House Church Talk - elders missing in action

[David Anderson]

>I follow these type of organisational discussions somewhat
>peripherally, since, somehow they go waaaay over my head.  Hence,
>whether or not this discussion is at a level I can understand, or
>whether you want persons like me to understand, I am somewhat dis
>interested - not as a statement against the persons involved in this
>dialog - just as an explanation of where I am and how I read these
>discussions.

   Dan,

I can relate to where you are coming from, I suppose. It's as if I gave 
you directions to my house and the first turn was missed causing a chain 
reaction in which every other turn led you further away from your 
destination. In other words, there are many layers of tradition needing 
to be removed with respect to this subject. Imo.

In the era in which the inspired apostolic correspondence was circulated, 
is it likely that readers would have been confused by the mention of 
elders? Hadn't elders already been around for thousands of years? I 
believe that the first reference is in Genesis with respect to the 
Egyptian elders.

Now imagine if you, Dan, could address an assembly of saints in a 
particular city. Would you not speak to them according to their ages in 
your various exhortations? These were tribal societies, after all, with 
much distinction given to the older ones or the patriarchs. Yet, today 
when we read the word "elder" it is immediately assumed that the subject 
has been changed from "older male" to a church government position to be 
filled and refilled by those who are elected and ordained.

The most famous text in church history concerning official eldership is 1 
Tim 5:17 in which elders (masculine) are said to be worthy of double 
honor - but in just a few proceeding lines Paul had referred to certain 
older WOMEN who were ALSO worthy of honor. "Honor widows that are widows, 
indeed."

Even in the very proceeding sentence he is concerned with the place of 
older females: 1 Tim. 5:16 If any man or woman that believeth have 
widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it 
may relieve them that are widows indeed. 

The natural flow of his drift does not favor anything official - he's 
simply changing genders (in the same breath) as he speaks to the 
different subsets in the church. Some have even deduced from this passage 
a ruling and a teaching order of elders. Here's the text: 1 Tim. 5:17 
"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, 
especially they who labor in the word and doctrine."

But wait, ALL elders are exhorted to be teachers. Ooops. And if you check 
out the groups that have adopted teaching and ruling eldership - the 
ruling elders are never paid for their services. Yet according to the 
text above, they also are worthy of "double honor."  More oops. Paul also 
wrote that servants were to honor their masters. Can we really believe 
that the early house churches had so many "on staff" which were being 
paid? Can we really believe that servants paid their masters? I doubt 
that.

Today (10/18/04), I heard Ravi Zacharias refer to a Canadian survey in 
which the youth complained that they had no models for behavior, no one 
to believe in, no one to follow. 

Sounds like the status quo in the lower 48 ... Christian seniors, where 
are you ??? Are you deliberately engaged in serving the younger ones as 
friends, encouragers, models of Jesus, pointers to Jesus, shepherds of 
His flock?

As always, ideas have consequences.

     David Anderson