The introduction of leaven

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that Paul took it upon himself to appoint elders in environments in which the sheep were only just beginning to have some appreciation for the shepherd's voice.

Doesn't seem to fit the known facts, to me.

In Acts 11, after the scattering of the disciples from Jerusalem following Stephen's martyrdom, some wound up in Antioch, although at first they were only preaching to Jews until the Cypriots and Cyrenians showed up preaching to the Hellenists. By the end of Acts 11, there were a large number of believers in Antioch already when Barnabas retrieved Saul from Tarsus, and they stayed with that assembly for a whole year.

Acts 13 expressly states that there were "prophets and teachers" in Antioch and that assembly eventually sent forth Saul and Barnabas in accordance with the speaking of the Holy Spirit.

Yet Acts 14:21-23 seems to fairly clearly say that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in Antioch as one of the "every" assemblies.

Then, oddest of all, the letter from Jerusalem in Acts 15 strikingly omits reference to any "elders" in Antioch, although making express reference to the "apostles and elders" in Jerusalem.

Were there "elders" in Antioch or not?

Why weren't they addressed by the big shots in Jerusalem?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Yet Acts 14:21-23 seems to fairly clearly say that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in Antioch as one of the "every" assemblies.

Actually, there are two cities of Antioch. One is considered Syrian Antioch, and is along the Mediterranean coast in what is modern Turkey but near Lebanon. The other was considered Pisidian Antioch and is in Galatia, or roughly the middle of modern day Turkey. Pretty sure the appointment of elders was in Galatia.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, there are two cities of Antioch. One is considered Syrian Antioch, and is along the Mediterranean coast in what is modern Turkey but near Lebanon. The other was considered Pisidian Antioch and is in Galatia, or roughly the middle of modern day Turkey. Pretty sure the appointment of elders was in Galatia.

Just the sort of information to leave out of the historical account to poor Theophilus - not THIS Antioch but the OTHER Antioch! And both in Turkey, yet!

Ultimately, however, that's of no moment to my larger points which are:

(1) was it truly necessary for Paul to designate "elders," wherever exactly it was he did so, to help young ones to know the Lord's voice, as you have suggested? (Alternatively, is there really any value to the young ones in hearing Paul's endorsement since we all know that people can go bad after the apostle leaves?)

and

(2) presumably there were "elders" in both the younger assembly at the one Antioch (via Paul's appointment, at least) and in the older assembly in the other Antioch where the believers were first called Christians. (Of course, unless there's more Antiochs to account for!) So why didn't the dignitaries at Jerusalem, who identified themselves as "apostles and elders" as well as "brothers," discuss such important matters particularly with the "elders" in whichever Antioch was the intended recipient of the great edict of Jerusalem? (Choose your favorite Antioch.)

I'm doubting the wisdom of Paul's appointments as well as the motives of those gathered in Jerusalem.

Multiple Antiochs may cloud the situations somewhat but the questions remain clear in my mind.

The apostles considered that it was beneath them to serve tables for the widows and therefore chose 7 other disciples (one of whom hailed from some Antioch or other!) but it seems to me that they neglected washing feet as they were instructed and instead made some organizational appointments to take care of such business. Later, these same fellows promote their own positions in Jerusalem while declining to recognize others similarly situated.

That entire senario sounds awfully very familiar to me, frankly...

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I'm doubting the wisdom of Paul's appointments as well as the motives of those gathered in Jerusalem.

Multiple Antiochs may cloud the situations somewhat but the questions remain clear in my mind.

The apostles considered that it was beneath them to serve tables for the widows and therefore chose 7 other disciples (one of whom hailed from some Antioch or other!) but it seems to me that they neglected washing feet as they were instructed and instead made some organizational appointments to take care of such business. Later, these same fellows promote their own positions in Jerusalem while declining to recognize others similarly situated.

That entire senario sounds awfully very familiar to me, frankly...

Yes, this is exactly the kind of inquiry I had in mind when I originally raised the question of "the introduction of leaven" in the assemblies of the faithful. It seems clear to me that there is some kind of pattern of degradation in the Asian assemblies by the writing of Revelation, and due to the inclusion of those seven epistles (Rev 2 & 3) in a document which also had the imagery of Revelation 17 etc, it seems fair to conclude that John(and/or the Spirit, take your pick) felt that this bad scene was going to get worse. History seems to have borne out that premonition quite nicely.

