Greet Prisca and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. Greet also the church at their house. Romans 16
I have a couple of thoughts on the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers...
First, a few years ago when I was still a member of an OPC church, there were some struggles around social issues that came up in the church. The elders made a controversial and unnecessary ruling on how members should handle the matter, and some of the members visibly rebelled. At one point the leadership called a Town Hall meeting, in which the members were told that because they made a commitment to follow the church leadership without question then they were expected to comply, I then began to ask a lot of hard questions in the following weeks. The responses that I received from leadership ranged from "if you do what we tell you then you're covered with God" to "who do you think you are telling the elders what you think the Scriptures mean". I felt as though I had joined the Catholic Church, not one that has deep ties to the Reformation. It was then that I resigned my church membership and eventually left the church after I was told that Communion was not for people like me (not a member of an "approved" church). The sad part in the whole affair is that despite what was taught in the church, it was clear that the teaching of the Priesthood of All Believers was ignored. As was Sola Scriptura since responses to my questions were answered from the Westminster Confession and Church Order. Everything that I had ever learned in the nearly 60 years prior to that time was rendered inoperative by this church. But in retrospect, it is this way throughout the institutional church system. The vast majority have rules around Communion or church membership that require some kind of adherence to the man-made rules of that church. To know if someone is a Christian, we only need to look to 1 John 4 which tells us that anyone who professes that Jesus is God Incarnate, come in the flesh to save us from our sins, is a Christian (especially verses 2 & 14-15)
Second, because so many people fail to fully understand that they have direct access to God, the clergy uses this to their advantage. I can't list the number of times that I've been told that denominations are good because they keep people from believing just about anything. Not only is this not true, but over these last few years I have benefitted greatly from different perspectives from within the Body of Christ. I find that people outside of the church system are much more concerned with the unity of the ekklesia. Additionally, I have this site to thank for meaningful discussions on the kingdom reign of God. Further, I have a YouTube channel that I follow that is particularly focused on our sin and God's righteousness (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJk02o8Gbi-kNn7lSvcABaA for anyone interested). There are an amazing number of Christians out there who confess that Jesus is "the Messiah, the Son of the Living God" (Matt 16:16). It's just that they express their faith in ways that fall far outside of the institutional church system. While I find that I sometimes miss the comfort that a structured system gave me, I don't miss the shackles that came with it
Let's go over to Oxford, one of the oldest schools around. Founded in 1096. Long before your family discovered America.
Listen to what was being said 130 years ago. Although a high churchman, this great teacher/writer was certainly aimed in the right direction in order to restore the dignity and ministry of every believer in the Son of God.
Every instinct within him cried out for further reformation and radical changes of how priesthood and ministry are viewed.
He was a very deep thinker offering vast implications for the church and for life. We'll look forward to meeting him in glory.
Famous Chicago pastor. Reminding us of true eldership. I wonder if he realizes the simplicity of older (elder) Christians being obligated for the welfare of the young.
Not to mention the rewards - double blessings - which come back to us in this life. Did you hear his comment about this?
We hear a lot these days about mentors and life coaches and therapists. The city of Atlanta, for example, has the reputation of having a "Christian counselor on every corner."
That aside, we are thrilled to see Christians reclaiming the streets in God's world. And we are always looking for commonality with other believers wherever we can find it.
Biblical eldership is so simple.... only a theologian could miss it. Unfortunately, theologians control the seminaries and seminaries control what future pastors will believe and teach.
Future generations will be amazed at our ignorance.
projecthood.org
This photo typifies the uneven proportion of men and women in churches around the world. Now why is this?
The question may arise: Could a woman plant a house church? Of course she could. But technically it is not required of men or women to "plant churches". Christians simply meet as the church.
What is planted is the gospel seed, according to Jesus and Paul. We can all agree that women are quite capable of sharing it.
Satan has a masterplan to subvert, diminish, over-complicate, and destroy the church. Sadly, we too often play right into his hands.
Below in your front page feed is a post about pastors being encouraged to support others. The context is financial support. Untold millions of times, the church has been told to "support the pastor".
Another complete reversal of meaning regards the ministry. Most Christians still do not regard themselves as ministers or servants. And their actions usually demonstrate it. Please notice that the ministry belongs to every believer - young or old.
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Ephesians 4: 11-12.
It is the saints who are performing this work. Ministry is not an office.
