Wednesday, April 11, 2012

On Being a Steward and Not a King

One of the great scenes in "The Return of the King" is when Gandalf goes before Denethor, the steward of Gondor, and challenges him to do his duty. Denethor is only concerned at that point of keeping his throne, a throne that does not belong to him in the first place. He is drunk with power (and despair for fear of losing it, since he's been frightened by what he has seen in the seeing stone) and cannot, therefore, see clearly. Gandalf then rebukes him by telling him that he is not the king, but only a steward. He does not have the authority to prevent the return of the king, i.e., the right of the king to take up the throne in place of the steward who must relinquish it.

This scene has some resonance for me, as I have loved the church and have desired Christ to rule over it, but there seem to be far too many who wish to rule over it instead. In fact, I could have simply entitled this post, "A Tale of Two Overseers," since my concern is to lay out what the "desire" of the overseer should be versus what it should never be. Because I have so many friends who have gone into ministry, and have been good friends with virtually all of my pastors, I think I have a bit of an insight into something that I have noticed in many of them, but not in others (others who, unfortunately, are few among their number). And this tendency that I have noticed in them is simply this: a desire for power.

On the one hand, people are going to want to use their gifts, and will seek out the greatest amount of opportunity to do so. That's a good thing. If one is a teacher or pastor, then one will often want to seek out the office of overseer, as it will afford him more opportunity to use those gifts. But one must be very careful that he does not seek it out because he likes to be in front of people, or have control. Controlling people are dangerous people to the ministry. They have a hard time letting Christ lead.

You see, if you have an overseer that starts talking about the church as "his," and that not in a more common way as even layman do (i.e., "I'm going to my church today" --- the possessive pronoun used to convey belonging rather than personally possessing), then you may be encountering one who desires to ascend rather than to serve in humility. This is why hierarchies in the church eldership are so dangerous. They exist when we view elders as senior pastors and associate pastors, or even more subtly, as elders within which a non-labeled hierarchy still exists. There is no hierarchy in the community of elders in the Bible, and when the Corinthians try to pull this even among the apostles, they are rebuked for it (1 Cor 1:12-15). There is only one King. Everyone else is just a steward. There is a hierarchy among God's kingdom for purposes of holding up the truth against heresy and impurity that leads Christ's kingdom to ruin (1 Tim 3:15 in view of the entire letter); but this hierarchy is one of multiple elders who function as authoritative servants who must seek Christ to rule over them and the people, not the desire to rule itself.

The tricky thing is that people often don't realize that they are seeking power, and of course, no one presents it that way to himself. Our desire for power is often hidden in the desire that we do things "the right way," which ends up being what one particular individual wants over the other individuals.

So in light of our own self delusions, let me ask you a series of questions to help you see if you might be seeking more control than stewardship before God.

1. Are you fine with other elders taking the head as preaching and exercising authority instead of you overseeing their overseeing? Obviously, elders should function together, so nothing is simply a one man show, or should be, at any time; but my point here is to ask whether you need to be the one who always gets the veto power or needs to spearhead something. In other words, does it make you uncomfortable, like someone is stealing your power, when another overseer (in continuity with the larger group of course) takes the reigns of something that may not be in your personal control? Does this create an anxiety for you or a relief that you are not the only one working to exalt Christ as King over the congregation?

2. Do you feel like you want more of an inlet into people's lives in your congregation? Now, this one can be tricky (aren't they all?), as it may be that sometimes an overseer is too disconnected from people in the congregation. However, many times this is the subtle desire to get more control/power, so that the more one is in the lives of others, the more one can steer those lives in the direction he wants. Less anxiety then exists if one can see what's going on behind the scenes. This, of course, does not give control and trust to the Holy Spirit who testifies to individuals of Christ who works all things to the glory of the Father, and the Father, in return, exalts Him as King over those people's lives. In other words, it is a sin against the entire Godhead to need such control.

3. Are you continually worried that people will leave if you say or do the wrong thing, even when what you say or do comes from the Bible itself? For example, if you exercise church discipline, do you have such anxiety over it (everyone will have some anxiety over such a difficult thing) that you fail to do it altogether? Do you hold back preaching and teaching certain aspects of the whole counsel of God in Scripture because people might leave or attribute you less authority to say other things to them? This is pure manipulation of your duty in an effort to gain or keep power. It seeks to obtain power through giving people what they want rather than exalting Christ as King through one's teaching and exercise of authority. Hence, in this one, an illusion that one wants less power is created by diminishing one's role as an overseer, but in reality, it is a diminishing of Christ's authority in order that the overseer might grab more authority for himself. The steward is to exalt Christ as King, not himself, and therefore, ought to obey Christ in his making disciples by means of teaching ALL that Christ commanded (Matt 28:19-20).

