posted
I am fairly new to this forum and have spent the last few weeks reading past posts trying to catch up which is next to impossible but I have picked up a whole lot in the process.
My wife and I are in the in between stage from the IC to opening up our home for the HC. God has been teaching us a lot. We are at the point where people are asking us where we're going to church and trying to explain to people our desires to pursue an HC format. They are supportive but still don't quite understand it I think. Some are worried about us and throw out the accountability word occasionally.
I have been learning so much that I don't want to open up our doors "officially" yet until God slows the learning process down just a little. It is also part of my personality that doesn't allow me to start something new or move into a new thing until I feel like I've gotten a good grasp on it or at least a feeling of having a foundation laid in my own mind. I also want to be able to somewhat clearly give a direction to the people that will gather with us (this will eventually lead me to the subject matter).
I've learned in the passed few weeks from this forum and the passed few months merely from God teaching me in some form or fashion that:
Church isn't a place it is a gathering of people in many forms and fashions, the body of Christ functioning as a whole is what I have a heart for (I like the idea of breaking down the hierarchy structure of church that I've been accustomed to for the past 15 years), I love the fact that everyone in the body has something to offer and that the HC treasures that, elders are recognized as wise and older (I know there a whole debate on that which I'm am scared to investigate right now), HC gatherings have a broader perspective on the church that it's not about what this church or that church is doing but it prizes the greater diverse body of Christ and loves the resources of God's people found in many gatherings, children should join with adults in some form or fashion when we gather (I love this too), communion is a meal together, gatherings should be regular but not necessarily always at the same time, gatherings can have different focuses, community is key, multiplication of gatherings should be encouraged. This is just my simplistic quick synopsis of what I’ve picked up in recent months (I know there are holes in that please understand).
Getting to my question in the subject bar – are leaders aloud? Not that I want them to be allowed necessarily but shouldn’t there be leadership (like one or two leaders)? I read a post that suggested that the host facilitate the gathering. I like that idea. I know that elders have a certain amount of ruler ship but they may not always be available. Is it o.k. for one person to be the ultimate authority in the event that the immediate gathering may need it? I will admit that I have leadership qualities and vision. Could exercising those gifts quench the spirit of the HC?
Your practical examples of how you handle the “leadership – authority - facilitator – visionary” role is appreciated. God bless you.
posted
Leadership happens! I believe that it's normal and useful as long as it's kept in the biblical perspective of co-equality and brotherhood.
Although elders are enjoined to oversee, this does not negate others from leading by words and example, too. If I am lost in the local mall, even a child could lead me to my destination.
What we can agree upon today is that love and humility should prevail at all times in God's one true church. May the Lord bless you as you enter his future, D Poag. Get ready for adventure!
posted
Thanks D Anderson. I have read many of your posts and they have been very positive and encouraging. So leadership is o.k. as long as it does not control and hinder but instead facilitates the body at work together. As you can tell I do have my version of what I think leadership should be but I am curious to hear from others like you on it. Different angles help clear it up. Thanks again.
Oh, if any others decide to respond to this, what might be the title to explain this type of role other than leader? Facilitator? Pastor (this carries too many pre-conceived expectation I think though)? I don't know that I can be called an elder - not old enough yet...so what was Timothy called? Ideas welcome.
By the way I reallize in my post and in the subject I should have put "leaders allowed" instead of "leaders aloud". Oops. Big grammar error there - but it does kind of look like a play on words or something.
posted
We have been wrestling this out quite a bit!
So far we have arrived at this:
When redeemed people meet in a redeemed person's home, the Head of Household is the leader. Just simple common courtesy, that a person can say what can and can't be done in their own home! This is based on what Jesus modeled about the "Man of Peace" and on what Paul said the "qualifications for elders" were. In general you won't want to have larger meetings in the house of a "neophyte" because they are not ready for it, and it might be embarrassing, if one of the children finds pornography in a book shelf or pot in the bedroom.
So, the Head of Household tells us the plan when they invite us, for example whether to bring food or snacks, give us an idea of who might be there. "The plan" might be, "We are reading through Acts and discussing it" or it might be "Bring your instruments and song books" or it might be "Let's have a cookout and pool party".
The plan is always somewhat subject to change - for example; once, just as everyone was arriving at our home, we got a call from the neighbors asking for help getting the hay bales into the barn before it rained. So, I announced that anyone willing could help with that, and the rest just visited with each other. That was our "ministry outreach" for the evening.
If we are blessing our neighbors, we consider ourselves evangelists or apostles, but we certainly don't discuss that with them - we simply love on them. We respect their authority in their home, and yet we have a purpose in mind. Should they decide to follow Jesus like us, we won't have to assert authority - they will naturally look to us until they can walk on their own. People I led to Jesus 20 years ago still call me for spiritual advice!
As we go on, we are discovering that this couple or that couple has a gift, such as being good with money or soul-winning or music. In that case, we might invite that person to lead an activity or discussion, in which case they would more or less run the meeting, but the Head of Household would still be deferred to in matters of the household. For example, we have invited a house church missionary to come with his family and tell us about his ministry in another country. The meeting itself was very informal - as we ate, he showed slides, talked and answered questions. Some people were hanging out in the kitchen eating, while others gathered to listen. The household leader moved things along by saying, "Let's eat now... now we'll be showing slides... anyone who wants to keep visiting can go into another room while we listen to T." ... and so on.