So what was the problem? I think it is a novel and (for most of us) uncomfortable notion, to take a hard look at the doings of the disciples, instead of slavishly imitating their every move. But we already do it unconsciously, and instinctively. We don't require sisters to cover their heads - we say "Oh, that's just Paul's opinion. It's a cultural artifact." But in most other areas we use "the letter of Paul" as our law.

YP0534 earlier mentioned imitating Paul as he imitated Christ. In many, many areas, Paul clearly is imitating Christ: "Receive one another as God received you in Christ Jesus", etc. We could write 14 books of all the things Paul did that imitated Christ! But taking wine when we are ill, sisters not being allowed to speak in public but only in the homes, anointing those who are ill (James), or even handling snakes and drinking poison (Jesus), we use human discretion, the hard lessons of history, and the indwelling Spirit in our conscience and feel free to disregard the literal application of the letter.

Now, something like Paul's directions to Timothy on the appointment of elders might be somewhere in between. Paul is meeting a perceived need in the assemblies. He is aware of the circulation of his letters(he even encourages this, to the Colossians), and is probably also writing to a broader audience. However we come down on this kind of thing, collectively and individually, we at least shouldn't be afraid to look, to question, and to think. God gave you a brain; we shouldn't be afraid to use it.

"I do whatever X (Lee, Paul, the pope, the Grand Pooh-Bah) says" is just a cop-out, pure and simple. Yes, Paul equals the Bible, I know, I know; I am just saying that we already use discernment, to a limited degree, for the obvious things, and we shouldn't be so afraid, as believers, to continually exercise this facility.

If we do it in public, before the body of Christ, we will be safeguarded from going too far off the reservation. "In the multitude of counselors there is safety" Proverbs 24:6

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, this is exactly the kind of inquiry I had in mind when I originally raised the question of "the introduction of leaven" in the assemblies of the faithful.

It was some time ago that it first occurred to me that there might have been a problem with the appointment of the 7 (as well as the selection of the one to take the place of Judas) but this time I saw it from a different angle. The Lord washed the feet and said they should wash the feet as well. But now they've just got more important things to do than feed the hungry widows.

Where did hierarchy begin?

Now I'm thinking it was when they decided replace the twelfth "apostle" as if there were a position on a panel or committee.

Paul, although having superior Jewish credentials to all of them combined, he becomes the "apostle to the Gentiles" and they're basically OK with that niche he carved out for himself, so long as he continues to publicly declare his allegiance to temple practice, which he does repeatedly.

The seeds were there all along from the very beginning.

Now, here's another question that suggests itself to me at this point: WHY did the Lord select a dozen in the first place? Some of those guys we barely even hear about in scripture. What's that about? What did they do besides stick it out with James when times were tough? What was the real point in having an inner circle? It seems likely that an inner circle would eventually ascend to some position just naturally...

[OBW]

YP,

I understand your points. And they warrant consideration.

First, to get this Antioch thing out of the way, virtually all of the maps of Paul’s first missionary journey show an Antioch which was at a certain place in Galatia. It was identified in the verses you mentioned as being a string of places that he went back through on the way home. Since he would not have jumped over to Syria then back to Galatia, the city in that region is almost certainly the one being mentioned as it falls in order. All mentions of Antioch prior to that journey were of the one in Syria. If those in Jerusalem were writing to the place that Paul treated as his home base, then it was the city in Syria. It’s not really so muddy.

But back to the actual topic concerning elders, it would seem that you simply distrust the entire account as reflecting something positive from God. You have now even questioned the appointing of the deacons as indicating a flaw in the apostles' character. (I presume that you actually wash other’s feet, feed widows and orphans, etc. Or do you pay another to do it, such as an organization that feeds the hungry in Africa.) When the world observes the actions of the church in this day, do you think that the fact that not every person is involved in every ministry diminishes their care for those ministries or the testimony of the church? And if an organization is actually feeding the hungry (whether widows and orphans or just the homeless on the streets of your city) are persons who help organize and see that it actually happens considered of lesser importance or connection to the activity because they are not the ones who might actually be standing in the soup kitchen with a ladle?