We daily lament the lack of influence of the Christian church at large. But we can only blame ourselves that we are certainly not the servant church which God intended. We thank God for the exceptions - but they are much too few.
Hello dear Todd and Doug. I apologize for this pesky inconvenience. Things should be back to normal as of last night. And may the Lord direct your steps as you seek fellowship with others.
Technically, the Messenger system utilizes jotserver which required a simple restart from root level.
This site is on auto-pilot. That means that postings are forwarded to admin via email as they occur. Strangely, these notification emails went straight to the trash bin on my iCloud mail account.
I do not look for a conspiracy theory under every leaf but I know that more and more emails containing the word church get magically routed to junk mail folders.
Last night we tried again to rent the famous movie: The Ten Commandments. Again, on Prime Video, the "page could not be found." I abhor big tech and will look for a dvd copy at the Good Will store.
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10.
I just joined and also don’t seem able to send a DM. Would be great to know when they get this fixed as I’m looking for a house church in my area.
I'm trying to send a DM to another member and all I get is "Connecting..." and I'm blocked from sending my message. Is that part of the site down?
Hi Chris,
I read your article with great interest. I too believe that "the rock" in Matt 16:18 refers to the truth contained in Peter's testimony. In fact, I've written about it on this site (https://housechurch.org/cmts-view/12d797z?sys=bx_forum&cmt_id=267) and elsewhere. Rather than repeat myself, let me just say that I think that the key point when interpreting that passage is to place the focus on Jesus and not Peter. After all, as you point out, the passage starts with Jesus asking "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" and narrowing the question later to "But who do you say that I am?". That entire passage is all about the Christ (cf Colossians 1:15-20), so to then believe that Jesus is turning Peter into a pope or creating the office of elder seems pretty nonsensical.
Since this appears to be your first post to this site, please let me be the first to welcome you and to encourage you to participate as the Lord leads you.
I wrote a short article just two days ago. If we're to get elders right, along with everything else, we really do need to listen to Jesus on the topic. I agree with much that's written above, and I'm encouraged by it. So you might like 'I will build my church'.
David, I echo your cry for simplicity. I am so thankful that we have the New Testament to prove how powerful the community of believers can be as they walk in simple obedience and faith in our Lord Jesus.
Why is there no precise list of church officers in the New Testament which is elsewhere repeated in the New Testament?
In Titus, there is a long list of requirements for elders. In Timothy, there are long lists of requirements together for elders and for deacons.
In Philippians, there are overseers and servants mentioned together. Bishops and deacons, they're called. But the word for deacon is the same word for servant - a name referring to any service. So, Paul could be addressing the elder/overseers and everyone else besides them.
Here are three comprehensive "leadership" lists. Though similar, they are not the same.
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. Romans 12:5-8
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 1 Cor. 12:4-10
One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Ephesians 4.
The lost key, I believe, to divine and biblical church leadership is fluidity - fluidity of servant actions rather than the filling of church positions.
True enough, there are requirements made of elder men, of elder women, younger men, and of servants in particular and in general. Yet we cannot deduce that there is an office of elder women or an office of younger men or an office of servants or an office of tongue-speakers.
Be very suspicious of Bible versions which add the word office about a half dozen times, by the way.
Imagine with me... Oh, what a beautiful thing to behold. Each empowered Christian using his/her gifts and resources for the others without regard to status or to office or to being paid.
We prefer everything to fit into a neat little package but that is not case with regard to church structure. We should be thinking in broader terms, it so appears. And praying for more gifts which will edify others.
Take for example, the table "servers" in Acts 7. Deacons, they have come to be called. More than one of these "deacons" also preached and baptized. One became the first martyr. Yet, in the minds of most, the "deacons" main task is a lesser one when compared to the pastors or to preachers. But remember, Jesus stated that if you would be great in his Kingdom, you must be a servant (deacon) of others.
Paul, the apostle, also refers to himself as an elder and a deacon (minister). Notice that Judas, the apostle, in the first chapter of Acts, is referred to - not only as an apostle but as having a ministry (diakonios). Yet, he is not remembered in modern times as a minister nor a deacon.
Over the years, we have focused on the role of the elders (older ones) as the natural shepherds or pastors - not requiring an election nor an ordination service nor a seminary degree nor a salary. This however would not rule out the possibility or even likelihood of young overseers. After all, the younger ones would eventually become the older ones (elders) who are charged with caring for the flock of God. That is, unless they are recent converts to the faith.