4. Do you feel jealous when others compliment another overseer for their teaching ability, or what they learned by him, or their show of love for him? Perhaps, they want him to preach for awhile? Are you threatened by that? Perhaps they invite him over to dinner more? Are you offended by that? You should rejoice that the Word of the King is desired through anyone who would preach it accurately. You should rejoice that affection is shown toward anyone representing Christ and His Lordship to the congregation. This is about Christ, not you or that other elder. We are nothing. Christ is everything. We are stewards. Christ is King. We are brothers. He is our Everlasting Father. We are servants. He is Lord.

As Paul said, "Is Christ divided?" Are we all not working toward the result that the people placed under us might exalt Christ as King over them? Some plant. Others water. But it is God who causes growth. It is God who brings the people into His kingdom and keeps them there. It is God who has all power and glory and majesty. We are to be empty vessels for Him to fill in whatever way He desires.

I truly believe that most overseers need to become janitors of the church first. They need to serve as chair stackers and bulletin makers for awhile. They need to understand that every job in the church is a job for a servant, not a king. If you have a lust for power, please don't apply for the job of overseer. God will surely humble you in the most violent of ways if you attempt to do this with the wrong attitude. I have seen it over and over again. The desire for control destroys churches, because it destroys the Lordship of Christ in those churches and replaces it by a self-willed individual who just wants to set up his own little kingdom, using Christ as his means to achieve it.

And what else would be a greater instrument to use? God is the ultimate authority, and so one seeking power over others, over his own kingdom, would seek to use God to boost his power. This makes the church a dangerous place, but one cannot be sanctified without it. What we need to do is not shun the church, as one will only prove that he is not under Christ's Lordship at all, but only seeks to be self-willed in his own life as well. Instead, the answer is to reform the church, and we do that by reforming our understanding of the church from top down. We need to reform the way we think of the eldership. We need to reform the way it functions in the church, and why we desire to be a part of it.

So here are some helpful ways you can reform it:

1. Trade off. Take turns, or just allow for equal say, in where you go as a church. Take turns preaching and teaching, and let each elder choose what he preaches or teaches according to where God is leading him (again, everything being run through the entire group of overseers, as you are a collective). Let others lead, as they should let you lead.

2. Let go. You don't need that much of an inlet into people's lives. You don't see the apostles constantly checking up on people to see if their living according to Christ. Our job is to preach/teach, pray, and discipline (which is an exercise of authority that is a part of teaching/discipleship). God's presence will be manifest among us and among the laity if we are faithful to do that job (and that job alone is overwhelming enough). We don't need to constantly impose ourselves on the laity to ease our anxiety. Let God worry about transforming His children with the Word we are commanded to preach and through our prayers for them, which is our primary means of giving Christ a voice into their lives.

3. Preach the whole counsel of God. This is God's Church, not yours. If people are offended by God and want to leave, even leaving you without a job, it should not be that you withhold the life that is in the whole counsel of God simply because people want to be dead instead. Give the life that is found in all of what Christ commanded, and do not withhold it from the congregation because you are afraid of the repercussions. Have some faith that God will do what is right, even if you end up without a job in the end.

4. Rejoice when the gospel goes forth, regardless whether it has anything to do with you or to your credit. Rejoice when other Christian leaders are spoken of well, if in fact they are busy preaching that Word to others. Rejoice when affection is shown for those who represent Christ, even if you are getting grief by those very people. Be glad that Christ still has an inlet into their lives and they may yet be conformed to His image through it. Hence, He may yet be exalted, and since this is all you seek, not the glory of yourself, this should make you happy.

I know, as I write this, most of my friends in ministry will not like it. There is within all of us the need for vindication for all of the hard work we've done. There is a need to be recognized. There is a desire to have control, as we see ourselves as the protectors of the flock, and we are to a lesser degree. But the great protector is Christ, and He has given us, His stewards, the means through which we give Him a voice to protect His flock, and it is not in the grabbing of power, but in the humility of a shared goal to exalt Him through Word and prayer, even to the sacrifice of our own prestige, our own comfort, and our own security. We are to cast all of our crowns at His feet, and that includes the crown we get when we become an overseer. This kingdom is not ours to keep. It is His to rule through His servants, and that is all we should desire when we desire the office of overseer.

