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.
posted
I know this is a pretty old thread, but I thought I would respond to cbpastor's post anyway.
Cbpastr, you have essentially tired to make a common argument for episcopal church government, in which you seek to distinguish between elders and overseers, but this will not do. While it is true that the Greek term for bishop/overseer (episkopos) and the Greek term for elder (presbyteros) do not have the same meaning, they nevertheless do refer to the same office. In fact, the Biblical terminology referring to overseers, elders, and pastors is used interchangeably in Scripture to refer to one and the same office. For example:
NKJ Acts 20:17 "From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders (presbyteros) of the church."
We are told here that Paul called for the elders of the church in Ephesus. However, he clearly addresses this group as overseers who shepherd the church in his parting words to them:
NKJ Acts 20:28 “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopos), to shepherd (poimaino) the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”
Here Paul has used the Greek verb poimaino to describe the function of the elders (whom he calls overseers) as shepherds (or pastors) of the church. In his letter to the Ephesians he uses the related noun poimen (pastor/shepherd) to describe this office:
NKJ Ephesians 4:11 “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors (poimen) and teachers....”
Clearly, then, Paul sees the terms overseer, elder, and pastor as three ways of referring to the same office, albeit in ways that perhaps emphasize different aspects of their role as leaders in the church.
Peter also uses the terminology interchangeably:
NKJ 1 Peter 5:1 "The elders (presbyteros) who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder (sympresbyteros) and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd (poimaino) the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers (episkopeo), not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd (archipoimen) appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away."
It is obvious from this passage that Peter views those who are elders as the ones who serve as overseers and who shepherd the church in submission to their Chief Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ.
So, there is a single office, which may be referred to as that of elder, overseer, or pastor. The distinction in the use of the terms referring to overseers and elders as indicating a separate office is a later development that has no clear New Testament warrant.
Thanks for bringing up these theads, I had never read them before- it is a thought provoking study for sure!
I guess I would ask the same question I asked in another thread. Are you interpreting these verses in light of what you have experienced, and what you already believe to be true about "church"?
Are these verses really speaking of an official "office", and if so is evangelist a similar office? Or in the case of 1 Peter is "young men" an office as well as "elder"? The text doesn't seem to make it any more official than these other terms.
As for the Acts passage, it talks of them meeting from house to house, so we need to understand Pauls words in light of this, and not in the experience of traditional church as we know it. I can envision some messagers going out from house to house, and anywhere else believers gathered in Ephases to spread the word that Paul was coming to share a few words as he passed through- telling them when and where to send an elder (older, more mature christian) or two to meet up together. He then exhorts them to oversee and shepherd the younger believers that they are around. Some of the older believers that I am around certainly need this exhoration!
If Paul were laying down a system of a certain office and this offices duties amoung a highly structured organization than I would think stopping to say a few words would be a poor way to do this. Why didn't he just write it all out in a manual type format and send it out to not only Ephases, but all of the cities where the Kingdom had been spread?
Just some thoughts- some others who have written in this thread have had much clearer thoughts than I, but it is helpful to me anyway to write my own thoughts and studies down .
quote:Keith T said: We are told here that Paul called for the elders of the church in Ephesus. However, he clearly addresses this group as overseers who shepherd the church in his parting words to them:
NKJ Acts 20:28 “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopos), to shepherd (poimaino) the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”
Keith T, In order to see "clearly" what was being said, you can't pull one sentence out of context, and attempt to build a case. Please note the rest of the paragraph is spent telling them to protect The Flock from wolves. Here is what Jesus had to say about Himself. Please note how protecting The Flock fits with Scripture, and not with what you have been taught. Protection is the topic in Acts, never rank! Jesus said this about Himself as The Ideal Shepherd...
John 10:11
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Again I will try to respond as succinctly as possible.
quote:I guess I would ask the same question I asked in another thread. Are you interpreting these verses in light of what you have experienced, and what you already believe to be true about "church"?
Well, this is an issue for all of us, isn't it? We all have to be careful not to read into the Scriptures what we want to find there. Of course, the recognition that we have this tendency is the key to overcoming it. It enables us to guard against it and reminds us of our dire need to humbly submit ourselves in prayer to the Lord, asking for the filling and guidance of His Spirit.