Pause and ponder today: If Paul put young Timothy into an administrative position over certain geographic regions, his useful, youthful agent would have surely been qualified to oversee things in a single house church as a pastor.
Do you see the fluidity? Think of gifts and responsibilities - not positions which are waiting to be fulfilled. Do you remember the text above which referred to pastor/teachers? Here is it assumed that the pastors would also be teachers. As they should be. Elsewhere we read of teachers without any regard to a pastoral role.
And with fluidity, don't overlook the element of liberty in the early church leadership framework. A sudden need arose for widows needing daily food. So, these workers were immediately brought into the picture. Problem solved.
So in short summary, if you can (ability) serve others - you should (permission) serve others! Are not the needs greater than ever?
We seriously need to simplify things. Because they have become needlessly complicated and expensive. The vast portion of church funds today goes towards leadership and other cumbersome machinery deemed indispensable.
Do we really believe that the early Christians, often meeting in homes, were paying out professional salaries?
Please show me a church which is feeding needy people everyday. Yes, thankfully there are a few - but they are rare gems indeed.
Again I enquire: Why in the entire New Testament, is there no list of church leaders which perfectly corresponds to another list of the same?
David, your thoughts aligned with mine when I read Dan's post. (I've been meaning to reply ever since he posted but struggled to complete my thoughts.) We were once part of a ministry that eventually fell apart because the reason to form it was no longer important to those of us who put in the effort to get it going. It was a valuable lesson that has really impacted my view of the church.
I really hate what our culture has done to the church. You said, "many saints got badly hurt and even battered in the institutional churches". I agree. Yet when I look back to my own experiences then I have no one to blame other than myself for any anger and hurt that I felt at that time. My true motivation was not "maturity in Christ and ministry to others" as you so aptly put. Those things that drew me to be a part of the church at that time were not eternal things that last. Instead, they were cultural. It reminds me a lot of Jesus following the feeding of the 5,000 as found in John 6:22-71. As you read this, please note that Jesus questions the crowd's motives, tells them exactly who it is that stands before them, then watches many of his followers turn away...
I Am the Bread of Life
22 On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. 23 Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.
25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
The Words of Eternal Life
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray him.
Jesus indictment of the crowd's motives is clear when He says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves." Apparently an all-you-can-eat, free meal was a crowd favorite back in Jesus' day too. :-) In the end, Jesus makes this story about Himself, as does the rest of Scripture
So the question becomes, "what is our motivation for church?" In the institutional church, it seems all to easy to get distracted by 1,000 things other than Christ. But cannot the same be said of house churches as well? And do not many of our concerns arise because of the culture we live in rather than what Scripture tells us about our spiritual condition?
In general, I find myself very much aligned in my thinking with those here who are skeptical of how the institutional churches are run by those who govern them. But how easy I personally find it to make that single issue the focus of the time that I spend thinking of God. If I'm to be honest though, I find it much easier to blame others for my poor motives. I need to stop seeking after the fish and the loaves and instead remember that Christ is the living bread and water
Your observation is true, Dan. House churches have been oversold and buyer's remorse often followed. Looking back, the motivation seemed to be more from rebellion (defined as freedom or revolution). These aspects do have considerable merit but eventually can wear thin.
Another big pull factor, also legitimate, was that many saints got badly hurt and even battered in the institutional churches.
The best motivation - which is never perfect in this life - should have been maturity in Christ and ministry to others. But as you know, people would rather complain and be lazy rather than serve one another and win the lost.
Ephesians 4:11-13 – And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.
Perhaps, in the providence of God, some churches were meant to be seasonal or short-lived. I cannot say. The longing of the heart, in most people, is to belong to a larger group beyond the home. It's just in their DNA. So it seems.
By the way... Years ago, maybe 25 or 30, we visited a home meeting at your address in Ohio. Before arriving there, I remember seeing the vast farmlands as far as the eye could see. I am from the South, as you are aware. It was at that point I was reminded that the supposed justification of slavery on the basis of southern farms being too big to manage without black labor - was a very lame and cruel excuse indeed.
Brother, you have left a clear testimony and a pathway with many blessings to others. I thank you for your friendship. And with you, I long for members of every ethnic group to join hands and bow together at the cross of Christ. Then to arise and declare his glory and preeminencein all things.
