posted
In regard to what "elders" in the church actually is, I think the concept is so simple and obvious that it is missed by most.
The term "elder" is known in many cultures, i.e. the "elders of the tribe" and so forth. It is NOT a distinct biblical concept. In our western world we don't have elders in society, hence the word can be quite misleading, rather we have leaders, board members etc. So when the apostles appointed elders in the church, when translated into modern, western language, they were merely saying "Hey, we need to have some leaders appointed when we leave, lets pick out a 'board of directors' for the church". Much the same way any church at some point needs to formalize the leadership.
Now there are some requirements in Scripture regarding elders. However they are best understood in the context mentioned above. It is really NOT a matter of age, despite the name, but it was nessecary to take some mature people out especialy when no ministry gifts had emerged. It is really NOT a matter of having a family, or else neither Jesus nor Paul would qualify for leadership. Rather it was an appropiate requirement among new believers. On the other hand the more moral matters I believe are much better transfered to todays churches.
Simply put, I believe we put far too much into the words used, and completely disregard the context, and the much bigger need for God's gifting and annointing to whatever task He calls us to do.
posted
No. Married and no younger than Tomothy, nor younger than Jesus or the twelve apostles!
But there's really no need to be condecending. In my opinion the submitted understanding fits with the pattern of Scripture in a much more natural and straightforward way than idolizing age or natural maturity.
posted
Jezper, The Holy Spirit used the word "elder" for a good reason! Check out it's consistent usage throughout scripture. It is simply a comparative term in relation to age! Elders are the older ones! There is no thought of "office" "position" or "authority" in the N.T. as far as "elders" are concerned! Rather it is maturity, experience that is proven and well known in the long haul, and which has been demonstrated as a good example before others, NOT OVER them. Acts 20:28 is a bad translation: "OVER which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers..." The Greek word is EN which means "in" or "among"! Elders are not "rulers over" but good examples who simply go on before.
I would highly recommend that readers of this forum check out 4 books available on line: "The Great Ecclesiastical Conspiracy",by George_______(sorry, the name slips me!) & Kirk Pearson, "Men Who Would Be Kings",by John M. Bland, "It Shall Not Be So Among You", by Dr. Norman Parks and "The Non-Ecclesiastical New Testament" by Frank Daniels
Haven't got the web sites just at my fingertips, but check google .com or any other search engine and you'll find them right away. All are available for downloading, you don't have to buy them!
The apostle Paul was NOT an elder in a church! He was an itinerant evangelist, apostle and teacher! Peter was an elder (I peter 5) and he was married as the qualifications require! The Lord Jesus is the chief shepherd (I peter 2) but he is never spoken of as an elder! He is the Head of the church! The qualifications of elders are not optional! (I Tim.3 and Titus 1) An overseer MUST BE.....!" EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IS GIVEN FOR A GOOD REASON!
posted
A equally reasonable answer to why the Holy Spirit used the word "elders" is that this was a general known term to people. Jesus had disciples, but other teachers had disciples as well. It was not that unique. It may very well be that elders mostly were older people. But that is not enough to make it mandatory, if the use of elders reflected the surrounding society and should do the same today.
I quite agree as to elders being examples and not (only) leaders etc. But regarding Jesus, Peter and Paul. If the elders are THE "leaders" of the church, or whatever term you prefer, and a fixed concept regardless of time and place, then Jesus, Peter and Paul all must be considered to fit the qualifications, hence some things might have to be understood the right way, ie. the "married to one wife" as a one-woman-man in his heart or the choose-the-best-fitted-in-the-current-situation-concept etc. I tend to believe this is the most consistent understanding.
However there is the possibility that the elders was NOT the leaders or primary examples, but a level of leadership (forgive my wording) below the apostles, other ministies etc. Some things that makes this a valid option is Pauls authority to appoint elders as well as Timothy's authority to handle complains about elders. That makes elders a more local leadership, perhaps more like leaders of cellgroups or housechurches, but subordinate to others, including many modern day pastors.
In any case I find the generally accepted understanding of elders to be much more rigid and fixed than it should be. Not all leadership springs from a desire to be a "king" and rule over others, and sincere leaders who serve the Lord's church shouldn't nescessarily be suspected of this!
posted
(I mistakenly made a new topic, sorry. But my comment was to the replies herein. However it is fine by me to debate further in the new thread.)