Once again, it is back to the "household structure" model. What happens at someone's house when there is a funeral gathering, wedding, or reunion? Whoever is hosting kind of runs things, but people still exercise a good bit of freedom. Uncle Joe might say, "Everybody be quiet, I want to hear about Suzie's trip to Venezuela" or Grampa might say, "Leila, play some piano for us" and people would defer to that.
As for "titles" we find it isn't necessary - probably one of the reasons Paul listed the ministry gifts in his letters is that it wasn't really that Obvious in the actual meetings. We might note that someone is good at something, but we don't call them "Soul-winner John" or "Truth-talker Dave". We tend to say, "John is good at explaining the gospel" or "When Dave says the truth about something, everybody really listens!" So when there is a need we point out those gifts. Last week I brought a young lady to a certain household to be prayed with by a soul-winner. I just called and said, "I'm bringing her to thank you for your gift -but once she's there, say anything you want" and he knew just what to do!
posted
I agree that titles shouldn't be the focus. I've just found that people need them to more easily get a handle on who you are and what they're getting into. Not that it's easy to explain - and maybe it's better to have to try to explain it. The head of the household facilitating is a good idea too - and the degree of their direction I guess would depend on their ability or gifting to do it. Your practical examples are so good.
posted
Yes, it is difficult to deal with people's expectations. I make a point of blowing up people's expectations as often and severely as possible - but then, that's My gift
I have said it to church-y people something like this, "When we are at your house, you're the boss. At my house, my husband is the boss. If you like the word "pastor" for "boss" that's okay." That's simple, and makes sense.
And we can point out that if they don't like any particular gathering, they have no reason to go back! We aren't "joining" anything except the Kingdom of God, which is invisible, unboundaried and spreads like a virus.
Another real life example: Friends of ours have decided on a weekly Lord's Day gathering with the husband teaching a series. Well, we believe the Lord's Day gathering should be devoted to mutual edification, so we just don't join that group - but we spend time with that family very regularly in other ways. They haven't asked why we don't go, and we haven't told them. We have mutual permission to follow the Spirit's leading!
On who is the leader or final boss in a home/house fellowship for a particular meeting or get-to-gether-- Laurie Ann is on the mark. It has to be the head of that household.
To avoid the one big shot Nicolaitane attitude from one of the participants (who wants to take over as "pastor general" or "supreme potentate") the periodic meetings can be alternated at different homes.
Back in the 1970s, some friends and i had weekly Sabbath meetings. There was no boss or supreme leader. We alternated our meetings at different homes and places (yes, it is possible to sometimes meet in the meeting room of a local libary or some other public facility). The head of a given household was the leader for that meeting.
Of course, some leaders are weak persons with little initiative or ability to provide needed guidance. So it takes some humble participants to encourge and suggest needed actions/things to the leader (a good wife surely does this for her husband whenever needed).
Too, some member can be designated as the meeting coordinator to keep track of the meetings, schedule speakers or topics for discussion and notify participants of changes. But the coordinator is not the leader/boss at a given meeting. The head of household is. The coordinator merely ties down the format for future meetings or at least the next meeting. The collective participants make all decisions on future meetings, events, etc.
Shalom, RD Bradshaw
The coordinator makes the necessary phone calls to notify all or arrange suggested speakers. Speakers can be guests and there are no limits on who can be invigted. But there is a need for caution here.
If some preacher is invited to vist and speak to the group, he will whit his appitite and try to take over the participants for them to become his followers so he can lord over them and soak them for tithes and offerings. Most Christian preachers are professionals on trying to find followers whom they can lord over in the Nicolaitane sense.
i neglected to comment on the situtation where a fellowship meets in the home where a woman is head of houshold. My recommendation would be that a good woman would likely ask one of the men participants to be the leader or in charge at a meeting in her house. In the Book, women prophetesses seem to always have passed along any relevant prophecies to some responsible man to proclaim on her behalf.
posted
Very very good stuff. I like the coordinator idea. I am anxious to see the collective body work in the direction of the Holy Spirit (I say anxious because we have not been in it yet). I knew there had to be some type of leadership in there somewhere even if varies from meeting to meeting.
posted
I agree that a woman would allow men in the community to assist her in her home, but for that matter, I think a man would also. Everyone is submitting one to another.
I would think ultimate authority, which is the most critical thing, would still lie with the woman of the house, otherwise there would be concern for what Paul said about men taking advantage of "weak-willed women". That would happen only in cases where a woman deferred to a man who had no proper authority, but was "lording over her".
So to think of a for instance, if my husband were away on business, and a gathering was in my home and I was uncomfortable with something done. Wouldn't I have authority to say, "This won't continue", or would I need consent from a man to say so? And would an elder have the authority to over-rule me in my own home because I'm a woman? If so, what would be his scriptural credential to do that? Being a man? Having a particular spiritual role, such as being elder in his home?
Also, I can't think of any examples of women "passing along relevant prophesies" for a man to say on her behalf?
Anna the prophetess certainly just came right out with it in the most public of places. I looked up "prophetesses" and didn't find any references to relaying of a message any differently than, say, the way Elijah or John sent messages.
It's hard for me to fathom that any man in a fellowship, leading a meeting in the home of one of the fellowship participants, would say or do anything which would be contrary to the head of household (woman or whatever) where the fellowship was meeting. This would have to be a very rare occurence statistically--one in a thousand or one in a million chances.
Most fellowship participants are in general harmony and choose to work together. If the participants are not getting along, then the non-contents should terminate their relationship with the group. If a man leading a particular meeting is out of line, the collective participants should and usually will speak out to correct the problem at once. But again, this would have to be a very rare occurence.