Human nature has not changed. The young have frequently opposed their elders down through the ages.
I've done my part... :) As I teenager, I heard a record by the Who. One of the lines was: "I hope I die before I get old". I remember recoiling at that, knowing inside that it displeased the Almighty.
I would like to ask Pete Townsend today: Now that YOU are old, do you still want to die? But I already know the answer.
No. Elders are no longer VIPs as they were in times past. Actually, many do not deserve to be VIPs. Some are more immature than youths.
Going back through history, we notice the first mention of elders are the elders of... Egypt. I recall Ruth being commended for pursing an older guy. And Rehaboam taking his cues from the young men - not the elders.
Brother Dan, soooo good to see you, my long-time friend.
I'll now post a short video piece of a fine message from a faithful brother. You will find it interesting to this discussion.
As you noticed, I've been pretty keen on the subject of eldership. Because many Christian seniors do not have a clue that they are to encourage and shepherd the young. See 1 Peter 5.
Thankfully for some - their instincts are better than their doctrines and they do it anyway.
Regrettable, we made an office and a profession out of a elder in the church - more akin to a Parish Priest than a caring brother in Christ.
Not noticing that some versions of the Bible contain more than half a dozen insertions of the word office, regarding leadership roles.
What could be more natural within the body of Christ than for the old to watch out for the younger ones?
Wise words from a youtube video: Why These Powerful MEGA CHURCH Pastors Fell From Ministry!
David,
You wrote:
"And? Context is everything. In the early church, unlike our own age, the senior men and women were VIP's. So important was their welfare - if anyone neglected them, they were worse than an infidel and had departed from the faith. When the letters and gospels were read in the early church and the word elder came up, there was already thousands of years of context in play. So, no introduction was needed."
This is striking in relationship with a recent situation in our area. Many families in our area are leaving their churches to join with churches that appeal more to their children. I am told these churches are sound in biblical teachings and practices, but the appeal is in their younger leadership.
Seniority is often seen as a liability these days.
Back in the 1990's my wife and I participated in house church for around 15 years. We met many wonderful people and learned a lot in the various conferences and retreats. We also observed that many start ups would only last for a year or so. They would begin with great enthusiasm and then the enthusiasm would fade eventually.
Many found this normal and acceptable at the time. I have not been in contact with many house churches lately but I have wondered if things are changing along these lines. Are there many going strong for over 5 years or more?
Dan B
The early church met on the "first day of the week" which in those days was Sunday because Saturday was the Sabbath (a holiday or like a weekend). Sunday was considered the first business day or commercial day of the week in those days which is like our Monday today. Out group used to meet Friday nights, now we meet Saturday nights only out of convenience and no other reason. Lots of people have really religious reasons for meeting on certain days. Ironically "everyday" is a good day to meet. Good question !!
Hello, my dear brother. So good to hear from you and of your exciting journey into truth. Truth with Jesus Christ at the center.
I am also from Knoxville as I used to live there, part time. Every night, I drove a brown truck over to Callahan Drive. Then, from there, went to the airport to wait for a 757 cargo jet. Then back to Bristol as the sun came up. For 14 years I did this.
So many fine people around that City. I will never forget them.
We've just located to the Atlanta area and are on the road for one more day. We'll pick up this thread asap. I know you have much to share.
Eric, may the Lord direct your steps in the non-traditional pathway. And bring like-minded others across your path.
Hi David. My name is Eric I live in Knoxville. I saw your house gathering there in Bristol. I wish you were closer because I loved your example of the Lord’s supper. I’m looking to move towards a house Church situation and hoping I’ll be able to find somebody in Knoxville soon. I just finished reading the book Pagan Christianity and that sums everything up well. Interestingly, I will tell you that as much as they really think that the church has gone the wrong way for 2000 years, They’re very supportive of people who are in physical churches, and the book has to be read completely front to back to see their context. I really don’t think they’re trying to diss anybody. They’re just trying to get everybody to step back and think about what we’ve been doing. 30 years now of not being comfortable in churches and I’ve never been able to put my finger on it until now - They inherently breed insincerity and that’s what it is for me. It’s not about individual people, but rather the situation people are placed in. We forget that we ourselves are the church and it’s not a location. There’s no building with inherent holiness. I’m praying to find a little gathering of people which would be the church hopefully not more than maybe 30 people. Everybody contributes. Nobody has an official title. It’s interesting that in the early church there were cults and false teachings that developed and there’s a fear now that what I’m suggesting will lead to that but in reality those things develop anyways.