Did Luke suggest a negative thing when he recorded that the apostles and elders sent a letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia? It would seem that these men (the apostles and elders who were the ones sending the letter) wrote to the whole of the believers. How does that demean the elders in any location or deny them their “position.” It would seem that when they called themselves “brothers” and then wrote to everyone that they were admitting to the perceived authority they might or might not actually hold, but that they considered themselves brothers and that they were writing to all the believers and not just some similarly situated authorities.

I cannot find the flaw in the NT record that you seem to see. I see plenty of flaw in what flawed humans have done with the NT on many subjects, not the least of which has been leadership. But in any group, there will be leadership. Even in an informal gathering of people, there eventually begins to be one or two that will stand out as the one(s) that the others follow. The one(s) that suggest the next time they are going to get together. You can buck it if you want. But the result will either be discord or you will become a/the leader. And in a spiritual context, the natural leader may not be the best choice. Having some guidelines for the willful selection of leaders is quite helpful if something more that a type A personality is required.

It would appear that God stopped Paul from participating in that purification vow. But he did not stop him from setting up elders. And those 7 letters at the beginning of Revelation would have been a good time to mention the eldership thing. Not a word. But the next chapter has 24 elders sitting on 24 thrones with 24 golden crowns. Now this does not indicate that these were “elders” of churches or “elders” of the Jewish tradition. It just says they are there.

And yes, why did Jesus select 12 for his inner circle? But I think it is recorded that he sent out 70 at one point. So there were the 12, plus another 58, plus how many others who followed regularly? Do we just say it was what happened? Did it have meaning as it was done to those whom he called, selected and sent? Did this tie into Jewish practice? Would this be meaningful to those very Jewish men? Would Jesus have expected them to practice just as he did? Or do we presume that it just happened and those same 12 (well, 11) made something out of it that was not?

It seems to me that you are trying to find the error captured in scripture so that we can have a clear scriptural basis for dealing with it. I think the basis already exists. The leader is a servant. The first shall be last. Love God and your neighbor as yourself. When you find "leaders" outside of these and other principles, then they are not spiritual leaders.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

But back to the actual topic concerning elders, it would seem that you simply distrust the entire account as reflecting something positive from God.

I wouldn't have used that exact phrasing but I'll accept it.

I'd have said the fact that events and statements are recorded in the New Testament is not de facto proof that they are things to emulate, as some certainly negative events and statements are also preserved. And the fact that generation after generation of sincere followers of the Christian religion have viewed a certain matter as positive is not sufficient evidence to me that it should forever be considered in the traditional manner.

I thank you for making out the case for orthodoxy. I believe I might do the same if I tried, as could most hereabouts. This is a pretty learned group by and large. And I think most would agree that whether or not I'm personally a footwasher isn't germane. So I guess I'm wondering what purpose your response serves other than to highlight my budding heterodoxy. I think aron already made an excellent point about our brains and the risk of becoming shipwrecked so if this is your expression of concern, take heart.

Someone elsewhere recently used the word "hagiography" to identify problems with the LC and the RCC, both, and justifiably so, in my opinion.

I don't view equality with God as a matter to be grasped but I might aspire to become like Paul and James and John and Peter, men who put their sandals on one foot at a time just like me. You and I make mistakes and are motivated by things that aren't even available to us on a conscious level. I see no reason to believe that those earliest believers were any different in this regard. My goal has nothing to do with finding fault but rather with explaining the actions of persons who I know only incompletely through a partial written record that's been dinked by the ravages of time and mushed through various translational filters, including my own. I'm seeking an explanation for matters that to me seem largely inexplicable in context and I'm not content with a pat "well it just is" while my interest continues happily working through various topics.

Perhaps the choosing of the 7 was a glorious decision by resplendent angelic beings.

Perhaps not.

I'd prefer to read someone's considerations of the topic because I'm really very lazy but I'm not familiar with anyone faithfully asking such a question.

Are you?

And surely whether or not the choosing of the 7 was a mistake is not a major point of faith anyways, so my heterodoxy is still within permissible boundaries even if I were to fault them, no?