Having studied the scriptures with such an awareness and having sought the Lord as best I can on the matter, I am not currently aware of any misreading of the text due to my experience. Of course, this doesn't mean that I haven't succumbed to an unhealthy bias. I guess the test for that would be to keep studying the Scriptures as I have indicated, while listening to my Christian brethren.
quote:Are these verses really speaking of an official "office", and if so is evangelist a similar office? Or in the case of 1 Peter is "young men" an office as well as "elder"? The text doesn't seem to make it any more official than these other terms.
First, I (and other Reformed Baptists such as myself) use the term office to describe the role of elders because this English word accurately reflects conceptually the teaching of the Bible. We use it simply as a term that indicates a position of responsibility and authority, which is exactly what the elders occupy according to the New Testament. We do not read the modern idea of an office back into the New Testament. The terms overseer/elder/pastor all clearly refer to such a distinct church leadership role.
As a matter of fact, the Greek word episkopē is used to refer to the office of an overseer in 1 Timothy 3:1 and is commonly defined as "office of an overseer" in standard Greek lexicons. See, for example:
1) Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, by timothy and Barbara Friberg (#10981, BibleWorks).
2) Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, by Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida (#2643 [53.69], BibleWorks).
3) UBS Greek Lexicon (#2496, BibleWorks).
This is why so many modern versions, such as the ESV, NASB, or the NET Bible, translate episkopē this way. The NKJV translates it as "position of overseer," which is essentially another way of saying the same thing that is meant by the term office in this context. However, I think the term office is slightly better, because it tends to carry a notion of authority that the term position doesn't normally carry.
Second, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem referring to the role of an evangelist as an office, since it too is a distinct role of responsibility in the churches. However, we would need to qualify its usage in this regard, since the New testament doesn't view the role of an evangelist as a leadership role in the churches, as it does the role of the elders. Thus, there is an authority that elders have that evangelists do not have. For example, I do not recall a passage in which the evangelists are given the task of oversight in the churches as the elders are.
Third, no, Peter's use of neōteros ("younger") in 1 Peter 5:5 does not indicate an office. I am aware of nothing about his usage of the term in this context, nor its usage in the rest of Scripture, which indicates that it ever had such a specialized meaning. This is not the case, however, with the term presbúteros, which had a well-established, specialized usage with reference to leaders, both in Israel and in the New Testament Church. And, when used in this specialized sense, the connotations of age do not strictly apply, so that you could have one who serves a church as an elder, even if he is not one of the older men in the church.
quote:As for the Acts passage, it talks of them meeting from house to house, so we need to understand Pauls words in light of this, and not in the experience of traditional church as we know it. I can envision some messagers going out from house to house, and anywhere else believers gathered in Ephases to spread the word that Paul was coming to share a few words as he passed through- telling them when and where to send an elder (older, more mature christian) or two to meet up together. He then exhorts them to oversee and shepherd the younger believers that they are around. Some of the older believers that I am around certainly need this exhoration!
When you refer to "the Acts passage," I assume you mean the one I cited, which is the passage in Acts 20. If so, you are probably correct in assuming that they at times did meet from house to house, but what Paul actually says is, "I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house... (vs.20, NKJ), which means that they would have been meeting both publicly and from house to house. However, in this particular instance, we have even more information about Paul's prior ministry in Ephesus, since Luke had earlier recorded the account:
NKJ Acts 19:8-10"8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks."
Thus, it is obvious that Paul's ministry was conducted in Ephesus primarily not from any house(s) but from the school of Tyrannus, even though he later reminded them that he taught them from house to house as well. The text says that Paul was reasoning (dialégomai) daily at the school of Tyrannus, using a term that is used elsewhere to describe his evangelistic ministry in the synagogues (e.g. Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8) but also to describe his teaching ministry when the church met together (Acts 20:7, 9). Given that the ministry at the school of Tyrannus was directed specifically to “the disciples,” we may conclude that it was a part of the public teaching to which Paul later referred in Acts 20:20. So, I am not sure what you mean when you say that "the Acts passage ... talks of them meeting from house to house, so we need to understand Paul's words in light of this, and not in the experience of traditional church as we know it." I think you have overlooked the context here, but even if your observation was correct, I do not think the size of the meetings or the buildings they were held in are in an way clearly determinative of the sense in which we must understand the passages reference to elders. What is determinative is the fact that these elder are also referred to in the passage as overseers (epískopos) who shepherd (poimaíno) the church of God (vs.28, NKJ). this tells us that Paul did not simply call together all the "older, more mature" Christians, but rather the men who served in this particular position of leadership. In other words, the word presbúteros is clearly being used in this passage in its specialized, technical sense, not in the broader sense of "older men."
