 1:20 where it talks about the office of an apostle - his office let another man take. If you check Ps. 109:8, where this quote was lifted from, then you'll see that the same Hebrew word is used as in 2 Chron. 23:18, where the offices in the house of the Lord are discussed.

So I think that this "there is no word eldership in the Bible talk" is just hair splitting. What really matters is that the church was a community with leadership, and that this leadership was to be obeyed and given honor to. There is no such a thing as the church without authority in the Bible. A person who does not know how to place himself under authority cannot progress spiritually.

What is the biblical authority is quite another matter, but that there is authority in the church goes without doubt.

[aron]

Originally Posted by KSA

What really matters is that the church was a community with leadership, and that this leadership was to be obeyed and given honor to. There is no such a thing as the church without authority in the Bible. A person who does not know how to place himself under authority cannot progress spiritually.

What is the biblical authority is quite another matter, but that there is authority in the church goes without doubt.

Yes, what is biblical authority? Anyone who "jumps rank" and declares themselves to be in charge is disqualified, in my view. Remember the case of Alexander Haig? He was Secretary of State when President Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981, and famously asserted, "I'm in control here." He later said he was misunderstood, he just meant he was in control of the room with the press asking questions, not the country. But it was a breach in appearance, anyway, and he was censured for it.

Likewise, any christians who assert, "I'm in control here", either individually or collectively, have left thier biblical standing. The Lord said to take the last place at the table, and then let the Master of the feast call you up higher. In this case, the church age, the stand-in for the Master of the feast is the believers. If they get fed and watered and shepherded and encouraged and strengthened and enlightened by you, they are going to invite you up higher, to the place of honor at the table. But if you "impose" your "authority" on them it is unbiblical.

I agree with the statements "There is no such thing as a church without authority in the Bible.", and "A person who does not place himself under authority cannot progress spiritually." But at the same time, I am wary of being bullied, intimidated, and oppressed by someone's twisted apprehension of the term "authority".

[KSA]

Biblical authority is determined by our subjection to the authority of the Lord. There is no authority in the church apart from the Lord.

There are abuses of the authority in the church. But to deny authority itself because of the abuses is to go way too far. It is the same as denying parenthood just because some parents abuse their children.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by KSA

Biblical authority is determined by our subjection to the authority of the Lord. There is no authority in the church apart from the Lord.

There are abuses of the authority in the church. But to deny authority itself because of the abuses is to go way too far. It is the same as denying parenthood just because some parents abuse their children.

Does the bible treat submission/obedience to spiritual authorities the same as it treats submission/obedience to human authorities?

When I saw "human authorities" - I am speaking of parents, governments, teachers, etc...

Authority for human authorities is static - it resides in the office and is not contingent on the person's acts being right or righteous. Does the Bible treat spiritual authority the same way?

If you say spritual authority resides in "offices", then I think the notion that "There is no authority in the church apart from the Lord" is difficult to maintain. That is, unless you propose that once someone holds a particular "office," then it is impossible for them to do other than the Lord's will. But we know this is impossible and thus, it is hard to maintain both propositions:

1) spiritual authority resides in an "office"
2) there is no spiritual authority apart from the Lord

Finally, do not take arguments here (at least not my arguments) as attempting to debunk spiritual authority. There is always spiritual authority and often it manifests through other believers. I am just discussing whether that authority is always static, in an office, and in a set structure. I wonder whether that view would have prohibited Paul from submitting to Ananias - or any of us being open to the fact that the Lord can speak to us through others, even those who don't hold any "office."

Also, I am not sure what you mean when you say meeting "in some kind of small groups that are detached from the rest of the body in our city." Really, I have no idea what this means - especially not in relation to whether eldership is prescribed. Could you elaborate?

Peter

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by KSA

(And we know that elders and overseers are the same in NT).

I do know know this.

How do you know this?

[aron]

YP's insertion of the 'widow's roll' into the discussion of elders provides some helpful context for me. It got me thinking about the 'cultural relics' we often unknowingly insert into our practices, religious and otherwise. Hopefully my comments here serve as an adjunct rather than an impediment to the discussion.

--short hair. Paul prescribes women not to have short hair. That is not followed in the church, even in the Local Churches today. Some women have short hair, most don't.

--head coverings. Same as above. Most LC women don't cover thier heads, some do.

--women being 'silent' in the church. Not followed much in any fellowship of believers. I did meet with one non-LC group that had strict adherence to the above 3 points.

--Paul & Silas getting the right hand of fellowship to go forth, and being told to "remember the widows and orphans, which we assured them we were eager to do". Not much in record follows concerning widows and orphans being helped by them. Today, helping widows and orphans seems to be optional in Christianity. In the LC's, we looked for "good materials", which meant young college students. Widows and orphans were looked after privately, by some. But it certainly was not stressed. It seems to be more stressed in the NT, in places like this, and in the Gospels.