Denethor would have led his people to ruin in seeking to obtain the throne for himself. But it was the return of the true king that brought about victory and salvation to the people, a lesson all overseers, both candidates and well-established, would do well to ponder.

25 comments:

  1. Few thoughts/questions: First, thank you for this word of exhortation. There were many helpful insights in here. I never considered that avoiding preaching the whole counsel of God was just another way of trying to maintain control, but that's true.

    Question: Why is Peter always listed first in the list of apostles? And why does it say in Acts that "in those days Peter stood up among them"? (Acts 1:15) If this is just referring to a one time act where people stood up and addressed the 120, why does it begin with "in those days," seemingly indicating that Peter did this regularly?

    Also, Richard Baxter was very involved in people's lives, going over to their homes and asking them personal questions about their spiritual disciplines and doctrinal understandings. Perhaps this is different from the type of "involvement" you were speaking of.

    I think a church can try to gain power over their leaders by constantly talking about the need for leaders to be "servants" and so forth. That is true: leaders are servants, but that's not the only analogy Scripture uses for leaders. It also calls them shepherds. This sometimes means they must do something that the flock doesn't like (like lead them through the valley of the shadow of death) for their ultimate well being. Here's a scenario in which the leader is going against the vast majority of the people and they may cry, "You're being controlling!" when, in fact, he's just doing what he believes to be the best thing. It's bad to be controlling, but it's also bad to be passive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Josh. Let me clarify some things and then also answer your question about Peter.

    I'm really trying to get under the actions of getting into people's lives and seek out the reasons one desires to do so. I don't think it's wrong to challenge people, or create opportunities to teach the Word of God to others individually, but it does evidence a lack of faith to believe that if I do not continually press upon people, preaching the Word and praying for them will not have its rightful effect upon their lives. I know a lot of ministers who want to get into people's lives in order to "make sure" the Word is doing its job, which is basically not trusting that the Spirit in fact is doing His job with the Word. So there's nothing wrong with hanging out or visiting people, but it's the need to "keep people accountable" in their daily lives that needs to be well balanced and scrutinized in terms of its rationale.

    Second to this, the post is really about the overseer looking inward. So it's not meant to be fuel for laymen. The post isn't really for them. It's asking the overseer to take a look at himself. Does he think he is being controlling or desiring a control that does not belong to him? The question is whether we are giving Christ His Kingship through what we're doing, not what others think about it.