What do you think, aron?

Am I too much?

This is your thread, after all...

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

it would seem that you simply distrust the entire account as reflecting something positive from God. You have now even questioned the appointing of the deacons as indicating a flaw in the apostles' character []. if an organization is actually feeding the hungry are persons who help organize and see that it actually happens considered of lesser importance or connection to the activity because they are not the ones who might actually be standing in the soup kitchen with a ladle?

Well, maybe, maybe not. Don't simply dismiss the idea out of hand. I work for a very large corporation where a paper clip costs $4 because sixteen people are involved in its purchase. It is extreeeemely inefficient (like GM; only we have a monopoly, for now, so we get away with it). What I have found is that generally the "persons who help organize" tend to lounge in paneled offices, while someone is sweating down below trying to do 3 different jobs (management fodder I ain't).

At some point, the more "organized" things get, the more the "servant of all" tends to sleep on silken sheets and the ostensible recipients get an empty slogan. So the idea that an organization that supposedly cares for the poor becoming a bloated mass that only really cares for its own stomach isn't out of the realm of possibility. But, like you said, "organization" doesn't necessarily mean "corrupted"; however, in my view that has tended to be the case. How often this has occurred, where, and how far back into the record (i.e. into the biblical text) is open to discussion, I think.

Anyway, I don't think YP was questioning the apostles' character as much as simply wondering if they hadn't quite grasped it yet. Like Apollos -- you know, full of enthusiasm but preaching the wrong baptism.

Originally Posted by OBW

Did Luke suggest a negative thing when he recorded that the apostles and elders sent a letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia? It would seem that these men (the apostles and elders who were the ones sending the letter) wrote to the whole of the believers. How does that demean the elders in any location or deny them their “position.” It would seem that when they called themselves “brothers” and then wrote to everyone that they were admitting to the perceived authority they might or might not actually hold, but that they considered themselves brothers and that they were writing to all the believers and not just some similarly situated authorities.

Good point, except for the part about Luke's opinion. That's not relevant. Luke was a chronicler of events, not a characterizer. Other than that, your point is well taken.

Originally Posted by OBW

I cannot find the flaw in the NT record that you seem to see. I see plenty of flaw in what flawed humans have done with the NT on many subjects, not the least of which has been leadership. But in any group, there will be leadership. Even in an informal gathering of people, there eventually begins to be one or two that will stand out as the one(s) that the others follow. The one(s) that suggest the next time they are going to get together. You can buck it if you want. But the result will either be discord or you will become a/the leader. And in a spiritual context, the natural leader may not be the best choice. Having some guidelines for the willful selection of leaders is quite helpful if something more that a type A personality is required.

Well, let's see...it seems that the criteria for leadership, pre-resurrection, was something like that of James and John, i.e. ambition. And the rest are on record as quarreling among themselves twice (Luke 9:46, & 22:24) about who was greatest. Jesus corrected them, patiently (thank You Lord for Your patience!) and repeatedly. The question is: did they get it? Or perhaps the better question is: did they get it all, 100%, on the day Jesus resurrected? In Acts chapter 1 they were drawing straws to replace one of the twelve. We all know they were on board "The Jesus Express" there. But were they fully on board or still partly on board?

Jesus told them that He still had a lot to teach them, and that the Spirit of reality would guide them into all the reality (John 16:13). I take that to mean "not instantaneous enlightenment on all things, but instead gradual enlightenment, over the course of time and experience." Maybe with different guidelines, sister Dorcas would have been "the leading one". And maybe that would have been better for all concerned. Again, we are just thinking aloud here. Please allow us to possibly appear foolish/ridiculous.

Originally Posted by OBW

It would appear that God stopped Paul from participating in that purification vow. But he did not stop him from setting up elders. And those 7 letters at the beginning of Revelation would have been a good time to mention the eldership thing. Not a word. But the next chapter has 24 elders sitting on 24 thrones with 24 golden crowns. Now this does not indicate that these were “elders” of churches or “elders” of the Jewish tradition. It just says they are there.

