quote:He therefore does not look forward to being the ONLY elder of "the church that meets in the Bedwell home".
Thesecond reason is related to this, in a way. He believes that were he the only elder of the church, the other members would be very reluctant to challenge him on anything. (Who's going to tell THE elder he's not doing something right, or he's said something unscriptural? Especially if you're all meeting in his home!)
So here's the question I asked if he minded that I pose to you all -- how DID they do it back in the first century? How did they meet at Nympha's house, or Aquilas and Priscilla's house, and yet have elder*S* (plural) overseeing the flock? Did they meet 30 and 40 strong per home? That seems rather unlikely, so I just know we're missing something here.
Well, if you understand our dilemma, we'd appreciate hearing how you've solved it! Thanks so much for *any* explanations.
Susan
So exciting to hear from you, sister and brother, and to learn of the Lord's work in your midst. My own earliest memories go back to Asheville, NC - specifically Montreat.
I admire your willingness to be led by the Lord and his spirit and word as you look toward the future. Things will surely make more sense as more time passes by. At least that what I keep telling my own self.
As for the word "elder", it is merely the comparative form of old. No specific age is attached to it in Biblical usage. If this is so, Norm will not actually be the only "older one" if others are around. If there were a certain age to qualify for eldership, as there was for certain categories of persons in the OT priestly economy, God would have certainly revealed this to his church.
Yes, let's do step back in time and survey the ancient landscapes. Houses were often teeming with servants, children, and grands. Girls married very young (like 12) and the lights went out early. I think you get the picture :>D . Birth control would not have been in the equation. A guy like me at 46 could have easily been a great-grand dad! Shazammmm. Who would have thunk it?
Naturally, the older ones were to mentor/shepherd/pastor and assist the younger ones in such a setting. It is the elders who are exhorted to be overseers - not vice versa. And nowhere is it written or implied that elders are necessary to "form" or "organize" a church. Even the two passages about the "ordination of elders" presume that the elders were _already_ in the churches.
(I will bring forward several supporting sources that demonstrate that this "ordination" was to certain character traits and responsibilities - not to an office nor course of training.)
In short, too much is read into these passages dealing with eldership. There is a pattern of _plurality_ of older ones because this is what you find in ANY non-age segregated group such as the church or the cities that received the apostolic correspondence.
Servants, too, as were older women are addressed in the plural. Do we thus reason that a family could not have just one servant or even that servants were necessary to have a family? Why no talk of the "plurality of older women" or the "plurality of servants" or the "plurality of younger ones?"
Realize that the NT is more of a narrative than a how-to manual. For instance, would you read the text in James that calls for elders to pray over the sick and thus conclude that _only_ elders can pray for the sick? That's the same mentality that would lead one to wear only a black tie to a black tie event, yet this is the way many brethren think.
So, in the church, anyone can call anyone else to account according to Matt 18. Elders are not said or required to be a part of this process. As I mentioned in a post several days ago, controversies could even be settled by the least saint or "village idiot." :>D Check Matt 18, too, for the absence of elders in the disciplinary process. In fact anyone can do the same stuff which are deemed to be essential elder's responsibilities.
Do keep us posted, sister. Needless to say, there are fine people who just don't see it. Some, you know, officially recognize some "qualified" older ones, others have done away with elders altogether, as useless relics of Judaism. But it is all astonishingly simple, imho....if you think in terms of giftings and freedom rather than of hierarchy and offices. And "elders" really being what the word really means. Whoa.