A Psalm of Life by Henry W Longfellow
What The Heart Of The Young Man Said To The Psalmist.
Tell me not, in mournful numbers, Life is but an empty dream!
For the soul is dead that slumbers, And things are not what they seem.
Life is real! Life is earnest! And the grave is not its goal;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest, Was not spoken of the soul.
Not enjoyment, and not sorrow, Is our destined end or way;
But to act, that each to-morrow Find us farther than to-day.
Art is long, and Time is fleeting, And our hearts, though stout and brave,
Still, like muffled drums, are beating Funeral marches to the grave.
In the world’s broad field of battle, In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle! Be a hero in the strife!
Trust no Future, howe’er pleasant! Let the dead Past bury its dead!
Act,— act in the living Present! Heart within, and God o’erhead!
Lives of great men all remind us We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us Footprints on the sands of time;
Footprints, that perhaps another, Sailing o’er life’s solemn main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother, Seeing, shall take heart again.
Let us, then, be up and doing, With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing, Learn to labor and to wait.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Everywhere we turn are these forlorn and shipwrecked brothers and sisters. God could personally and miraculously heal and provide for them. Instead, he has commissioned every Christian to be his minister to the least, last, and lost.
Yet, most Christians are slaves to the modern church system... They don't feel called to the "ministry".
The words to Pharaoh still echo down through the centuries: Let my people go - that they may serve me.
Carefully examine this dramatic, tear-filled text from Acts 20 to answer this important but simple question:
I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities and to them that were with me. I have showed you all things, how that so labouring YOU ought to SUPPORT the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Do we really believe that the early churches - small churches meeting in homes - were paying their multiple elders a full-time salary? Pastors today have been taught to expect salaries, as you are aware. But a closer inspection will reveal that their support was to be needs based, just as the widows, the female elders, whom he had just addressed in 1 Timothy. In fact the same word for honor (time) is applied to both genders regarding this matter of support.
In fact, the same word for honor is applied in the same letter to the respect which servants owed to their masters. Do we really believe that these servants were paying their masters a salary?
It cannot be denied that the pastors (elders or seniors) themselves are exhorted to be working in order to support OTHERS.
A complete reversal of the modern arrangement!
Probably the most widely accepted concept that underpins every eclesical hierarchy is the root concept of "office". For the sake of full disclosure I should mention that I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit from Catholic clergy. I love Catholics and don't argue with them about what I disagree with them about. I'm saying this because if you really buy into the concept of "offices" and ecclesiastic hierarchy it's logical conclusion is to become integrated into Catholicism or one of the Orthodox churches . In many ways I really do envy people that have the ability to just accept everything that their denomination teaches but I'm just not designed for that. If you have the privilege of thriving in that type of blissful experience and don't want to challenge any of the ideas that you hold dear you probably really shouldn't read anything I write or expose your self to any of my views. Seriously don't, I don't debate I have absolutely no need to try and change anyone's opinion but if you are interested this is my conviction concerning ecleseastic hierarchy. All ecclesiastic hierarchys are man made artifacts. The concept of an "office" is at the root of all of them. If an office is empty human nature (flesh) becomes insecure and rushes to fill that office. You see this clearly in the first chapter of Acts. Peter decided that the office left vacant by Judas needed to be filled (before the infilling of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2). Functioning with out the Holy Spirit they drawl lots and instal Matthias. Hierarchical churchs believe that the account represents normative practice But a compelling argument can be made that infact this was a mistake or miss step. From a literary analysis it is as if man picked Matthias and God picked Paul. It's as if Luke only mentioned Matthias as a contrast to Paul one selected by man (before the coming of the Holy Spirit) and one selected by God. A careful reading of Acts shows Jesus commanding his disciples to go to Jerusalem and wait for the promised Holy Spirit not to do anything else. Filling the office of Judus can and should be seen as another one of Peter's over enthusiastic miss steps that are so well documented in the scriptures before he received the Holy Spirit.
This brings me to my position offices don't exist in the Kingdom of God but functions do. The concept of teacher/pastor, evangelist, prophet, apostle are actually functions. God does gift specific people to the church to fulfill these functions but if church history has taught us it is that God does this in His unique way not the way humans do.