--the widow's roll, mentioned by YP. Again, optional, it seems. To me, inserting a widows roll, or some such practice, in the early assembly is not so much a cultural artifact as it is an attempt by the adherents of the faith to follow the Master's teachings. He said, "It is better to give than to receive", and some of the disciples looked for ways to give, and latched on to this as a way to help others. So they weren't being "Jewish" as much as trying to be "good". The cultural element might have been irrelevant.

--slaves obeying the masters. This is clearly cultural. It did get rehashed in the U.S. prior to the Civil War, with pro-slavery/states' rights groups citing this verse and abolitionists citing the "there is not any free man or slave in Christ" verses. Actually, some of the NT verses on slavery might be called anti-cultural, because they fly in the face of prevailing sentiment by asserting the equality of all men, and women, in the household of faith. That is the opposite of a 'nod' to culture, and also it follows Christ, to some degree, who could be quite iconoclastic in his speaking. Overturning the established order, and such.

--wives obeying husbands. In the LC's, at least on paper, this is adhered to, but in many Christian groups it is downplayed or ignored. As society changed, so did the attention to admonitions such as this. Today women can divorce husbands, can own property, vote, run for president, run companies, perform open heart surgery; they are in most cases equal. And in many Christian groups, even strict 'Bible-based' groups, women have equal status. In the homes also.

--"I do not permit a woman to teach". Same as above.

--children obeying/honoring parents. This seems to transcend culture. Children lack experience, and those children who are not obedient eventually learn, sometimes with a steep price, that the things Mom & Dad lectured on had at least a modicum of reality attached to it. The price to pay, learning from Mom & Dad, usually is less steep than learing from 'the world'.

--elders/leading ones in the assembly not being lovers of money, not vain, not striking others, not having multiple wives, not drunkards. Partly cultural. Interpersonal violence may have been more common back then, thus the need for an admonition. But most of it is common sense, really. Pretty obvious, and as such, to me, mostly irrelevant. There is a cultural element here. Paul would not have to write such words today, just like "Slaves, obey your masters." It is clearly a cultural artifact from now-departed times.

My point in this little list (which came to me "off the top of my head" as I was writing; surely there are other examples also), is to suggest that there are things which the christian community has ignored and/or abandoned as unworkable or outmoded or irrelevant by the changing times. And some things which some have abandoned and some other ones hold to, even tightly. So it seems to be okay to give ourselves some latitude as we attempt to determine what is "biblical" and what is "cultural".

Lastly, the trump card is Jesus Christ, not letters to Timothy or Titus. Paul said "Imitate me as I imitate Christ". We ought to determine where Paul was imitating Christ, and where he was nodding to the prevailing culture. Just because God gave Paul latitude to be a Greek among the Greeks, that doesn't mean we all have to strictly adhere to Greek customs and culture in order to follow Jesus the Galilean. We can be American among the Americans, and so forth. America is a much more decentralized place. If we collectively prefer a more decentralized or ad-hoc form of group leadership, I don't think God's throne will shake.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Lastly, the trump card is Jesus Christ, not letters to Timothy or Titus. Paul said "Imitate me as I imitate Christ". We ought to determine where Paul was imitating Christ, and where he was nodding to the prevailing culture.

Yes.

Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?

Thank you.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Yes.

Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?

Yes, I do.

Do you believe that when Job's wife advised him to "Curse God and die", she was speaking for God? Or was that merely her opinion?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

--the widow's roll, mentioned by YP. Again, optional, it seems. To me, inserting a widows roll, or some such practice, in the early assembly is not so much a cultural artifact as it is an attempt by the adherents of the faith to follow the Master's teachings. He said, "It is better to give than to receive", and some of the disciples looked for ways to give, and latched on to this as a way to help others. So they weren't being "Jewish" as much as trying to be "good". The cultural element might have been irrelevant.

aron, if the "elders" of the synagogue were responsible for handling the "widows' roll," I think that might be a significant insight

my point wasn't about the care for others in general - absolutely we should and must - the point was Paul's finely detailed description of the practice of maintaining the list of widows

many take the position that this practice reflects a highly developed state of "church affairs" indicating a late date for the authorship of the epistle and, perhaps, less ability to understand the epistle through a prism of cultural interpretation

in fact, many go a further step and deny Pauline authorship based upon how advanced the practice seems and how culturally-based it appears to be

but my inquiry is whether perhaps it was actually a quite early practice such that it might be understood in that fashion

because, truly, if Paul wore pants, he would don them just as you or I do...

