The original context of the church
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?