My comments were not intended to get into a dialogue or exchange on the role of women and particularly today where the feminist movement has completely clouded what women should do or not do. Suffice to say, women (and indeed the whole population) generally today are in about a 180-degree turn from the Book. That's why people (especially women and children) are so emotionally torn up and sometimes facing suicide.
In any case, if the participants and/or leader of a group are acting in defiance of the wishes of a woman head of household, where the meeting is happening, then by all means surely the woman would have brains enough to raise up and order one or all of them out of her house (ideally she should speak to the man leading the group or some of the participants in private and express her concern. If this doesn't correct the problem, she can then order them out and/or call the police). She surely would quit the fellowship or they would quit her.
If people can't get along, then the discontents should quit and leave the group. In a way, that's the beauty of a small fellowship. No participant is under any complusion to participate if unhappy over the actions of the group. We must use our heads in such matters.
On women prophetesses and women being in charge of men--here's my understanding:
The Word does not authorize, allow or promote the idea of women exercising authority over men or even publicly speaking before men (Gen 3:16; Isa 3:12; I Cor 11:1-15; 14:33-35; Eph 5:22-24; I Tim 2:9-12). Possibly the reason could be that women are very susceptible to adverse spiritual (demonic) influences (that's why women need men to be their heads--any person wanting to challenge this may contact me and i'll supply the Scriptures). This demon problem seems to make women very unstable in leadership roles (Isa 3:12).
Obviously, there is just no way that any women are going to be in positions of leadership over males in YHWH’s work or publicly speaking. Women may supervise, teach and be in charge of other women and children, but not men (Titus 2:3-5).
By mentioning this clear Scriptural injunction against women publicly speaking, there are the few cases of important women in the Scriptures whom did have significant prophetic roles--like Anna, Deborah, Philip’s daughters, etc.
For sure, Deborah and the evangelist Philip’s daughters did not exercise any authority publicly over men, nor is there any reason to suggest that they ever publicly spoke before men. As a friend once told me, these women evidently uttered their prophecies from their homes (Jud 4:5; Acts 21:9). For certain, if Deborah had something for Yisrael, she would have given it to Barak and he would have proclaimed it to the people.
The same is true with Philip’s daughters. Anything Philip’s daughters had for the Apostolic Assembly would surely have been given to their father (who was a person of some rank in the Apostolic Assembly), and he would have informed the congregation.
It would have been utterly out of the question for those girls to have publicly spoken before the collective congregation, as Shaul (the KJV Paul) correctly pointed out. They were humble women who knew, appreciated and accepted their role of subjugation to men.
The situation with Anna is not clear in the Word beyond Luke’s note that she was a prophetess (Lu 2:36). Apparently, she was an extremely elderly widow woman who probably knew quite a bit about humility. In that sense, one can be sure that she did not publicly exercise her gift. Anything she had would have likely been shared with one of the priests who would have publicly handled it.
The Scriptures mention a few other prophetesses--like Huldah (II Kg 22:12-20), Miriam (Ex 15:20-21) and Noadith (Neh 6:14). While the details of their lives are not totally clear, it is certain that they did not publicly prophesy. Like Deborah and Philip’s daughters, they surely prophesied in their homes/places of abode.
If they had something for Yisrael or the Congregation, they would have told some man in authority. For example, Miriam would have told Moshe or Aaron, though Miriam seems to have been some sort of a leader among the women (Ex 15:20-21). It might be that she prophesied to the women.
In fact, the Book suggests that she did get big-headed on one occasion and with Aaron did proclaim some things (evidently critical of Moshe) to the people (Num 12:2, 8).
The MOST HIGH was extremely angry with both of them and particularly Miriam (surely because she was trying to usurp authority over Yisrael, beyond her leadership role over the women). In His decision to correct the sin, he chose to make Miriam a leper (Num 12:9-10). Thereupon, Aaron personally confessed their sins to Moshe and he was apparently spared any further punishment at that time (Num 12:11).
Both Aaron and Moshe pleaded for Miriam. After YHWH expelled her from the Congregation for seven days, she was healed and allowed back in (Num 12:12-15). Obviously, she learned that she was not to speak before Yisrael or attempt to rule over men in any manner whatsoever. Apparently, she got the message that she would have to be a humble woman in a subjugated role.
In the only Scriptural example of Huldah’s work, the Word reflects that the priest Hilkiah and certain other men came to her, clearly in her home, to receive her prophecies (II Kg 22:14). It was these men who proclaimed her prophecies to others. This is the classic illustration of how a true woman prophetess should act and function in Yisrael.
The next obvious requirement for YHWH’s true ministry is the matter of age. Maybe, the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses will send out children and young adult missionaries, but not so by the Book. Per the Word, the age of maturity and of teaching for The ELOHIM is mandated by law as being 30 years of age (Num 4:3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47; Lu 3:23). YESHUA, Himself, obeyed this law (Lu 3:23).
Manifestly, there is a clear age limitation factor for representing YHWH. One can be absolutely sure that all of YHWH’s spokesmen were at least 30 years old. Consequently, there is no Scriptural authority or allowance for small children or women to be priests, preachers, teachers, evangelists, etc. While this unscriptural condition is found in modern Christendom, it has no support in the Word.
It sounds like something one would find in some of the old sun worship cults in the West. The prophet Yeshayahu (Isaiah) must have had this situation in mind when he wrote about the age ending Israelites, in the context that women rule over the men and children are their oppressors, which leads to a destruction of their paths (Isa 3:12).