quote:If Paul were laying down a system of a certain office and this offices duties amoung a highly structured organization than I would think stopping to say a few words would be a poor way to do this. Why didn't he just write it all out in a manual type format and send it out to not only Ephases, but all of the cities where the Kingdom had been spread?
First, I never recall saying or even implying what you refer to as "a highly structured organization." I am not even entirely sure what you mean by this. All I spoke of was an elder/overseer/pastor office in the churches. How does referring to a group of men who serve as leaders in each church amount to "a highly structured organization"?
Second, the reason Paul only stopped to say a few words to the Ephesian elders whom he called to Miletus rather than make a more lengthy stop at Ephesus is given earlier in the context:
NKJ Acts 20:16 "For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the Day of Pentecost."
But this means that Paul's words to the Ephesian elders have even more import, not less. For we have here what Paul thought was the most important thing for the Ephesian church at this time, namely that he meet with the elders of that church and remind them of their responsibilities before God.
As for why Paul did not go into more detail with regard to these responsibilities, I can only assume that there were two reasons: 1) the time constraints he obviously felt at this time, and 2) the fact that he had already taught in Ephesus for several years (as noted above) and thus had no need to go into more detail. All he had to do was issue a sober reminder. After all, given that the Ephesian church already had elders, we can assume that Paul had already taught them and the church there the role they were to play.
As to your question about why Paul would not have written a letter that gave more details, I think he did. The pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) are just such writings.
Just some of my own thoughts in response. May God lead us both an an increasingly better knowledge of His word and will on the matter.
I do understand where you are coming from- I have read the authors you have mentioned in other posts, and my husband was an elder at a baptist church (one that I think you would agree with) for many years. We didn't leave that church under negative circumstances, but was simply lead in a new direction- I don't even necisarily think of ourselves as having left- we remain in positive relationships with many there, and are both involved in biblestudy/serving/acountability type relationships with friends that attend that church.
I think there is much that you argue here that is right and good, however, I do think that you are interpreting these verses through the filter of a certain mindset. It is a very structured mindset that sees these passages in a structured and baptist way. I believe that the new testament church that existed when the new tesament was written was much more organic, fluid and based on familial type relationships than the traditional church is now.
You brought up Paul moving his ministry from the synagog to the Hall of Tyranus, but do you think that this means that the Hall of Tyranus functioned like a baptist church of our day? You quoted this passage which says that all in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus. So do you think that everyone in Asia attended this hall of tyranus "church"- that it became some sort of a megachurch? How would that have been possible with the forms of transportation common during that time? I think that this is refering to the fact that Paul redirected the thrust of his evangelistic preaching from the Jews to the gentiles. I think that then, as people believed, they started meeting together in homes, and that it started a multiplication phenomenon that began to infiltrate- eventually throughout the whole region of Asia.
I don't think that these "house churches" functioned as a smaller sized version of the traditional church that we are all used to here in the US. There are many passages that speak of the participatory nature of these meetings- where EACH ONE contributes to the meeting through the power and the gifting of the Holy Spirit. All can and should teach, prophesy, lead, evangelize..... in an equal way- like a body that has one head (Jesus Christ) and many differing but equally important parts that each must do their part to keep the whole healthy. I agree that the elders (older, more mature) are asked to oversee- but I don't think that this means that they organize and run things, and are in charge of "teaching and feeding the flock". Even in the case of false teachers- I don't think the answer is "stong elder leadership that administer sound teaching". 1 John 2:27 says "as for you, the anointing you recieved from Him remains in you and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit- just as it has taught you, remain in Him."
So then, structure becomes loose, used to meet specific needs in specific situations. Leaders function less as authoritative teachers and decisionmakers, and more as facilitators, helping to encourage an atmosphere that fosters ALL christians present in any given gathering to lead, teach, administrate..... etc...
posted
I don't really know how it's done. I think of a quote I once heard "thoughts untangle themselves over the lips and through the fingertips". I am just working through this issue in my own mind- and reading through these old threads helps me too .