    Finally, when it comes to your questions concerning Peter, there is simply a basic hermeneutic (which I know you know) that I don't think you're employing with these questions. What is descriptive, and therefore, may or may not prescribe anything clear, of Peter in a narrative like Acts (regardless of what it is saying, and I don't think it is saying what you think it does) needs to be interpreted with what is prescriptive and plain. So we need to go to 1 Corinthians or Galatians, where we see that Peter is not above the other apostles in authority. Paul rebukes him to his face as though Peter is his underling, showing that all of the apostles are subject to the rebuke of the others. All the apostles are but stewards, since Christ is not divided. So how do we explain Peter's prominence in Acts? I think Luke is simply using Peter as the most well known apostle to the Roman officials for which Luke is constructing the account (I believe this is constructed for Paul's trial), and as one who was given the duty to convey to the other apostles that Jews and Gentiles alike are to inherit the kingdom. Peter is definitely prominent, therefore, as the "apostle to the Jews" but not in terms of authority or direction. If that were true, there would have been no need for the Jerusalem council. Acts also refers to James in a prestigious manner, and he wasn't even an apostle. So we need to be careful about assigning authority to people who were simply just better known by the recipients of the Book of Acts. All of that, of course,in acts is meant to establish Paul's authority to preach what he is preaching to the Gentiles, and to tell the Roman officials that his mandate has been given to him by Christ himself. In any case, the clear teaching from the epistles seems to be that the apostles are equals among each other, even though other people, inside and outside the church, seem to assign to one more prestige than the other.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BTW, I should probably also mention that whenever you see the phrase "in those days," it often refers to a time gone by, meaning that Peter no longer stands up to lead in the time the Book of Acts is written. Now, of course, if you believe Acts is written later, then maybe Peter is dead now, but I believe this is written while he is still alive. So I would place the "in those days" to the time before the Spirit of God was given and before their roles were well defined--yet another reason why we need to be careful about getting doctrines from description rather than prescription. We also need to look to see if there is any indication of one elder having more authority than others in the New Testament, and again, I don't see anything legitimately arguing that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, I definitely understand that just because it's DEscribed doesn't *necessarily* mean it's PREscribed. But that also doesn't mean it's CAN'T be used as a prescription. However, it is true that if the description is also a prescription (a spiritual principle for all times), then it will be confirmed in other places in Scripture. But you still didn't answer why it is that Peter's name is always listed first. There has to be a reason. There are four lists and his name is always first. It doesn't necessarily mean that he possessed more authority than any of the other apostles, it certainly doesn't mean he couldn't be rebuked by any of them (as was the case with Paul in Galatians); but could it imply that he possessed a natural leadership ability that caused other leaders to look to him for leadership? People are going to naturally look to the leader who is further down the road in terms of character, knowledge, ability, experience, and dedication. This doesn't mean that person has the most authority or that he should be considered the "Sr. Pastor" over the other elders. But it does mean that in the same way a church needs leadership, so a leadership team needs leadership (and that's something we definitely see with Peter and the other apostles). If the other elders are sufficiently humble, and not desirous of gaining control or glory for themselves, as you mentioned in your post, they won't be put off by this universal principle that is seen in almost every facet of life, the principle of "first among equals." Again, it doesn't mean that "the buck stops here," or that he rules over the others, but he does however lead them. He has a greater desire, ability, and gifting from God to teach the church, and so he is given "double honor" for that (1 Tim.5:17). I just think that the desire to eliminate this principle could possibly stem not from a desire for the church's well being, but from pride among the other leaders who don't want anyone to outshine them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "but could it imply that he possessed a natural leadership ability that caused other leaders to look to him for leadership?"

    It could, but we don't have any indication that he did. No one looks to him for anything. When they need guidance, they look to the whole Jerusalem council, not Peter.

    "People are going to naturally look to the leader who is further down the road in terms of character, knowledge, ability, experience, and dedication."

    Sure, the question is whether this is right. Paul says in 1 Cor that it isn't. So we're again taking what is descriptive of people and making it a prescriptive rule, e.g., "a leadership team needs a leadership." If that is true, then Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians makes no sense. They should be deferring to Peter over other apostles. And why is that elders cannot take turns leading the leadership team (if that's the model your proposing)? Why must it be a certain individual within that role? Doesn't that subtly bring in the idea that this person does in fact have more authority than the others? Is that not still the Sr versus Jr pastor idea clothed in different garb?

    "and that's something we definitely see with Peter and the other apostles"

    I think this is the point under question, not a definite conclusion. To say this is to argue against the grain of what we're told by Paul and what we actually see when the other apostles, and the churches, have questions they need answered by the apostles.

    "If the other elders are sufficiently humble, and not desirous of gaining control or glory for themselves, as you mentioned in your post, they won't be put off by this universal principle that is seen in almost every facet of life, the principle of "first among equals."

    I don't think this is true if in fact the principle is destructive to the individual, the eldership, and the church as a whole. The other elders would care for that reason. They shouldn't care because they want to be first, but their lack of desire for power should not then cause us to say that the desire of the "first" elder to have power is any less sinful.

    "Again, it doesn't mean that "the buck stops here," or that he rules over the others, but he does however lead them."

    Again, Josh, where are you getting this model for ministry. You've appealed now to descriptive data in narrative, what people in society usually do, and nature. We need to have a model set on the prescriptive.

    I, along with most modern scholars, do not believe that 1 Tim 5:17 refers to a separate group of elders who work hard at teaching and preaching versus another group of elders who do not. However, notice that the elders who are to receive double honor (which refers to financial support, not respect or authority)are plural, not singular. It's not the elder who should receive double honor, but the elders.

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I just think that the desire to eliminate this principle could possibly stem not from a desire for the church's well being, but from pride among the other leaders who don't want anyone to outshine them."