So let's dispense it with the titles and focus on the actual function. As a missions mobilizer I always find it amusing that some people think there is a absence of apostles. . There are plenty of missionaries walking in the power of the Holy Spirit reaching the remaining unreached people groups. The church for the most part just ignores and neglects to follow them.
Building on what you've said about language, I'd add that another thing that really holds Christians back, especially in the West, is our regular thought patterns which are very linear in nature. When we see certain words or phrases, we associate meanings with them without once giving thought to whether those meanings are true and accurate. Consider, for example, the word "worship". I think that many Christians, when asked for Biblical references about worship, might cite the 4th commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy". But where, exactly, does God say that this means that we must *worship* on the Sabbath? Here is the Scripture from Ex 20:8-11....
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Not only do I not see the word "worship" anywhere in the text, but what we see seems to clearly exclude worship in it's definition of Sabbath day holiness. Verse 8 tells us to keep the Sabbath holy. Verses 9 and 10 appear to define what holiness means in this context. Verse 11 brings us back to creation where it all started. Verse 11 also bookends the "rest" aspect of Sabbath day holiness by saying, "[He] *rested* on the seventh day. *Therefore* the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it *holy*" (emphasis mine).
Now before anyone says that I believe that you can't worship on the Sabbath or that I'm just being too nit-picky, I see nothing wrong with worshipping on the Sabbath. But growing up in a culture where the Sunday was considered to be the Sabbath day of rest (it is not) and Sundays were packed with church activities that offered very little actual rest for the week's activities, I think that we Christians would do well to take a step back to see how we got to the convoluted system that exists today. We should listen to what God is telling us in Scripture and adjust accordingly. What prevents us from even thinking about doing this is the fact that when we think of "worship" we pull in all this extra human-invented crud that can't be defended Scripturally. We follow that which we have been taught, not necessarily that which God has ordained.
I am extremely encouraged by the responses to this post. It really seemed to me that rejecting scriptures based on the potential theological changes to personal confirmation bias was some what expectable here and that never should be.
One of the most fascinating aspects of contemporary theology is that all the conflicting polity structures rely on the pastoral Epistles as proof text for polity structures that are completely different. There's certainly no reason to believe that Scriptures that can be interpreted to support all kinds of leadership structures is suspect of corruption or illegitimacy.
My main focus in the church is that of a missions mobilizer. I admit that it is not popular. In that regard I absolutely insist that the first second language any cross cultural worker learns is biblical Greek. I am dyslexic (you may have noticed that I leave obvious incorrect words, I can't really detect typos). It probably took me three times as much time and effort to achieve the competency in Greek that a non nurodivegant person would need. The fact is that you only have two options in regards to the scriptures. You can learn Greek and study them directly or you will only ever be able to study what others have written about the scriptures. Every translation is an interpretation and highly imperfect.
The real problem is that the stated goal of the translation is to sell the most Bibles . It's a popularity contest and the concept of accuracy is completely neglected. Just a few generations ago you had to learn Greek if you went to college. Translators would never even try to take some of the libertys that are taken in the novel translations because tons of people many probably not even Christians would call them out on it.
I'm saying all this to say it is definitely worth the effort to learn to read Greek. I also am an unflinching proponent of studying the Septuagint. It's absolutely the Bible that the early church used and influenced the New testament more than any other writing. I'm not Lutheran I have a problem with Luther's wanting to reject scriptures for his theology (he had problems with James, Hebrews and the Septuagint). I guess that brings me back to where this started. Don't ditch scriptures that challenge your theology.
Hi Billy. Your point that "we English speakers are use to a syntax controlled language" is just one reason that the English language can be terrible for understanding the Bible. Take, for example, the translation of John 3:16 from the KJV... "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Large number of Christians will cite this as a proof text for the free will of people to chose their salvation, despite many passages throughout Scripture that seem to contradict that position, But I get why people would say this, because the translation uses "whosoever believeth" in an active voice. It is therefore "my belief" that saves me. But if you read the Interlinear Bible ("everyone believing in Him") or the Young's Literal Translation ("every one who is believing in him"), you'll find a passive voice which allows for God to be the primary actor in salvation and not the individual. Modern English language translations have many such problems which set up Scripture to contradict itself, leaving the Christian to pick and chose which passages they will keep and which they will discard. I find it sad that in their zeal to make the Bible more "readable", modern translators use devices like word order revisions or dynamic equivalence to help them to achieve their goals. I often use the YLT or Interlinear Bible when reading Scripture so that I can consider what God Himself is saying (to the degree that that is possible) rather than what the translator thought that God has said
If a guy in a blue shirt motions for you to come toward him, you might dismiss it. But if there is a shiney silver badge on the front of the shirt, you might want to go along.