I think you are not responding to what I was actually saying. This will become apparent in my response.
quote:In order to see "clearly" what was being said, you can't pull one sentence out of context, and attempt to build a case. Please note the rest of the paragraph is spent telling them to protect The Flock from wolves.
You have not shown how my usage of the passage is taken out of context. The only case I was attempting to make was that the terms elder, overseer, and pastor are used interchangeably in Scripture to refer to the same group who lead a church. In the process I noted that in Acts 20:28 we are told that Paul called the Ephesian elders, whom he referred to as overseers and that he them that they were to shepherd the church.
How did my citation of this verse in any way violate the context? Did I deny that part of the shepherding task of the elders was to protect the flock from wolves? If so, how did I do this?
quote:Please note how protecting The Flock fits with Scripture, and not with what you have been taught. Protection is the topic in Acts, never rank! Jesus said this about Himself as The Ideal Shepherd...
John 10:11
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
I guess I should point out first of all that you really have no idea precisely what I have been taught. You don't even know me. But this hasn't stopped you from making some assumptions about me, namely that I wouldn't know that part of an elder's task is to protect the flock from wolves.
I would also note that I never once introduced the notion of "rank," although I did refer to the "office" of elder/overseer/pastor. I am suspicious, however, that what I mean by "office" and what you mean by "rank" may be quite different. I can't be sure, because I don't really know what connotations the word "rank" carries for you, although it does seem a negative word for you.
At any rate, you would do better, I think, to restrict your responses to what I have actually said, rather than to assume you know what I have been taught or what I must really be thinking because of what you assume I have been taught.
posted
Hello again, Jeanne! I hope all is going well with you.
quote:I do understand where you are coming from- I have read the authors you have mentioned in other posts, and my husband was an elder at a baptist church (one that I think you would agree with) for many years. We didn't leave that church under negative circumstances, but was simply lead in a new direction- I don't even necisarily think of ourselves as having left- we remain in positive relationships with many there, and are both involved in biblestudy/serving/acountability type relationships with friends that attend that church.
Perhaps you do understand where I am coming from. I don't know. But I do appreciate your kind spirit toward me in your posts.
quote:I think there is much that you argue here that is right and good, however, I do think that you are interpreting these verses through the filter of a certain mindset. It is a very structured mindset that sees these passages in a structured and baptist way. I believe that the new testament church that existed when the new tesament was written was much more organic, fluid and based on familial type relationships than the traditional church is now.
First, how has my interpretation of any passage thus far violated the context in which the passage is found? How has a bias entered in? What is it that makes you think I am reading into the text? Can you demonstrate an unhealthy bias by showing how I have misread any particular passage I have cited, or ignored the overall context of Scripture?
As I noted in my previous post to you, I am well aware of the role our presuppositions can play in the interpretation of Scripture. If I am coming to the text with incorrect assumptions and thus misinterpreting the text, I would like to know how. I would also remind you that you yourself are coming to the Scriptures with some assumptions. Are you being as careful about them as you want me to be about mine? I suspect you are trying to be just as careful as I am trying to be.
Second, I a agree that the proper model for New Testament leadership and interaction among the body of Christ is that of the family. In fact, Paul refers to the church as a "household" (Gal. 6:10; Eph. 2:19) for this very reason. And this is no doubt also why he teaches that an elder must be able to rule his own household well if he is to serve effectively in the church. He teaches that an elder must be "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Timothy 3:4-5).
The question is really what Paul means by this. What is his conception of how a husband and father rules his home? For this is how he supposes that an elder will rule in the church.
quote:You brought up Paul moving his ministry from the synagog to the Hall of Tyrannus, but do you think that this means that the Hall of Tyranus functioned like a baptist church of our day?