    Well, of course, our pride comes in many forms, but my post here is centered on what the Scripture says concerning power, to whom the power belongs, and why one may desire the office of overseer or to be first among equals (who aren't really equals since they're usually in submission to the head elder). The need to have a king to represent the King is simply a failure of faith on our part. We see this in the OT when the Israelites don't trust that God can rule through His multiple shepherds without a human king, and we see it in the attempt to make Peter and those who follow him into a pope during and after the NT. So I would just ask you again, Where are you getting the model really? Is it so clear in the NT that you have gained it from that, or is it a preexisting model that you are now attempting to justify with various authorities, Scripture, culture, nature, etc. because you want to establish it? That's a question we need to ask ourselves in all of our models, regardless of what they may be. But however we answer that, we need to know that this issue matters greatly, as the church, if it does not order itself the way that Paul directed, will be a lesser pillar and support of the truth and eventually give way to darker things.

    I would also challenge you to ask yourself, in what way does the "head elder" model humility in his ministry when another elder attempts to lead? Does he consider that other elder as greater than he is, or is he looking to keep his desired position at the head of the table?

    Of course, this all assumes that you have people in the eldership that are actually qualified to be elders. That's a completely different story if they are not qualified.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As for Peter's name being mentioned first, that is what you would do in a list when certain people are more well known than others. Peter is the most well known among them. But James, the disciple, comes after that before John. We see James martyred early in Acts and he was, perhaps, better known than John, who we don't really see in Acts do anything noteworthy within the book. Notice the interplay between all of the disciples and James, the brother of our Lord,in Acts 15. Peter again says that in the early days God used him to give the gospel to the Gentiles, but now the book is transitioning to argue that Paul is taking over that role. Peter is diminished in that role and Paul and Barnabas are taking over in a trade off. Also, Peter gives some exhortation here, but he is not the last word on anything. He pleads with the people as James, who again, is not an apostle, does.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If the apostolic lists are ordered according to how "well known" they were, why are Matthew and Judas at the end? Also, if having "final authority" is inherently wrong, always leading to corruption, pride, etc., then why are husbands the head of their home? Why are there any leaders at all in the church? Why don't we just have the congregation make all the decisions together? Is it because not everyone in a local church is equally gifted, knowledgeable, skilled, mature, etc.? We appoint leaders because we recognize that those men are further along in their knowledge, gifting, skill, maturity, experience, etc. And in one sense, even though the leaders have authority in the church, the Word of God is the ultimate authority. Therefore, if the leaders sin, the people must rebuke them, and the leaders must submit to the people who bring them God's Word. The same can be true on an elder team. You have one person who is recognized as the leader of the leaders, but who is still under the authority of the Word of God. This way, Christ remains the owner and king of the household. Ultimately, though, the character of a church's leadership is FAR more important the structure of a church's leadership. That doesn't mean the structure isn't important, it just means it's far less important that character. I'd rather be in a godly, loving baptist church were you have deacons and a Sr. Pastor leading the church than an elder-run church where power plays and games are constantly occurring.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Josh,

    Thanks again. Matthew was not any better known in the early church than any of the other lesser known disciples. We just know him well because of the Gospel attributed to him, but you need to think in terms of what was going on in the early church before that. Judas, of course, would be placed last, regardless of the reason for placement of the others in the list, just because he's the traitor. But by your argument Priscilla had more authority than her husband because she is placed first when the couple are mentioned together. But she is likely placed first, not because she has more authority, or even that she is the primary speaker (as many have suggested), but likely because she is more well known, for whatever reason, to the apostles or the churches.

    I, of course, never said that authority always leads to corruption. I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. I said one needs to keep himself in check for why he wants to be overseer, and disobeying the structure God set in place seems to indicate that one does so often because of a need for control. That has nothing to do with authority structures being inherently evil, as I clearly believe in them.

    I don't believe the people have authority to rebuke the elders with the Word of God. That's why a good eldership needs to be in place. If the people can just rebuke the elders with their own private interpretations of Scripture and self appointed authority to wield that power, I'm not sure what elders are for, or how they function as anything other than employees of the congregation. The people are told to obey their leaders, not vice versa.

    The elders are elected based on character and ability, not gifting and celebrity. If they're not all mature men in Christ, then they shouldn't be elders, period. So a set of elders who are looking to a supreme elder for maturity and ability evidence a problem in the eldership. Again, you haven't answered the question as to why Paul has a problem with people deferring to Peter or Apollos or himself over the others. Could not the Corinthians have rebutted him with your argument?