And? Context is everything. In the early church, unlike our own age, the senior men and women were VIP's. So important was their welfare - if anyone neglected them, they were worse than an infidel and had departed from the faith. When the letters and gospels were read in the early church and the word elder came up, there was already thousands of years of context in play. So, no introduction was needed.
This is why Paul exhorted Timothy to let nobody despise his youth. Timothy was around 40 at the time. But you get the context: Youth meant inexperience and ignorance in the ancient world.
Likewise when we read of elders being ordained in every city, the context is that elders already existed and were to be appointed to the only task they could be appointed to, i.e. oversight among the saints.
Keep your eyes out for a new essay to be republished here in the next few days. It handily refutes the concept of "office of elder". As hundreds of years of church tradition fly out the window... away into the wind.
Every senior Christian man is ordained to be a shepherd or overseer. The only and temporary exception is the recent convert who will eventually and non-professionally fulfill this needed role. If you believe that it is un-needed or if there are already enough caring pastors, then I recommend you get out and walk around your neighborhood or city. Trouble is everywhere!
The elders AMONG YOU, voluntarily be my shepherds, without regard to being paid... LIKEWISE YOU YOUNGER... 1 Peter, chapter 5. The context here regarding pastors is unmistakably AGE RELATED. Only a theologian could miss it.
Hey dear Billy. You can always go back and edit your posts at a later time. Of course, you must be logged in to see the edit option.
Circular reasoning seems to come into play with regard to the authenticity of the letters to Timothy and Titus. Scholars, so called, pretend to have found "official church hierarchy" in these letters thereby making them suspect. This hierarchy however is overblown and even non-existent.
Interestingly, in one version of the English bible, the word OFFICE was inserted 7 times. Such language creates an exaggerated form of the leadership roles in the minds of the modern "scholars".
An even weaker argument against the Pastorals is the alleged vocabulary discrepancy. Of course the word usage is different in a letter to an individual compared to one written to an entire church.
The person, btw, named Timothy writing above no longer participates on this site. And if you will notice from the About page, linked at the bottom, our commitment here to the God-breathed Scriptures is the baseline from which we desire to work from.
Yes, there are many minor "textual variants" but they do not change any basic doctrine. If any NT letters are inauthentic or forged - we are pretty much wasting our time.
Hi dear Ann, good to hear from YOU. Yes, He MUST reign!
1 Cor. 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
We of course want to see many of his enemies become his friends.
Never forget this scene from long ago... It's a picture of things to come.
Josh. 10:24 And it came to pass, when they brought out those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the captains of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them.
Yes, for sure, these are very uncertain times, but thankfully, we know Who will be victorious!
@Todd Buiten, I am so very sorry to learn about your amputation. I will pray for you and your wife and my heart goes out to you both.
And, what you said about sharing the Gospel in collaboration with ministering to the poor is very true because although we are still in this world, we understand that the spiritual realm is the most important.
Many people send their parents or other family members to nursing homes because the distancing from our families begins at a very early age due to many of us are put into daycare and a school system, therefore because most of our time is spent with strangers, it's the strangers and their systems that mold and shape us instead of the Scriptures. And, of course, it also makes it more difficult to have the accountability and spiritual intimacy that the Scriptures command us to have.
The scriptures will protect us and guide us because He is the Word made flesh. If we put as much time or more time into learning His Word, (Deut. 6:7), than other things, then we'd have a lot less problems, but just like in the Garden, we oftentimes think that we know better than He does, so we need to stay in the Word & prayer, (1 Thes. 5:15-28). Comparing Scripture to Scripture within its context is absolutely key. Life will never be trial-free, but God sure will reveal Himself to us in a deeper way if we eat His body & drink His blood, (John 6:54-58). I interpret this to mean that He should be the constant air that we breath, our life's force, He is our life.... (John 15:5).
Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.