A final note is needed. While a home meeting might not be the same as a public meeting, the principle of women trying to act with authority over men in YHWH's group must hold even in a small get-to-gether. The Book does not allow women to exercise authority over men.
posted
This new day offers a chance for an addenda to this theme.
The participants in a house/home fellowship are always guests in that house. They should and indeed must conduct themselves in that house with decorum and respect to the head of household's wishes on matters that are his/her preogerative on the household.
No guest should go into another's house and start messing with household matters (how furniture is arranged, exhibiting nudity, vulgar cussing, and other actions that can upset members of the household or neighbors). Household matters are not the concern of the fellowship, whose focus should be on spiritual issues and worship of The HIGHEST during the course of the meeting.
If a woman head of household asks a man to take charge of a meeting going on in her house, she certainly is not surrendering her role as head of that household. The participants must respect her household and her preogerative of being the head of that household.
Most of the potential problems invovling the physical household and conduct of participants while guests in the household can be easily settled by the group when it first commences by laying down a few rules and guidelines on how the group functions as guests in someone's house.
Agreed rules can lay down a dress code (so participants don't come naked), discipling of small children (if parents with a small child are guests in someone's house, they are expected to disciple the kid and not allow it to tear up and damage the furniture), etc. Most of this stuff is plain enough and should be no issue with so-called believers. But if in doubt, then it can be tied down by the fellowship with an agreed upon rule.
For example, we have seen an explosion in public nudity for the past 40 years. Women particularly have went around partially naked in mini-skirts up to their bottoms which show almost everything they have or low cut dresses which allow their breasts to pop out. Now while the collective society and most churches have allowed this depravity, there are some heads of household which wouldn't allow such guests in their homes.
We must use our heads in broaching these issues. Shalom, RD
quote:Originally posted by RD Bradshaw: Greetings LA:
It's hard for me to fathom that any man in a fellowship, leading a meeting in the home of one of the fellowship participants, would say or do anything which would be contrary to the head of household (woman or whatever) where the fellowship was meeting. This would have to be a very rare occurence statistically--one in a thousand or one in a million chances. ...
Shalom, RD
Au Contraire, my dear brother! If "Nicolaitanism" is not permitted in my home (which it isn't) then it takes constant diligenc and interference to keep people who are used to the IC model from taking over. I'd say that any time there's more than one other family with us, somebody does this - that would be "100%" not "one in a million".
Now, if I want to be a sensitive hostess ( which I do) and not offend (which I prefer not to), then trying to keep people who arrived with "3 points and a poem to share" from taking over would be very difficult, if I can't just step in and say, "What about you, Roberta, what are you hearing from the Lord today?"
Not long ago, in response to a request, we brought something for the group to listen to - just a few minutes to get people excited about the house church planting method for pioneer fields, so they could each take it home if they wanted to. Someone arrived late, and got concerned that people might be bored, and just took over, shutting down what was going on. He didn't know the history of the meeting, and was so used to "action" he jumped in. It wasn't his home, and it wasn't his teaching, but he is so accustomed to the Nicolaitan method, he fell into it inadvertently.
I hope you will consider making the discussion of women in leadership discussion a new thread, as it is well worth exploring. Paul arguing against Aristotlean women-haters being twisted, as it has, into forcing women into being either feminists or disobeying the clear command of Christ to preach the gospel is probably the second greatest travesty of church history (the first being, of course, institutionalization of church). I will be happy give you the scriptures on THAT.
posted
Addendum: I just realized it is quite appropriate for "women's issues" and Nicolaitanism to show up in the same thread - since Genesis 3 records the origin of Nicolaitanism. God says, "Woman, now your unregenerate husband is going to boss you, and you are going to boss him, and it is all going to be a mess until the Messiah comes to restore harmony by giving you both new hearts of flesh!"
I just love Him for all He's done - especially making it possible for me and my husband to live as He intended, and not under the Curse! Woo-hoo!!
posted
Yes LA, you are right. The IC syndrome can easily surface in any group. My position would be that all participants must be on guard and work against it. As far as what the group wants in their meetings, this has to be a group decision. If the group wants poems, then fine.
Our group in the 70s typically scheduled a speaker (sometimes a nonparticipant who came as a visitor) and usually with a predetermined topic. The head of household/group leader was in charge of the meeting and introduced the speaker who then covered his topic. The head of household/group leader sometimes would then lead a discussion on the topic. We generally didn't waste time on irrelevant issues.
i moved and left the 70s fellowship in 1979. After i left, the IC reality took over in a few years. A self appointed, so-called elder showed up and took over the remnants of the group and made it IC. He and the others were generally sacred namers so he named it an "Assembly of Yahweh." He appointed himself pastor; began baptising members; ordaining and appointing other elders to be his assistants; took over and ran all meetings even in the homes of others; started publishing a newsletter; started collecting tithes and offering; and by all means commenced a program of indoctrinating the people with his personal theology (some of which was very bad).
This thing reminds me of Apollonius, an ascetic, effeminate, weak Greek, who lived in the first century. He went to India to study Hinduism and lord Chrishna. He came back to Greece and became an itinerant preacher to evangelize SE Europe and Asia Minor. He was very successful in preaching and creating followers.
But he was never a strong organizational man; nor did he set himself up as a big shot ruler over a religious kingdom. His temples/churches were largely congregational without taking orders from an all powerful central authority. (He left some writings and in modern times a number of writers have written about Apollonius, including Dr R. W. Bernard in his book "Chrishna to Christ").