Not necessarily. It depends upon the particular Baptist church you would have in mind and whether or not that church functions in the way that the New Testament as a whole indicates that it should. We do not, after all, have much information in Acts 19 about all that went on at the school of Tyrannus. We only know that Paul did a lot of teaching of the disciples there and that that is where they regularly met. So, if we want to get an idea about what Paul would have taught them to be doing when they met, and about what he saw as the proper role of their leaders, then we have to look at the rest of Scripture to find out.
quote:You quoted this passage which says that all in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus. So do you think that everyone in Asia attended this hall of tyranus "church"- that it became some sort of a megachurch? How would that have been possible with the forms of transportation common during that time? I think that this is refering to the fact that Paul redirected the thrust of his evangelistic preaching from the Jews to the gentiles. I think that then, as people believed, they started meeting together in homes, and that it started a multiplication phenomenon that began to infiltrate- eventually throughout the whole region of Asia.
No, I do not see the church at Ephesus as some "megachurch." I don't have any idea how big the group was that met there. I essentially agree with your view that believers went out from there to spread the faith throughout Asia and that this resulted in the foundation of many other churches. Where those churches would have met is not indicated. Maybe most of them met in homes -- which I think is a good assumption -- but maybe some of them followed Paul's example in Ephesus and made use of a public building.
quote:I don't think that these "house churches" functioned as a smaller sized version of the traditional church that we are all used to here in the US. There are many passages that speak of the participatory nature of these meetings- where EACH ONE contributes to the meeting through the power and the gifting of the Holy Spirit. All can and should teach, prophesy, lead, evangelize..... in an equal way- like a body that has one head (Jesus Christ) and many differing but equally important parts that each must do their part to keep the whole healthy.
I agree that their was and should be opportunity of every member of the body to participate in the edification of the body. As for the "participatory nature" of their meetings, I guess I would have to know what you mean by this and whether or not you think all meetings of the church should be about this. I would also need to know the Scriptural support for your own understanding.
quote:I agree that the elders (older, more mature) are asked to oversee- but I don't think that this means that they organize and run things, and are in charge of "teaching and feeding the flock". Even in the case of false teachers- I don't think the answer is "stong elder leadership that administer sound teaching".
What are the elders asked to "oversee" if not the "teaching" of the flock? Is this not one of their primary responsibilities? Are they not referred to as "pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11)? Are they not required to be "able to teach" (1 Tim. 3:2)? Mustn't they "be able, by sound doctrine (didaskalía, teaching), both to exhort and convict those who contradict" (Tit. 1:9)? Isn't this a major part of the way they protect the flock from false teachers, which is another of their primary duties (e.g. Acts 20:28-31; Tit. 1:9-16)?
Now, this certainly does not mean that the elders are the only ones who should teach. The Bible nowhere restricts the gift of teaching, for example, to the elders. In fact, I think one of the things elders can do in their role as those who equip the churches is to encourage and help others to become good teachers as well.
quote:1 John 2:27 says "as for you, the anointing you recieved from Him remains in you and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit- just as it has taught you, remain in Him."
I am not sure why you are bringing up this verse. Do you think John intends to rule out a teaching role for believers in each other's lives? Apparently not, since you have already said "All can and should teach." You must, then, think there is a necessity of some kind for teaching in the body. What, then, is your point in citing this verse?
quote:So then, structure becomes loose, used to meet specific needs in specific situations. Leaders function less as authoritative teachers and decisionmakers, and more as facilitators, helping to encourage an atmosphere that fosters ALL christians present in any given gathering to lead, teach, administrate..... etc...
Well, I think the elders do have authority in the churches, but it is an authority that must be exercised in a humble, self-sacrificing way. If you want to talk more about this idea, I can try to find the time, which I have run out of at the moment. You can, however, draw some conclusions from my previous point about elders ruling in the churches as fathers and husbands rule their homes.
For now I will just say that pastors definitely should be facilitators, as you have suggested. However, I do not know what you mean when you say that they should be helping "ALL christians present in any given gathering to lead, teach, administrate..... etc..." Is it your view that anyone in any given meeting should be teaching, for example? What about those who are not gifted to teach, as Paul tells us that not all are (1 Cor. 12:29)?
I will try to find time to interact more later this week, if you all wish, but my time is limited.
I am not sure that I can answer all of your questions as thouroughly as you would like. There are websites (including this one) and books that contain in depth information on the house church, or simple church philosophy, including studies from scripture and historical writings on how the early church functioned. If you are interested I would encourage you to look into it!