[aron]

Originally Posted by KSA

... those who are afraid of strong church ties, close relationship with other Christians and being under the authority of leadership are those who were either spiritually abused, or are introvert in their disposition and don't generally like to be around people. It is a serious spiritual problem that must be dealt with. It is especially dangerous when a theological basis is developed to support that kind of attitude.

I agree. My point is on the institutionalizing of relationships in the fellowship. This leads to abuses, and obedience to "the office" rather than to the Lord. We have seen too many instances of this in the LC's, not to mention in christian history.

I recall the statement, "Philip Lee is the Office", for example. Remember that one?

Also see the thread "Letter from Romania". There, the "Office" is synonymous with "the feeling in the Body".

I am on very good terms with people in institutionalized christianity. Some of them, who don't like each other, think I am on too good terms with "the other party". But anyone who tries to flex thier institutional muscle on me, offering a few flimsy verses to basically say, Because I'm boss and I said so, finds me suddenly uncooperative.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by KSA

Allow me to disagree! Eldership is not only described but also prescribed in the New Testament. Take, for example, Heb. 13:17 - "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account..". It is a clear prescription.

KSA:

Here’s is my framework for inquiry:

The Bible contains
1) Truth
2) Prescriptions
a. For all time (these, then, are like “truth” since they are universally applicable)
b. Situational (these may be imperatives in the Scripture, but are not necessarily meant for all time
3) Descriptions

If a facial reading of a passage seems to establish a prescription for all time, but yet I can contemplate situations where abiding that prescription would contradict a more universal truth, then I gather that the passage must have an alternative interpretation other than being a universal prescription. It may be an imperative sentence structure, but perhaps a situational one. Cf. the “prescriptions” of the Acts 15 creed.

For example, it is a truth that we are all part of a holy priesthood – with direct access to God. Old Testament priests were chosen by God, not self-appointed; and they were chosen for a purpose: to serve God with their lives by offering up sacrifices. The priesthood served as a picture or "type" of the coming ministry of Jesus Christ--a picture that was then no longer needed once His sacrifice on the cross was completed. When the thick temple veil that covered the doorway to the Holy of Holies was torn in two by God at the time of Christ's death (Matthew 27:51), God was indicating that the Old Testament priesthood was no longer necessary. Now people could come directly to God through the great High Priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:14-16). There are now no earthly mediators between God and man as existed in the Old Testament priesthood (1 Timothy 2:5).

But reading "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account.." as a “clear prescription” – as a universal prescription, creates real problems. Under what circumstances do I “obey those who rule over” me? In every circumstance, no matter what the command I am to obey? The verse doesn’t make caviats. In fact, a strict reading of the verse implies that even if the leader is wrong, you still should obey – since it says “as to those who must give an account.” This strict reading of the verse means that, even if obeying a leader in some circumstance would violate my conscience, the fact that the leader holds an office to which I am to submit is all I need to know in order to obey. The leader will be held accountable if he is wrong, not me. Do you agree with this reading of the verse? That is it’s most obvious facial meaning. But that obvious facial reading seems to me to contradict the more unviversal truth that there are no mediators between us an God after Christ's death and resurrection.

So, if you don’t agree, under what circumstances can you interpret it differently? I am subjecting verses like this to scrutiny under Scriptural truths I know to be true: such as “there is no mediator between God and me other than Christ Himself” (even if, on occasion, He speaks through other believers). Under the scrutiny of this truth, the strict reading of Hebrews 13:17 cannot stand and an alternative interpretation which comports with that truth is necessary.

You are painting a very black-and-white picture and then passing serious judgments on those who disagree (e.g. “It is very simple….” or “In my experience, those who are afraid of strong church ties, close relationship with other Christians and being under the authority of leadership are those who were either spiritually abused, or are introvert in their disposition and don't generally like to be around people. It is a serious spiritual problem that must be dealt with. It is especially dangerous when a theological basis is developed to support that kind of attitude.”)

It is not that simple. What eldership are you under? One in your house church – or one in the larger group you occasionally go to? Which leaders do you “obey” as “ones who must give an account”? Under what criteria did/could you reject the leaders who were previously over you? (I am not asking for specific answers, I am asking rhetorically). As we get into these questions, it becomes clear that it is not that clear. The governing motivator, in my view, is our personal accountability to God. If He confirms within us to submit to others, we do so – but NOT because they hold an “office,” but rather because we have confirmation within to do so. There will “elders” in the office of “eldership” who you cannot obey – and there will be non-elders who do not hold an office to whom the Lord would like us, in some context, to submit to. It becomes clear that it is not about the ‘office’ or the ‘position,’ but rather the Lord’s leading and command. Thoughts?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. I posted this before I saw your last post. I will consider your reply and respond (but this post is not a response to your last one...)