The famous Simon Magus of Palestine must have looked with envy at the work of Apollonius and apparently decided to steal all of it and set himself up as supreme pastor. By c42 CE (when Claudius ruled Rome), Simon moved to Rome and took the Mithra titles--the Peter, the Interpeter of the Mysteries, the Hierophant; adopted much of Apollonius' theology; and started his own church to evangelize the world and make followers of all men.
Simon had much success and set up an all powerful central religous authority in Rome to dictate everything. Eventually his work did absorb much of Apollonius' theology and labors. Simon's efforts are cited in Acts, in the AnteNicene fathers, and numerous 1st-4th century writings. In modern times, many books and writings broach it. Per Justin Martyr, and later "Encyclopedia Britannica" (v. 25, p. 126, 11th ed, as cited in a recent book by Darrel Conder), Simon's followers were known as Simonians and Christians.
On setting the thing on women up separately as a thread to discuss women, i don't know what the moderator would want to do on this. Certainly, i would have no objections. But the subject is very sensitive with the huge media and government control successes of the modern feminist movement. Shalom, RD
posted
Because this theme on leaders and group beginnings by Mr Poag is so profoundly important in the scheme of things, a correction on my last post and a few more comments are needed.
The references cited by me are important. The Bernard book is correctly "From Chrishna to Christ" and not as i reported earlier. The remark on Justin Martyr comes from his first apology (c141 CE) where he clearly stated that the Simonian followers of Simon Magus were called Christians. Actually, he said that they called themselves Christians. This is to be contrasted with Acts 11:26 where the people of Antioch first called Shaul and his colleagues Christians (c42 CE). Antioch is just South of Tyana where Apollonius lived.
Justin Martyr's words are preserved in the Ante-Nicene fathers. Many modern Christians have this set of books. One of the best scources to buy books like these is Christian Book Distributors (Box 7000, Peabody, MA 01961, phone 1-800-247-4784). These sellers are one of the best in terms of selections and prices.
Any person choosing to study to be approved (2 Tim 2:15) can find these sellers excellent as they have many good study books..
For example, these sellers have both the Englishman's Greek concordance of the NT and the Hebrew concordance of the OT. These concordances are far superior to Strongs and Youngs (any person not understanding the study value of a concordance can send me a private message or phone me at 208-245-1691, 8AM to 5PM Pacific time and i will explain it). This source also has the Theological Dictionaries of the OT and NT. Another great book to own from this source is "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus." I highly recommend this one.
Messianic Jewish Resources (phone 1-800-410-7367) sells the Understanding book as well as "Praying Like the Jew Jesus" by Timothy R. Jones.
Mention of these books and other academic study books (not the usual Christian book pap of sweet nothings and frivolous nonsense) is relevant in this leader discussion because it is precisly because of ignorance of what the Book says among so many Christians that has propelled the success of the professional clergy.
Historically mother Rome held that the sheep have no need to study to be approved. If they have any questions, they can ask their parish priest and he will instruct them on what they need to know (this also explains why Rome made the mass and held the Scriptures in the foreign tongue of Latin for centuries).
The Prostestant Reformation picked upon the same theology. Thus, Christian people are generally Scripturally illiterate. They know very little about the Book. If they want to know something, they are told to ask their preacher. He will tell them what they need to know. But in the Book, that's not the way it is. Each individual person being elected must stand on his own two feet and do personal study to make personal decisions about right and wrong.
There seems to be some hope that the house/home worship movement may rectify some of these evils by becoming independant of the professional clergy class (who merely want to keep the sheep in the IC).
With some 40,000 different Christian denominations today and the prevailing absolute confusion and pandemonium in Christendom, it is clear that the professional clergy class has failed the Christian people. There is only one way to break free of the problem--study and find out personally what the Book does say and quit being dependant upon what some other person says about the Scriptures.
The Nicolaitane problem is condemned in Revelation. This word means "ruling over the laity." It should not take a genuis to immediately understand what Revelation is communicating and who the definition has applied to over the years. The clery may be satified in their work and they may even be sincere. But they are just sincerely wrong.
In the Book, the real leaders never had fancy titles. They called each other brother and not pastor, father, reverend, elder, etc. Even Rabbi was out except for YESHUA.
Of course, the disciples wanted to be big shots and to lord over the flock (see Mk 9:34; Lu 9:46; 22:24). But per the Book, the ministerial class was to be servants and bond slaves who merely existed to serve others and not rule over others (Mk 9:35; Lu 22:26). Can you imagin how self satisfied the clery would be if they served others instead of ruling over others? Shalom, RD
posted
Teresa, you raise a question for which I've seen no satisfactory answer. Scholars who know a lot more than I do still debate this, and have for a very long time. One theory is there was a fellow names Nicolas who led a particular heresy, but we can only guess what that was. The hints are sparse. Another theory tries to parse the word "Nicolaitans" itself: "nico" to rule or dominate, "laios" the common folks = to dominate the lay people, perhaps by instituting a sacerdotal pastoral office. I have no strong conviction, merely hold forth a personal opinion the former is probably the best answer.
posted
Let me add something I recalled while digging into Revelation: According to the Early Church Fathers, the Nicolaitans held a Gnostic heresy. You may know the root of Gnosticism is holding to Western rationalist logic, which insisted Christ was either divine or human, but could not be both. As a consequence of embracing His divinity, the Nicolaitans promoted a lack of concern over fleshly obedience. Since the flesh was utterly fallen, and would remain behind when we die, it hardly mattered what the flesh did. So go ahead, they would say, enjoy yourself. They did not believe one's soul/spirit was tainted by sins of the flesh.
posted
Hi all. My thanks to Mr Hurst for bringing up Gnosticism.