I am painfully aware that I, like everyone, reads scripture through the bias of our own culture, experiences, and what we have been taught (one of my favorite quotes is from C.S. Lewis who described our first words upon entering Gods presence in heaven as "Oh, I see"). Up until a couple of years ago mine, I think, was very similar to your own. There was a point at which both my husband and I began to feel a stirring in our spirits to study the word and ask God to help us to hear from Him apart from our current biases (if even a little), and felt the Lord was leading us in a new direction in our ministry. We had always been very active in our personal ministry with our neighbors and others we were around, but had been increasingly frustrated with how this fit in with "church". We were especially frustrated with trying to disciple others in the church in this sort of ministry (Not that nothing good happened, much did, but we were also often frustrated with leaders beig burnt out and overloaded with running programs- the biggest one being the weekly sunday service- and the rest of the masses only interested in being fed from the programs- spiritual laziness). We began to think- there had to be a better way!
I believe there is! And I believe it is based on scriptural principals! Christ's 1st coming ushered in the new covenant! The curtain has been torn and now all who believe have direct access to the holy of holies and God himself! We are filled with the Holy spirit the moment we believe! We are now the temple where God resides! We don't need anyone to teach us as the anointing of the holy spirit is real!
Does this mean that God doesn't use people to teach us? No, but it is not in the old way of the old testament priesthood, but rather God uses ALL believers-gifting them in unique ways- to teach and encourage eachother. We are vessels, jars of clay, that God teaches through, evangelizes through, encourage, lead, administrate, and prophesy through. Read the passages on spiritual gifts and on the assembling of believers- I think you will find that it is clear that each believer is gifted, and that each is expected to be used by God in their gatherings. This is what I mean by participatory gatherings. I think the traditional church fuctions more in the old covenant system of the the temple and priests, rather than the new covenant system of the temple being the believe himself along with the concept of "the priesthood of all believers".
I think within these differing concepts the passages on elders are interpreted slightly differently.
I am probably rambling- if you are interested, I really do encourage you to put down your books on how to do church, and just read the word, asking for God to guide you and reveal himself to you in reguards to this matter. Then, if still interested, read some books on the house church/simple church philosophy.
BTW- I continue to pray for your wife- I do hope that she is doing well!
I have seen that there are a number of posts I need to respond to, although I haven't yet read many of them.
Last week I spent over twenty extra hours helping to put a new roof on a building, and it really cut into my normal routine.
Also my wife, Kim, just had her third cycle of chemotherapy Wednesday, which means that by the end of the day today she will be pretty much out of commission for the next 5-7 days. Thanks to those of you who have prayed for her.
Anyway, I am home to take care of her as she runs down today, and I will be studying all day today as well, but perhaps I can at least respond to a few things. However, I may not get to some things until next week sometime.
Thanks again for your understanding. And thanks to all who have interacted with me here on the forum. Please do not take my long delays in response as a lack of concern on my part. I do appreciate the time you have taken to dialog with me.
I appreciate your perspective, and have enjoyed the discussion with you.
You have suggested that I read some books and check out some websites (other than just this one) and especially that I study the Bible on the matter.
I can assure you that for me -- as for you -- what the Bible teaches is of utmost importance. So the Bible is the first place I always turn to when studying any matter, and I constantly check what I read in other books with what the Bible says. I think we both share this love for God's Word.
As for other books, here is what I have been reading so far:
1) I have read Pagan Christianity, by Frank Viola and George Barna, which I think is a pretty bad book overall. I agree with Zane Anderson's review of it here:
It looks like you have been really looking into this topic- A couple of books that come to mind are Organic Church by Neil Cole, and Church Planting Movements by David Garrison. But I most certainly agree with you- The Bible is ultimately where we need to go to hear from God- on any subject! Keep seeking out His wisdom on this- as I need to be reminded to as well!
Does anyone else have any book recomendations?