    Finally, of course, we can all think of scenarios where we would rather have this than that, but it's ultimately unhelpful for what we're talking about. Paul seems to indicate in 1 Timothy that the structure itself is what combats heresy and corruption in the church. That's why it's important. Sure, I can say that I'd rather be under a distorted structure involving godly men than a perfect structure with the wicked. I'd also rather sit under a woman pastor who preached the Word of God than a male who didn't, etc. but it's not an either/or situation. We can strive to institute both structure and character in the eldership.

    And the reason why so many power plays and games are played are not because they lack a dictator among them, but because most elder boards are not made up of people who qualify to be elders in the first place. There is nepotism, immaturity in character, ignorance of the Word of God and lack of fear of God in a lot of these groups. Hence, we need to make sure we're obeying what the text lays out for us explicitly rather than making excuses as to why its OK not to follow it too closely.

    ReplyDelete
  10. btw, I just want to clarify that I don't think that everyone who doesn't follow the biblical model does so because they are self-seeking. I think most people do so because of tradition or they have come to "like" other ministries that were set up that way. Hence, they desire to emulate them. I do think, however, that we need to ask ourselves why it is we seek such a position and why have the need to be the "head elder." In other words, Josh, would you yield to one of your elders as the "first among equals" if he was more gifted and mature than you? Would you step down from that position and just become one of the other elders? That's something everyone should ask of himself, because it's easy to argue this way when one is on top, but what if another comes that is "more qualified"? I personally think it's absurd to suggest that anyone step down because of another elder when all of the elders should be working together, none greater than the others, to exalt Christ through the ministry.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, not that no one has ever made the argument, but I've never heard that the apostolic lists were ordered according to how well known they were. And I'm not sure if I'm understanding the the Priscilla and Aquila argument. First of all, two times Priscilla's name comes first in Acts 18, but Aquila's name comes first when they are first introduced. When Joseph and Mary are introduced in the gospel of Luke, Joseph's name is given first, then Mary's, but when the shepherds come and see them in chapter two, they're introduced as Mary and Joseph. In both cases, it seems to just be a stylistic issue, if anything. But that's very different from the apostolic lists which are given five times, I believe, and all five times Peter's name comes first. I can't imagine that Peter was so much more well known than James and John that his name was always first for that reason. And if his name WAS that much more well known, why is that? It's Peter that's told by Jesus to strengthen his brothers after Satan tries to destroy his faith. Why didn't he tell James or John to strengthen the twelve apostles after the whole ordeal? John would seem to be in a much better condition to be able to do so. He followed Christ to the cross and Jesus even entrusted the care of his own mother to him. Meanwhile Peter was nowhere to be found. Why didn't Jesus call on John to strengthen everyone?

    ReplyDelete
  12. And why does Paul say that James, Peter, and John "seemed to be pillars" in Galatians 2? Obviously those men stood out among the rest of the leaders (and surely there were other leaders and elders in the Jerusalem church at that time with there being thousands of Christians in that church). They didn't have more authority, but they stood out as perhaps having greater influence and leadership ability than the others. Why didn't Paul say, "I went to all the elders of the church of Jerusalem"? Why did he single out those men? And if you say, "Well, it's obvious why he singled them out. They were apostles whereas the others were just elders." If that's so, then why does he say that those three men "seemed" to be pillars? Obviously he recognized something in them that separated them from the rest of the elders. You see, in the same way that you can make an argument that "it's easy to argue this way when one is on top" (which I'm not at all in our church, by the way), I could say, "it's easy to argue that there shouldn't be a leader of leaders when you're not the leader of leaders!" Pride can get in the way of BOTH positions. And, if another man came into our church whose leadership and teaching abilities were far superior than mine, and it was evident to all, I SHOULD yield to him, in a certain sense. It doesn't necessarily mean that I stop ministering or that I can't be paid any longer for my ministry, but the church needs the person who is the most mature, gifted, knowledgeable, etc. to be the person who brings the steady diet of the Word. I was in a church where there were a number of elders. All of them were "able to teach," as the Scripture commands, but none of them were even CLOSE to being as insightful and equipped as the elder/pastor who taught regularly on Sunday. I commend the other elders for having the humility to see that and let him be the primary teacher. It's not absurd. Perhaps it demonstrates greater humility.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Also, if you only had the option of two churches: One church was led by a woman who preached the gospel with accuracy and passion, but was mistaken about the role of women in ministry. The other church was led by men, but they preached a false gospel week after week. Which church would you take your family to?