“Webster’s New World Dictionary” (p. 597) says that a Gnostic is “of or having knowledge...a believer in Gnosticism.” For Gnosticism, this source adds that it is “a system of belief combining ideas derived from Greek philosophy, Oriental mysticism, and, ultimately, Christianity, and stressing salvation through gnosis.” For gnosis, Webster notes Greek knowledge-- “positive, intuitive knowledge in spiritual matters.”
Gnosticism starts with and links to Greek philosophy. Greek philosophy crystalized in the 5th-6th centuries BCE in Greece with the queers Socrates and Plato and must be contrasted with the Hebrew Scriptural approach.
Greek philosophy perceived (man-made) ethics and human conduct based on human reasoning of right and wrong. The Scriptural Hebrew approach is human reasoning is bad and that the Scriptures spell out right and wrong (which is primarily and first of all defined in the Torah which is YHWH's revelation to man of right and wrong).
In "Our Father Abraham," Dr Marvin Wilson notes that the Hebrew approach involves action, deeds, and practice (obedience); and in Greek, human belief is predicated upon ideas, doctrines and creeds. i would just add here that human belief is thus based on Greek sun worship. So gnosticism is a system of human belief predicated upon knowledge developed, taught and perpetuated by human reasoning. In modern Western schools, the focus is on Greek philosophy, not YHWH's Torah.
By the way, this contrast explains the difference between the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 1-2). The tree of life is simply accepting YHWH's wisdom and statements of right and wrong while the tree of knowledge of good and evil involves human experimentation to learn good and evil. The human approach is Gnosticism (which ultimately will be proven wrong).
In the Western civilization, Gnosticism started in Greece. Thereafter, Platonism/neo-platonism affected every generation, including all of Christendom (and many Christian leaders like Simon Magus, Marcion, Valentinus, etc, plus other Christian leaders who supposedly opposed it all the while that they held gnostic beliefs--like Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, etc).
While there seemed to be some gnostic sects which specialized in Gnosticism, the issue was more of gnostic beliefs which could affect people of all religious creeds. Thus there has been a number of gnostic beliefs over the ages--and often even conflicting and confusing beliefs (thus, Babylonian--some of which Rome declared heresies and others of which she adopted).
Christian leader Marcion taught one of the key gnostic teachings of the 1st-2d centuries--that there was a disconnect between the OT and the NT and that the OT YHWH was bad while the NT "Jesus" was good. Early Christianity bought into this.
Judaism predicates salvation upon works of obedience with a focus on repentance (change, restitution, etc). The Scriptures define salvation as an unmerited gift of grace from the sacrificial death of YESHUA.
Christianity says that salvation comes from knowledge--specifically, knowledge that one is saved through the Christian Church--that is, by obeying the process of having or gaining the knowledge of salvation as dispensed by the Christian Church (by complying with the demands of the works prescribed by the different denominations; i.e. being baptised [at birth by sprinking or later], saying the words "i believe in Jesus," standing up in a meeting [per Billy Graham], moving down a church aisle, praying or crying at a church altar, muttering some gibberish, having Christian hands laid on, etc).
Yes, all of these Christian steps for supposed salvation involves salvation by works based on gnostic beliefs of human reasoning of what must be done in the form of works for salvation. Christianity never stresses Scriptural demands of repentance, change, restitution or obedience--perhaps because Christendom doesn't understand these things in the vein of gnostic knowlege.
Over the years, each of the 40,000 different Christian denominations has used human reasoning to develop its own special forms of knowledge which a believer must accept as the path to salvation
Despite the works involved, the Christian process still consists of gnostic knowledge. Most Christians cannot relate why they believe that they are saved. But rather, they assert that they are saved because they know it in their hearts and minds (from possessed knowledge as taught by the Christian denominations).
Thus, Christian leaders (the professional clergy class) from its founding on until now has involved people who were both Gnostics and Nicolaitanes. They are Gnostics in belief and Nicolaitanes in ruling over the laity with their bad gnostic beliefs. Hopefully, the house movement will change some of this.
posted
On this theme of leaders, there is some reality which many so called believers lose sight of. As noted above and in other posts in this forum, there are many false teachers/prophets out in the world. There is too the kook problem as well as the pride and vanity issue (where people, for pride reasons, go on and on because they like to be seen and heard before others). These problems are not unique to the IC because the same types of sharks and misfits migrate to the house movement to be Nicolaitanes there as well.
Tragically, many or most Christians know so little about the Book that they often spew forth stacks of false information as being Scriptural. Many people shooting their mouths off on the Word typically do not cite Scriptures for their nonsense (the reason is that what they say cannot be backed up by Scripture).
There is only one solution for the true election. The would be Scriptural follower must study to be approved and find truth (which sets one free from the religious bondage of both the IC and false HC teachers (who come dressed in white and pretending to be innocent as sheep). This need is brought home in I Jo 4:1-6.
Verse 1 starts off with a warning to believe not every message coming to you because there are many false prophets out in the world. But try them--how? By the Word. If they don't measure up, they must be rejected. To make this test, one must be Scripturally informed. Most Christians (both IC and HC) are lost on what the Book says. They need to be learners and do some study so they can test so called leaders both in the IC and HC.