I haven't read the 2nd 2 books you mentioned, but I actually did read Pagan Christianity- just over the past few days actually. I also read the review you referenced and thought it was a little harsh. Although Viola and Barna were very straight forward, I didn't get the feeling that they were saying that God hasn't used the institutional church, but rather that the way that it is run is quite different than the way the church of the first century met, and was structured. The questions posed by the book that I came away with are-what changes were made, why were they made, and were they for the best? Another thought that I came away with, is that it seems to me that we as humans crave the security of a heirarchical authority structure- it seems to us the answer to many of our woes. Bu in reality, does this lead us toward the tendancy of relying on ourselves- and other people, rather than on God? It also struck me how God often respects our will- even when He knows it is not best. I thought of how the Israelites wanted an earthly king. God told them that He desired to be their only King, but the people didn't want it this way. God respected their wishes and even led them to the king of His choice. He continued to work amoungst and through the Israelites even though the way they structured themselves was different than what He had desired. Could this be similar to how the traditional church has structured itself? With an "earthly king" of sorts, and although God may honor this choice and work in and through it, is it really what He had originaly desired?
Anyway- just some thoughts. God bless your journey! I will continue to pray for your wife!
I think you are not responding to what I was actually saying. This will become apparent in my response.
How did my citation of this verse in any way violate the context? Did I deny that part of the shepherding task of the elders was to protect the flock from wolves? If so, how did I do this?
Sorry Keith, somehow I missed your reply!?!
No, I understand perfectly. Remember, I have been where you are! What I am stipulating is the fact their "office" was only their job.
For example, I have a good friend that was a chief of police. We became friends, and I eventually worked for him for about five years. We are still friends today!
I have always called him "Chief", never choosing to call him by his first or last name (although I was always free to do so). The fact is, I still, to this day, call him "Chief" ...but the title only denotes my respect, not his office or rank (in the church they are the same). You see, we became friends long before he was ever my boss (and I called him Chief because it was his job)! He has never asked that I call him Chief, it was always my choice!
The fact (Biblically speaking) that someone is respected as an elder (mentor) of the younger folks or an overseer (supervisor of servers) in the church (their assigned job) does not change the fact that there was never what I call "rank" in The New Testament Church.
Just like I fill totally equal to my former boss in friendship (and always have), does not mean that I can't understand that his job (only) placed him as my "overseer." The more important fact? He is my equal (or friend). It is my finding (using The Greek Interlinear) that we should not "respect" someone's "spiritual rank" that many mistakingly think exist ...it's just their job. Consider this. Jesus said that we are no longer to be called God's slaves, but His friends...
So, call them "'elder' Billy Joe Bob" if you like, because that's their job, not out of some "holy respect" for their "spiritual position over you" ...and that's my entire point! If Jesus is to be our "friend" (I checked the Interlinear) and we are on equal standing with Christ (by grace) ...why is there "spiritual rank" in the church?
quote:I guess I should point out first of all that you really have no idea precisely what I have been taught. You don't even know me. But this hasn't stopped you from making some assumptions about me, namely that I wouldn't know that part of an elder's task is to protect the flock from wolves.
I never said that. I only stipulated that it is their job, and only their job. Hopefully I have now clarified my findings. Look who is really making the false assumptions!
quote:At any rate, you would do better, I think, to restrict your responses to what I have actually said, rather than to assume you know what I have been taught or what I must really be thinking because of what you assume I have been taught.
I will be honest with you. You have said that you are an "elder" in your church.
quote:I and my wife, Kim, along with another elder and his wife, are meeting with some members of a struggling church in a nearby town this afternoon.
The fact is, your age alone Biblically disqualifies you from holding that specific office (and that's not an insult). If your family is in order, you may qualify to serve tables, (if you are full of The Holy Spirit) which would place you in the category of what you know as a deacon (what The Interlinear Bible calls a table server). You may even qualify as a "'supervisor' of table servers," or what you are trying to call an "overseer" (and by the way, I have no issue with that word either).
I have told you, if you want to understand where I'm coming from, (you obviously don't understand) look here http://housechurch.org/cgi-bin/bbcgi_hc/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/40/19#000000 for my study on "rank in the church." Hey, I'm giving you all of the information I can here! Oh, and by the way, repeating over and over that I'm making false assumptions doesn't make it true it just makes you look foolish. ...Told you so!
See, you think I "assume [I] know what [you] have been taught" when you have clearly stated the fact that you can see no distinction between these three distinct offices. (By the way, I have no problem with that word either, because it is much better than rank, but not as fitting today as "job".) By your own admission,
quote:"So, there is a single office, which may be referred to as that of elder, overseer, or pastor. The distinction in the use of the terms referring to overseers and elders as indicating a separate office is a later development that has no clear New Testament warrant."