To Bruce, I followed your advice and found at least a reference to "Men who would be kings" and "A non-ecclisiastic New Testament". Anyone interested to know the truth of what I say can find them too, at [url]http://hometown.aol.com/egweimi/rel.htm[/url].
However, there's one MAJOR problem! The article "Men Who would be Kings" is a strict non-charismatic article, to the premises of which I completely disagree. Of course there are different views on this subject, however to a charismatic christian, this is hardly to be taken seriously. And much worse, other articles on the page reflects a non-trinitarian view, neglects the Great Commission and advocates other unbiblical views.
I sincerily hope that this does not reflect the position of any major part of the house church movement! It is absolutely essential what roots lies behind any view or doctrine. Anyone who agrees with me on this one is most welcome to voice their support!
posted
Jezper, Any article needs to be read carefully and evaluated scripturally. Thus an author may have a valid thesis but express some other views with which one may disagree scripturally. Just don't throw the baby out with the bath water!
I have not browsed the rest of the site and so make no recommendations as to doctrinal soundness. I simply appreciated the thrust of the articles I recommended regarding the common and traditional view of "ecclesiatical authourity" which are NOT supported by scripture!
Re. the comparative age of elders: the very word itself designates those who are OLDER than others!If this is not the case exhortations relative to relationships between "younger" and "elder" are absolutely meaningless! (I Peter 5:5) which immediately follows Peters own instructions to elders!
Not all older people are qualified to be overseers (I Tim 3 and Titus 1). For not all are males, not all males are married, not all married men have children by whom to be tested by "If any man know not how to rule his own house how shall he take care of the church of God." I Tim.3:5. Single "elders" could never show proper hospitality to single sisters! There are good reasons for all the requirements in these chapters! They are not OPTIONAL! THEY ARE "MUST BE'S"! ------------------ Bruce Woodford
[This message has been edited by Bruce Woodford (edited 12-27-2001).]
posted
[i]Just don't throw the baby out with the bath water![/i]
I'm glad to hear that you don't support the other views mentioned. And while your attitude is in place among christians or between humans in general, the question here is whether I can trust someone to actually have revelation from God in matters of the Word and a true understanding of the Word, when he himself denies important tenets of the faith and may not even be a christian after all. (I state this mildly for the benefit of the doubt). Or in a lesser scale if I can trust it when he seems to have so little understanding of other things I myself have experienced, like tounges and healings.
Messenger
posted
Hi, I was just cruisin' the net in search of a chat room related to "home churching" and stopped in. After reading the above, and not knowing anything about who I'm addressing, I would like to add my two denarii. (tehe) In my home we have been hosting, at times, 14 to 20 adults plus children. some are new Christians, others have been Christians for decades. Some of the older ones are younger, and some of the younger are older. I believe that, as far as 1 Timothy ch 3 is concerned, elders are to be those who exhibit Godly wisdom, in accordance with the new covenant, and are the more 'mature in the faith' members of a group.
When Paul and the others went on missionary journeys, everywhere they spread the Gospel, small groups were formed. Then at the end of the jouney they came back through to each group and 'at the leading of Holy Spirit' they appointed elders. I believe this has to do with "Spiritual" group dynamics. In any group of people there will be a few who are more 'outspoken' or 'knowledgable' than the others. But, these were not "put in charge" of the group, or local church, rather they were charged with the duty of maintaining order and purpose within that group. This is how our local church began. It was revealed to myself and my wife, we discussed this 'revelation' with another couple (our best friends), they saw the wisdom and bore witness, then it was off to the races. We spoke to others who were in IC's (institutional churches) and some who had been disillussioned with them (the IC's), in a month we were 8-10 strong. After seeking God's guidance through much prayer and discussion as to who the "Elders" would be, it was settled. Those who had proven(fruitful) ministries and were mature in the faith were qualified. That still left us with a slight problem though, out of the 8-10 adults, we all met the qualifications. It won't be long 'til we divid (and conquer?) the group into two. I realize I've rambled a bit, but, wanted you to see where I was coming from.