In going on, verse 6 is powerful because it is through truth that one can recognize a true messenger (i.e. Yohanan) of YHWH. Thus, if a person speaks or writes bad information which won't measure up to the Word, then that person cannot be a commissioned representative of YHWH (as Yohanan was). i have no knowlege or information of anyone alive in the flesh today in the world who is a true representative of YHWH. Many persons claim that status (especially the professional clergy, kooks and even many uninformed lay people in the IC and HC). But their words won't measure up--to the person of truth who does know something about what the Scriptures do say.
posted
The idea that "elders" in the leadership sense refers to older men is,in my view,difficult to support Scripturally. What follows are notes from a study i've been doing on church leadership hopefully they will explain my position better though they aren't in the greatest order.
CHURCH LEADERSHIP PASSAGES
“Then came he (Paul) to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father [was] a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees (Greek word ‘dogma’) for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders ( presbuteros) which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established (made firm)in the faith, and increased in number daily.” Acts 16:1-5
The so –called ‘elders’ refrered to here must be more than simply older men because being older is not, in and of itself, enough of a qualification to be responsible for decrees which were used to establish the early churches, and the apostles would not have trusted the firming up of the churches to men simply because of advanced age.
“This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop (episcope, ‘overseeing officer’), he desireth a good work.” 1 Tim. 3:1 Clearly there are Christian church officers called ‘bishops’.
“The elders (presuteros) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight (episkopeo)[thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;” 1 Pet. 5:1-2 Peter entrusts the ‘feeding of the flock’ to the elders and the oversight of them to the same. Would God allow this only because they were older? Of course not. An ‘elder’ must be mature in Christ-likeness for God to entrust these duties to him, whether or not he must be older in age as well I do not know.
Note also that the Greek word for “oversight” is a variation of the Greek word for the phrase “office of a bishop” in 1 Tim.3:1. ‘Bishops’ + ‘elders’ are synonymous Acts 2O:17-28 make that clear when Paul says that the “elders” (presbuteros) are “overseers” (episkopos) of “the flock’. Verse 28 is also noteworthy for pointing out that the role of oversight, bishop/elder,comes by the “Holy Spirit”.
The role of the ‘bishop/elder’ is to “Feed the flock” and oversee it. Feeding I take as a reference to providing the spiritual sustenance to the general assembly, primarily the teaching of God’s word. One aspect of oversight is revealed in Acts 20:28-31 when the issue of guarding the ‘flock’ against ‘wolves’ is addressed to elders by Paul.
Acts 15:5-6+22-29 show one of the roles that the “elders”, as well as the apostles played, was, thinking over and coming to conclusions on matters of faith and practice among believers. In this case writing out decrees for believers to follow (see 16:4 + 21:25 of Acts).
Peter goes on in his instruction to the ‘elders’ in 1Pet.5 (vs.3-4)… “Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage (kleros, from which we get the word ‘Clergy’), but being ensamples(examples) to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” It is interesting that the people whom the ‘elders’ oversee are the ‘clergy’. If I am correct it is also noteworthy that Peter refers to Jesus as the “chief Shepherd” in the context of speaking to overseers/elders as though they are earthly 'under shepherds', thus the distinct role of leadership that the elders have over God’s people.
“And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and [to] Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church (ekklesia, ‘assembly’), and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” Acts 14:21-23 Each church (or, ‘assembly’ of believers) had officially appointed leaders ‘elders’.
The wording is a bit tricky to define for me perfectly it could be that “elders (plural ) in every church”(singular) means multiplicity of eldership in each ‘assembly’ not a 1 pastor system, though it could refer to all the elders appointed, just not sure. One thing seems true though that a multiplicity of leadership is better for each assembly in case the elder appointed is a wolf, deceived, out of God’s will, or some other issue that makes his leadership dangerous for the people whom he has oversight of.
There is no reason to blanch at the thought of official church leaders nor to deny it. The poor aspects of traditional institutionalized church leadership shouldn’t lead us to react too sharply the other way and try to distort Scripture by saying in effect that there is no true official church leadership because there is. 2Tim. 4:22 reveals that Timothy was “ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians” and that Titus was … “ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians” Titus 3:15 as well as the above referenced Scripture in 1Tim. (3:1). Titus was told by Paul to “ordain elders in every city” Titus 1:5. This is not to say that today there are apostles who are to ‘ordain’ elders, but assemblies should maybe choose out men to take oversight over the assembly from those who ‘desire the office’ and who are NT qualified. Acts 20:28 says that God’s Spirit makes men overseers/elders, Paul told Titus to ordain elders, so how do we reconcile these two? The following are some ideas. 1) The Spirit gifts men to be elders and through his sovereignty working within the realm of free human will brings about their placing as elders within assemblies. 2) As men pray about the subject of who should have oversight amongst them God’s Spirit reveals it to them. (which could be the method of # 1.) Any thoughts how else this could happen ?
Acts 15 verses 4+ 22 (read 1-22) shows the distinction in roles within the church. Obviously “apostles” and “elders” are part of the body of Christ so when the verses refer to “the church” in vs. 4 and “whole church” in verse 22 it is speaking of the ‘assembly’ of all non-leader believers. Thus the official status of leaders within the church is evident. Verse 23 makes the distinction as well.
I have questions pertaining to 1Pet. 5 as to whether or not what Peter is referring to when he says in verse 5… “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder “ is ‘younger’ believers being subordinate to more mature (‘elder’) believers not younger in terms of age being submitted to those older in age. The context of verse 5 is that of the spiritual oversight role of who Peter refers to as “elders” and to me God would not base spiritual oversight responsibilities on age nor tell younger people to be subordinate to ‘elders’ just because of their age. I think a case can be made for the ‘younger’ as being required to be subordinate to the leadership (spiritually) of elder believers in 1Pet. 5.