...you think "elders" are folks that have a job in the church. Well, you are totally wrong, and The Interlinear is quite clear on the distinction!
The truth is, you are telling me exactly what you have been taught, and you can't even see it! See why I don't mind being "pigeonholed". I'm good at building a case. Let's see if you are good at logically refuting one with Scripture. Maybe you are the one "in over your head".
As I said before, your baptist is showing (and that's not an insult either, just a statement of fact according to your own stipulations).
posted
I was reading from the two cites Keith mentioned and I must say that regarding the perversion of the early church I believe it was caused by externals as they documented. However, the reformation they propose also focuses on externals-- how to meet, where to meet, how big a group-- rather than internals-- new spirit, clean heart.
I'll admit that I would prefer a person modify their behavior through personal watchfulness and restraint rather than allow themselves to say and do whatever comes to mind. This may have some value in a humanistic society but spiritually it leaves one bankrupt. What ought to happen instead is that the person should be focusing on Jesus as their Savior and by a living faith allow God to change their heart. Then the outward behavior will take care of itself. It's the principle of the good tree and the fresh water spring. For example, a spring cannot bring forth fresh and salty water at the same time.
We should, therefore, in my opinion, approach the early church examples as we should the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments can never make a man holy just as neither can conformity to the early church model. Yet when we look into the Ten Commandment law we should see our defects, realize that the wages of sin is death, and flee to Christ for grace which brings the gift of eternal life. Then through a living faith, faith in Christ as our Savior and works to attest to our faith, we should accept the naked promises of God to convert our souls and reconcile us to Himself and His kingdom. The law points out sin but cannot save. The Lord saves!
For example, when Jesus told the lame man to 'take up his bed and walk,' the lame man could have responded in his heart with the thought, "I'd better do what he says or else die trying." But we all know that that kind of attitude would surely have failed him. What he did instead, through expression of faith, was identify himself with the man Jesus saw. He forgot who he knew he was and by faith became the man Jesus said he was-- a walking man. Jesus spoke power into Mary's life as well when He said, "Go and sin no more." She realized then that He had freed her from her bondage.
So what I am saying is that we should forget who we think we are and start being the person Jesus promises we can be. When the internal is given to Jesus then the externals will take care of themselves. Then we won't need to approach home-churching in a legalistic way where we conform our outward behavior to an acceptable model but rather we will be led to worship in a manner suitable to our situation and adaptable to our age but in the same spirit as the early church.
If we, however, merely approach home-churching in a legalistic way by conforming our outward behavior to an early church pattern without allowing the power of the Lord to change us internally then we will fulfill the prophecy of 2 Timothy 3:5, having a form of godliness but without the transforming power of our teacher, the Holy Spirit.
It is this very mindset which causes me to focus on who I worship rather than where or with how many. Can you see the difference between a heart set on seeking God and an outward show of piety? I have seen self-righteousness expressed in many venues. Both among those who profess the keep the commandments of God and those who profess to be worshiping God in the correct setting. Every external religious observance is manifested outwardly in a holier-than-though attitude which condemns others as wrong while holding up self as an example to follow.
Call it what you like, but any time we write out a prescription for holiness which exalts human participation we are trying to earn either heaven or the favor of men. When I read through some arguments in favor of home church, especially at http://www.house-church.org/, I am impressed that here is someone who thinks they have it all sewed up. When I think of an organic church I think of something that springs forth from a converted heart and never a list of rules that I need to adhere to in order to be acceptable to God.
All of these extraneous things do not add one bit to my salvation but tend rather to act as hurdles that must be conquered in order to reach God. In OT times they had cities of refuge where a person could flee to and escape vengeance if they unintentionally took the life of another person. Can you imagine if someone were to liter the pathway to the city of refuge with sticks and stones and pits and gates and the like? Jesus is our City of Refuge. Nothing, NOTHING should impede the sinner's path to Him. Not even repentance. We are to simply take the trembling hand of the sinner and place it in the hand of his Savior, Jesus Christ. We should not construct any obstacles in the pathway.
Isa 40:3-4 . The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
So why do we take such pains to construct the perfect home-church model. Let us rather seek the face of God and allow Him to lead. He may lead some to home church, others to IC, and still others to mission fields. Let's get out of the way!
Email this page to someone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