    And I never said because the structure was flawed, we "shouldn't strive to institute both structure and character." I obviously didn't say that. Of course we would strive to institute the proper structure, but I would still pick the church where the structure was off, but the leadership was loving, humble, and godly than the church where the leadership was knowledgeable and the structure was correct, but filled with pride and power plays.

    And I must say, it's very disconcerting to me that you don't think a laymen/parishoner has the ability to rebuke an elder. That concept is utterly nowhere to be found in Scripture. There has been a few situations in my church where certain issues were brought to my attention about myself that have needed correction, and they've done so in such a loving way. There was nothing unhealthy about that at all. And it would not necessarily have been easier or healthier for them to go to the other elders and have the other elders come to me about it. Do you really think the Matthew 18 process doesn't apply to elders? If an elder sins against you, do you think that parishoner should by-pass our Lord's instructions in Matthew 18 and skip step one of the church discipline process and go directly to step two? If I'm hearing you right on this point, then you're definitely wrong about this. If you tell the people in your church that they don't have the right to rebuke you if you sin against them, then you're going to have big problems. Are you saying that your wife has no authority to rebuke you just because nowhere in Scripture does it tell husbands to obey their wives? This actually runs contrary to the very model you're espousing. If Christ and His Word are King, and not any one person or group of people, then the leaders must submit to that Word when it's brought to them by the people. When I say to my congregation, "If I sin in either behavior or belief, in action or in attitude against you, you have the right to bring God's Word to my attention," I'm actually telling them that I'M NOT KING - CHRIST and His WORD are King. Yes, the church needs elders to help them understand Scripture, but in the parts of Scripture that are extremely lucid, they don't. If an elder speaks unkindly and harshly to another member of the congregation, that member can say to the elder, "You know, doesn't the Bible say that we are to 'speak the truth in love'? I hear what you're saying, but the way you said it was harsh and unkind. You seem angry." If they don't do that and just take it to the other elders, they've violated Matthew 18.

    Concerning the issue in Corinth: there is a big difference between *recognizing* a certain leader's abilities and *favoring* a certain leader's abilities. The issue in Corinth was that they were favoring one leader over another. They were making celebrities out of the leaders they favored. That's very different from simply recognizing that one leader is stronger in teaching while another leader is stronger in administration and having those two different leaders focus more on their area of strength and desire. In any given church, there are going to be certain leaders (or A leader) who teaches better (sometimes MUCH better) than the other elders. That doesn't mean those other elders aren't given teaching opportunities, that doesn't mean those other elders shouldn't even bother to become better teachers, it simply means that the steady diet comes from the one(s) who are better equipped. As John MacArthur says, "It doesn't matter what your title is, the sheep go to whomever they feel can feed them."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually, Aquila is not in a list there with his wife. It only says that Paul found Aquila who was a Jew who had come from Italy with his wife, Priscilla. So they two are not listed together there. The text just describes Paul finding Aquila, not Priscilla, who is just mentioned as the one who accompanied him on his flight from Italy. When they are, Priscilla is listed first.

    Do you have the reference for Joseph and Mary in a list? I see Mary mentioned first in a description of her and Joseph together in Luke 2:16, but don't see Joseph first somewhere else in a list, and would like to look at that.

    The only difference between a two person list and a twelve person list is the amount of people in a list. So I wouldn't see the list of disciples as fundamentally different than smaller lists. It is possible that the text seeks to emphasize a particular person for literary reasons, but this is consistent with what I've said. The person listed first is usually the one who is emphasized. Why he or she is emphasized most often has to do with how well known he or she may be to the author or the audience. The emphasis can be, however, for other reasons the character is meant to stand out within the narrative. What I don't see is the argument that one can make that because one stands at the beginning of a list, that person has more authority or is the leader of the others in the group. That's why I brought up Priscilla and Aquila.

    "I can't imagine that Peter was so much more well known than James and John that his name was always first for that reason. And if his name WAS that much more well known, why is that? It's Peter that's told by Jesus to strengthen his brothers after Satan tries to destroy his faith."