And yes, why did Jesus select 12 for his inner circle? But I think it is recorded that he sent out 70 at one point. So there were the 12, plus another 58, plus how many others who followed regularly? Do we just say it was what happened? Did it have meaning as it was done to those whom he called, selected and sent? Did this tie into Jewish practice? Would this be meaningful to those very Jewish men? Would Jesus have expected them to practice just as he did? Or do we presume that it just happened and those same 12 (well, 11) made something out of it that was not?

God, and by definition/extension Jesus, likes order. Some are given to reign over 10 cities, some over 2 cities. And maybe the one reigning over 10 cities is overseeing 5 ones that have 2 cities each. So hierarchy isn't bad, at least to me. But God's organization, ordering, and ranking, are completely opposite to ours, at least when I look at and listen to Jesus the Nazarene. And when I look at His ostensible servants (e.g. RCC & LCs) I see more of a worldly pattern than a spiritual one. Even though it is, somewhat, "biblical".

Originally Posted by OBW

It seems to me that you are trying to find the error captured in scripture so that we can have a clear scriptural basis for dealing with it. I think the basis already exists. The leader is a servant. The first shall be last. Love God and your neighbor as yourself. When you find "leaders" outside of these and other principles, then they are not spiritual leaders.

Sister Dorcas, anyone?

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Where did hierarchy begin?

Now I'm thinking it was when they decided replace the twelfth "apostle" as if there were a position on a panel or committee.

They decided to cast lots. They had a vague OT reference "His bishophric let another take", and they needed to fulfil (for some reason) the letter of the law.

But we christians no longer see the need for a "counsel of 12 overseers", so this arrangement died the death. That doesn't mean they were in error, so much as they didn't have all the light yet. They were comforted with the old arrangement (12), and didn't yet know what to do, so they did something. They chose another.

And it was likewise expedient to choose 7 to "wait on tables", or some such. That seems okay with me. God specializes in differentiation. We have specialized functions, the eye, the ear, the nose and mouth, etc. That there should be specialization arising whenever a clot of us believers gather is neither surprising nor wrong. But to codify that to a one-size-fits-all arrangement henceforth and forever; I balk.

And likewise Paul with the elders. Paul said, "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle?" (1 Cor. 9:1). Likewise, can't we who have the Spirit of God likewise say, "Aren't we free? Are we not [part of] the assembly of Christ's bride in Missoula, Montana (or wherever)?" In other words, Paul did what seemed best for him; can't we do also for us here? Are we not also recipients of the Holy Spirit?

I think the Bible gives us a lot more freedom than we realize. "A new commandment I give to you; that you love one another." That's the extent of our law today. Believe in God, love one another, and don't sin.

I think what those brothers did wasn't so much a creation of hierarchy as mere expediency; what followed immediately afterward was that people began to look to the new "law", not to the Spirit. People were afraid of freedom.

The parallels to what I hear of happening in the lcs, from say '65 to '75, are striking, to me. Same with other moves of the Spirit. We end up looking at the arrangement of chairs in the room, thinking that somehow we can recreate that special feeling. That's were the bureaucrats come in: they specialize in arranging chairs.

Just thinking aloud here.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

The parallels to what I hear of happening in the lcs, from say '65 to '75, are striking, to me. Same with other moves of the Spirit. We end up looking at the arrangement of chairs in the room, thinking that somehow we can recreate that special feeling. That's were the bureaucrats come in: they specialize in arranging chairs.

Just thinking aloud here.

I agree.

I think it's instructive to read these things backwards into our interpretations, as far as there seems to be a valid correspondence and good fit.

I don't really believe in coincidence. That the LC and the RCC become more alike with each passing year is evidence of something. Or several things. The one thing they have distinct is that LC descends from a Protestant line which itself descended from the RCC. In a way, these two are either sides of the looking glass.

Not to say that I need to see a conspiracy or correlation in the actions of the 12 and the BBs of today. Not at all. But neither do I dismiss such connections outright. I got to know and really liked several of the BBs and to hear some of the things today just takes my breath away. James telling Paul to do the temple ritual to prove loyalty to Moses does the same thing.

And while I don't disagree with your point about specialization, when the hand says "You be a foot because I'm a Hand," I just get suspicious is all...