But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. 1 Samuel 16:7
Sorry hit the wrong button there. As I was saying μαθητής literally means learner English confuses this the verb form of disciple is discipline which is completely different from the verb form of learners which is learn. If the issues in the scriptures were simple we would not need to be disciples in the biblical sense we could be followers or even devotees but the great commission is to make disciples. Are we even doing that?
I have to disagree with the popular assumption that the pastoral Epistles are not authentic. I'm far from being the best Greek scholar but I do study the NT and Septuagint in Greek for a few hours every day and have been doing it for years. I also have a degree in culture anthropology and sociology and have studied comparative linguistics. The emphasis on word order used to support the argument that the pastoral letters are forgeries doesn't work at all in Greek. We English speakers are use to a syntax controlled language. Basically we understand the parts of speech by the order that the words are presented to us and we have our own way of understanding the significance of a position of a word in a list which doesn't corralat at all with NT Greek. I will defer to the opinion of the extremely well studied scholars Keaner and Fee. Both agreed that by the principals used to discredit the authenticity of the pastoral letters much of what they have written would definitely not be expected as authentic. Think about this for a minute. I'm a retired EMT and a Habilitation plan coordinator (I had oversight on a multidisciplinary team and was responsible to document every aspect of clinical care). I have written hundreds of technical documents and EMS run reports non of which resemble this writing. By the standards that are used to disqualify the pastorale letters this can't possibly be me writing this because it doesn't resemble the vast majority of my writing which is extremely technical and specific to the situation I was addressing. The scriptures are what they are and we have to deal with that. Luther (I'm certainly not a Lutheran) wanted to get rid of lots of the scriptures that did not fit his theology and he rearranged his Bible to deliberately discount the importance of scriptures he disagreed with. I believe strongly that that's wrong. The pastoral letters were always assumed to be authentic until a few hundred years ago and as I stated the reasoning to question them is flawed in my opinion. Having said all that there's definitely room to decide what aspects of the very specific instructions to Timothy and Titus are to be interpreted as absolutely normative for the whole church in all times. Part of the problem with understanding any epistle is that it is like listing in on half of a phone call. We only hear the answer and have to guess as to what the original issue was that was being addressed. There were definitely radical issues in play in the specific regions that have profound implications for biblical egalitarianism and church politely. One can certainly question wether the leadership structure and the restriction placed on women were specific to that time and place or were intended to be normative in the church for all times and places (any in-depth study of the NT definitely would cause any impartial student to see that there is a lot of diversity in the types of leadership and the roles of women in the rest of the NT). I'm always amused by the fact that many modern Christians have a need to say that understanding the scriptures is simple. If that we're true we would not have to be disciples ( μαθητής)
I embrace the ancient creeds and the scriptures as a disciple of Jesus. I am probably not as focused on "the simplicity" of discipleship as is popular today. Discipleship was comparable to the modern concept of graduate school. It was the institution at the time of Jesus that dealt with training in the most complex roles in society. Jesus did describe in detail in his teaching important ways that his disciples would be unique but he did not change the nature of the institution. The simplest way to understand the scriptures and creeds is to LOOK AT THE Scriptures and the creeds through the lens of what Jesus taught and from the perspective of being filled (continually and increasingly) with the Holy Spirit. This is what the expectation is for a disciple. When the New Testament was being developed the culture was an oral culture. This means that most of the people that it was intended to reach could not read,thus Paul's emphasis on public reading of his letters and scripture (Septuagint). This doesn't mean that the people were ignorant. Oral cultures are quite remarkable in the abilities that the people develop in passing down stories and teaching accurately. Jesus's style of teaching and use of parables was extremely learnable to these people. The early disciples were completely immersed in the teaching of our Lord Jesus first and foremost. They looked at the rest of the scriptures and creeds through the lens of what Jesus taught. Today in the western church this has been subtilty turned around and most Protestants actually tend to try to understand the teachings of Jesus through the writings of Paul. Think about it we use "the Roman Road" to start off new believers not the teachings of Jesus on counting the cost or hearing his voice as his sheep. This is a difficult time for many to understand this. I came to the Lord as a Jesus Freek we understood that the teachings of Jesus were radical and counterculture. Today there is a strong temptation to take part in the culture war. You can't fight the culture war and embrace the counterculture teachings of Jesus. That is why John teaches us to love not the world or the things in the world.
D
Recently I discovered this book on the topic which I found stimulating:
The Fullness of Christ, by John Howard Yoderhttps://www.amazon.com/dp/1532679106?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title