Since I'm not sure I'll be able to find this again, aside from posting any replys or comments here please send a copy to me at mesenger @dashlink.com (no space and only 1 's' in mesenger) Thanks for your time.
The "Messenger" Chuck Skeen The Way Home Fellowship of the church at Lampasas TX.
Raymond_Coats
posted
In the grand scheme of things I believe that the first thing which me must recognize is this: the apostles did not make decisions regarding the "offices" which CHRIST LEFT in the church! They did not "merely" decide that some leaders needed to be left after they were gone. it is recorded in Ephesians 4:11, "And He Himself gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some "pastors" and teachers." In other words it was Christ himself that did the delegation and authorization of offices in the church. Not only did He do this, He also gave the qualifications of the men that were to fill the offices given. Jesus and Paul qualified for their unique positions also! None can say that Jesus is not qualified to be Elder, Sheperd, or Pastor since He is the foundation of all things and the Head of the church. "And though He were a Son, yet He learned obediance by the things which He suffered." (Hebrews 5:8) Until you have suffered as Christ has suffered, you are in no shape to pass judgement on Christ's particular leadership, or Paul's for that matter. You see Paul was NOT an elder in the church.
posted
Here we go again. Seems my initial reply was left out for some reason.
It is very true that the Lord Jesus gave the five ministry gifts (as well as others) and choses the people to be such sovereignly, not dependent on age, gender or marital status. However eldership is not defined as a gift, hence not flowing directly from the Lord in the same way. Rather it is a human choice, much like the choice of the seven first deacons. Although (it should be) guided by the Spirit, it is based upon human evaluation. I'm certainly not arguing that we could pick out and choose ministry gifts, but I believe (initial) ministries is authorized to choose elders. At the great apostle meeting the apostles also - through the Holy Spirit - decided on some matters not settled before, or at least not clearly understood. So I think it is possible in other matters as well, and also today.
It seems to me that neither Jesus nor Paul met the qualifications for eldership, never being married, and thus not being able to be "man of one wife" in the strictest sense, by which some prefer to understand the rest of the qualidications as well. But nevertheless, the main point is that the leadership structure must be flexible enough to adopt and adjust to any gifting and ministry the Lord gives to a church body, thus reflecting what the Lord is doing and where He is taken his church. That might very well mean, that some initial elders in a house church or in a church plant should not be there for life, but should be willing to step aside for others in due time. Such is but rarely the case!
Ross Purdy
posted
Jezper writes: "when translated into modern, western language, they were merely saying" You can't read OUR culture into their world, to do so is to misunderstand! Jezper writes: "It is really NOT a matter of age," It really is a matter of age! You can't read OUR culture into their world, to do so is to misunderstand! Jezper writes: "but it was nessecary to take some mature people out especialy when no ministry gifts had emerged." Now you are on track. The Gifts and annointings had all passed away and are now all gone. These temporary things have passed away for the normal mature things. Where there were no spiritually mature folks, the gifts were needed. When there were finally some spiritually mature, the gifts were no longer needed! Elders are elders! Qualified elders may become overseerers. Overseerers are leaders, not rulers.
posted
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
Paul certainly was an elder, in fact he was the living definition of what an elder is. As I have tried to point out elsewhere the confusion can be eliminated when you understand an "elder" as a mature Christian, not a babe in Christ (Eph. 4:12-15). This happens at the perfecting of our faith by God (James 1:12; Heb. 6:3). The book of Revelation is in accord with this as elders are those with gold crowns and white garments (Rev. 4:4). It is really that simple, but fallen man being what he is tends to want to solve this logically. I think someone above posted that we are appointed to our positions in Christ by the holy Spirit, so looking for a definition in the Bible may prove fruitless. So, when you have made your calling and election sure you are a mature Christian, an elder in Christ, but this does not necessarily translate in human terms.
Ephesians 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ.
derek
posted
The N.T. concept of elder was a function of the local church and as such a person could only be an elder within his own church. Therefore, even though acts ch:13 suggests that Paul was an elder in the church at Antioch, he was not an elder anywhere else. Plus, elders and appostles are not 'ranks' or levels in some sort of heirarchy in the church but merely roles that some people fulfill amongst the bretheren.
Email this page to someone.