In 1Tim. 1:3-7 the qualifications for a bishop / elder are given. No where in the list is physical age mentioned. The only place where age is referred to is in a spiritual sense in verse 6 where a bishop is not to be a “novice”, or, ‘new convert’. Physical age appears nowhere. Likewise, in
Titus chapter 1 where bishop qualifications are given and physical age appears nowhere nor, as in the previous passage (1Pet. 5), the synonym ‘elder’ is not used. Spiritual leadership obviously requires spiritual maturity not physical age. Is it fair to say that since God is no respecter of persons that he is no respecter of age in terms of leadership qualifications.
The key here is in the phrase Jesus used when he sent the disciples out, "Man of Peace". The Hebrews knew exactly what he meant, and then in his letters, Paul had to clarify it for the non-Jews. He explained it with phrases like, "not a neophyte" and "practices hospitality".
The man of peace was someone like Abraham or Job, someone who had established himself in the community with a successful trade, wise decisions and a strong household and family. This would, by nature, exclude the very young.
An age wasn't mandated because they needed flexibility -- there are men like Joseph son of Jacob, who at a very young age learned to be a manager of someone else's household. And there are others who at age 70 never have become a "man of peace".
Cornelius was a man of peace, and Lydia was a woman of peace. On the other hand, biblical examples of people who would never qualify for that status would be Cain, Ahab or Absalom.
Then, spiritual qualifications are added for a person to be the leader of "God's household".
Two biblical examples of those who were "neophytes who became men of peace" are Joseph (son of Jacob) and David. As their stories are told, they are shown young and a bit foolish but learning as they go along so that they could be trusted with entire nations when they were "elders".
Even David wouldn't have qualified as an "Elder" when he was 20.
I have to admit I didn't read all the way through. Since my original post I have been absorbing a lot about a lot. This subject of leadership is still a big one for me. I think initially I swung to the extreme side of almost wanting to get rid of leaders altogether. I have issues with my church experiences to tell you the truth. I have been under good people the whole time but I think the way "leadership" is done has worn on me in a negative way and I am convinced it has crippled the church in many respects.
Thank you for the scriptures. It is very helpful and clears the fog a little. You know what would be cool is to come across a chart of some sort that lists the leadership scriptures along side of the "one another" scriptures that for lack of a better way of saying it that put everyone on the same playing field. For example when I looked up your Acts 15 scripture I ran across this scripture that resonates with me so much and will give you an idea what makes my heart happy when it come to doing church:
Acts 15:22 "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas..."
I get the sense here that although there are leaders here they do not make the decision without involving the "whole" church. One of the other scriptures that jumps out at me is 1 Peter 5:2 which says:
"shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain"
The words that hit me are "sordid gain". Every leader wrestles with this in some form or fashion. They have to admit that it is there and if they don't they are fooling themselves. It's this sordid gain that also holds the church back. It is of course in the nature of us all, not just leaders. It needs to be recognized and addressed for all of us.
On the age of an elder my thought is that an elder in the church may not have to be old but most often they are because they have more experience. That is my practical view on it. I am in my 30's and I cherish having elders among us in our church.
posted
I am new to this, as of tonight. I openly consider myself a heretic for Christ. I am currently looking into joining a local home Church. I am sick of being expected to sit in church with my mouth shut, my ears open, and my head empty. I have been repeatedly challenged but those in the organized church, and as a true heretic have openly confronted them with scripture. I have found, across the board, I get the please-don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts attitude. My last stronghold to freedom was where the King James Bible say in Hebrews 10:24-25
"And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."
Well, you would never guess what I learned when I opened the Greek Interlinear Bible and began to read for myself. The fact that these scriptures, and the ones surrounding them, perfectly fit what Jesus told us to do, (go and make disciples) shocked me. That's a sad commentary on the church today. I was actually shocked that The Bible supported Jesus' teachings instead of the churches! What I found in the Greek was (this is how the Greek actually reads in English) very interesting. (verse 24) "And we may be down-minding (reminding) one another into beside-sharpening of love and of ideal acts. (verse 25) "No abandoning the on together-leading of themselves according as custom to any, but beside-calling and to so much, rather as much as you are looking nearing The Day." I know this wording sounds strange to us, but what was being said, if I may paraphrase is, (verse 24) We are to be reminding and sharpening beside one another in regards to love and righteous acts. (verse 25) Not stopping the onward leading of ourselves as peers, as some have; but beside one another calling one another to this, as eagerly as you are looking forward to The Day" (of Christ's return). Ever wonder why there are so many preachers today, when The Bible states clearly in James chapter three, verse one; “No many teachers be you becoming brothers, of me having perceived that grater judgment shall we be getting.” (sorry for the Greek to Engilsh) yet the seminaries are churning them out just like the world hands out Baccalaureate degrees! THIS IS NOTHING LIKE the church TODAY!!! Therefore, the clergy has no more authority to force us into a church building than they have the authority to force us into a sporting event, where they will be leading a prayer! What we SHOULD be doing is coming together in groups as peers, encouraging one another to live a life pleasing to The LORD. We should be searching The Scriptures together, sharpening one another in love, (if I may say so again) not sitting in a pew with our mouths shut, our ears open, and our heads empty! Thanks for the opportunity. A heretic for Christ, Matthew
Email this page to someone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)