Think about this quotation below from an old preacher and author, James A. Haldane, who preached to 10,000's in open air meetings even after the General Assembly of Scotland (Presbyterian) banned such meetings. His excellent biography has been recently republished: The Lives of Robert Haldane and James Haldane, Alexander Haldane, 1852 and in 1990 by the Banner of Truth Trust.
quote:"A church, we have observed, simply means a gathering, group, or an assembly. A church of Christ, we learn from the Scriptures, consists of believers statedly assembling together to enjoy the benefits of association. These benefits are not limited to any number. Even two can associate together. They can mutually assist, admonish, or reprove each other. When the Lord commands his disciples not to forsake the assembling of themselves together, he requires that they should associate as far as they have opportunity, and no farther. The precept is as binding on two as on two hundred. These can co-operate, and continue stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers; and the abundance of the one may be a supply for the other's want. It is, I believe, generally admitted, that two or three disciples residing in the same place should meet together, and observe every ordinance, except the Lord's supper.
But we find no limitation as to the number of a church in the Scriptures; nor any thing to countenance the stated association of the disciples in any other form. Besides, what is there peculiar in the ordinance of the Lord's supper, that the churches, while attending to every thing else in their power, should delay the observance of this till they obtain elders to administer it ? This idea of administration is very consistent in the church of Rome, or of England, where each individual receives the elements from the Priest; but in this country, both in the Establishment and among Independents, each member administers it to his neighbour; that is, puts the bread and the cup into his hand. If the elder administers it to those nearest him, they, in their turn, administer it to him; so that the idea of laying any stress on an administrator is utterly inconsistent, besides leading to the unfounded supposition, that the administrator represents the Lord Jesus Christ, in which case he ought not himself to partake.
The plea for the necessity of an elder or officer being present at the Lord's supper, surely originates in some mistake respecting its nature. It must be supposed that it is similar to the sacrifices under the law, which could only be offered by a Priest, or that it contains a mystery still unexplained; and if transubstantiation be given up, something analogous is substituted in its place. Let the reader compare and consider with attention the passages in which this institution is described, and he will be convinced that this view has no foundation.
No good reason then can be given why two or three believers, who have not an opportunity of meeting with a greater number, should not statedly assemble as a church of Christ, to observe the Lord's supper, as well as to continue in the apostles' doctrine and in prayers. Indeed it is their bounden duty to do so. It certainly cannot be shown that elders or deacons are essential to the existence of a church, while we find the apostles returning to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, and ordaining elders (i.e. appointing elders or older ones to be the shepherds or pastors) in every church, Acts 14:21,23, which they had previously gathered. Indeed, from the very nature of the case, churches must exist before elders, out of which they arise.
The apprehensions that the consequence of two or three observing the ordinances of Jesus, will be their remaining at home, and not assembling in any considerable number, nearly resemble those of the consequences of eating the Lord's supper without elders, which, it is alleged, sets aside the elder's office. But as long as men regard the authority of Jesus, they will consider themselves bound, after the example of the first churches, to assemble statedly with as many of their brethren as local circumstances might permit. And if ever His will, so plainly signified, loses its effect upon their minds, it is a matter of little consequence whether they have them (i.e. officers) or not. Their eating the Lord's supper at all, must in that case, arise from superstition, and not from Christian principle."
Observations on Various Subjects, J.A. Haldane, published by John Ritchie, 1808. pp. 12-15.
the village idiot, at your service, David Anderson
posted
Just an observation on the issue of elders . . .
Many churches today (house churches, as well as some of the mainstream denominations)have taken to appoint men as elders.
My own personal study on the issue was born out of a desire to reinstitute the office of deacon which had been eliminated in the church I am in.
The terms that many people are interested in are: Elder, Bishop, and Pastor.
Some hold these terms to be the same others do not. The question I had from my study was this: Does the Lord intend for men to be ordained as elders or does He intend for elders to be ordained as overseers? (Titus 1.5-9)
Since we have the qualifications for overseers (bishop/pastor) listed in 1 Timothy 3 and then repeated in Titus 1 the logical conclusion is that Titus was instructed to appoint/ordain elders, men who were spiritually mature, to the position of overseer.
So all overseers are elders while all elders are not overseers. You see, in 1 Timothy 3.1-7, even though a man may desire the position of overseer, he must meet certain qualifications.
Meeting that criteria is required for a man who feels called to the leadership of the church.
Email this page to someone.