    But you've answered your own question here. He was more well known because Christ had done this with him. He was more well known because of the epic failures and restorations surrounding him. Jesus told him to do this because he was restoring him. He was the one who denied Christ three times, so three times he is exhorted and encouraged. I don't think it's any leap to make as to why it's Peter that gets this from Christ as opposed to James and John. And Peter is more well known than James and John to churches (as well as the Roman officials). James is martyred very early on and would not have been known for much more than that on a larger scale. John, as I've said before, isn't seen as doing much until he gets older and writes his Gospel and letters. So it's Peter and Paul who are best known, together with James, the brother of our Lord.

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Pillars" just mean a support for the truth. The Church as a whole is a pillar and support for the truth. That doesn't mean it has some authority or influence over the truth. A support is a support. We need to ask in what way they were a support.

    "They didn't have more authority, but they stood out as perhaps having greater influence and leadership ability than the others. Why didn't Paul say, "I went to all the elders of the church of Jerusalem"?

    I somewhat agree with you here, but I think that you take the people giving these leaders more clout than other apostles as a standard we should mimic, and I see it as a concession that Paul is making in order to argue that actually he is just as great in terms of authority as they are, and that his gospel does not rely upon them. In other words, he takes the people that his opponents would uphold as the most prominent among the apostles and church leadership and he basically argues that he, the least of all the apostles, is equal in authority, and therefore should also be in his influence, to them and their influence. So I actually think that Paul is arguing against what you are arguing for them here. And this is consistent with what he says in Corinthians.

    "I was in a church where there were a number of elders. All of them were "able to teach," as the Scripture commands, but none of them were even CLOSE to being as insightful and equipped as the elder/pastor who taught regularly on Sunday. I commend the other elders for having the humility to see that and let him be the primary teacher. It's not absurd. Perhaps it demonstrates greater humility."

    If the church's sanctification was based on the ability of a man, then I would agree; but it isn't. It's based on the Word of God, and hence, if those other elders are "able to teach" the Word of God truly, then that Word is just as transforming, even without all of the bells and whistles of a particular man. Again, the eldership has nothing to do with gifting. I think that's where we're running into each other more as well. Everyone can use his or her gifts in whatever capacity, elder or not, without setting up a hierarchy within the eldership.

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. btw, I think it's true that pride can come from both directions. That's not in dispute. I'm just wondering if push comes to shove if anyone has actually ever stepped down for this reason. And I'm speaking as someone who has most often been shoved to the front of line, above others because of my ability. I just don't think that is right. But I digress, since it only begs the question to say whether it is right or not apart from the biblical evidence.

    I do want to point out again, though, that your entire argument stems from a speculation about description rather than any prescription to actually set up the elders this way.

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. "if you only had the option of two churches . . ."

    Why would you ask me this? I've already said I'd take them to the former. I've sat under plenty of churches (most of them) that did not follow the biblical model. I make concessions, but that does not cause me to back off from attempting to reform toward the ideal.

    "And I never said because the structure was flawed, we "shouldn't strive to institute both structure and character." I obviously didn't say that. Of course we would strive to institute the proper structure, but I would still pick the church where the structure was off, but the leadership was loving, humble, and godly than the church where the leadership was knowledgeable and the structure was correct, but filled with pride and power plays."

    I agree, but you seemed to be making the argument that so many make concerning this issue, "Well, we may not be perfect in structure, but that's less important because we have godly men leading the church, so it's OK if we've gone awry on that after all is said and done." If you weren't making that argument, then we're good on that.

    "And I must say, it's very disconcerting to me that you don't think a laymen/parishoner has the ability to rebuke an elder. That concept is utterly nowhere to be found in Scripture."

    LOL. Josh, now your grabbing at the Scripture for authority when it's not going to back you up on this. The laity can bring accusations against an elder if they have two or three witnesses, but the judges of that elder are other elders, not the laity. You never see the laity in judgment over the elder. They are told to submit to him, obey him, pay tribute to him, etc. He is their judge. They are not his. That's why you need multiple elders to hold other elders in check, and that's why you need elders who are qualified. You're arguing backwards from experience of people who shouldn't have been elders in the first place, and a congregations moving beyond its bounds to rectify a problem that needed to be rectified, to what the Scripture actually says on the matter.

    The Scripture sets up elders as the authority. In the Bible, an authority is not subject to its subjects. That is simply an absurd anachronism that can only be made by a modern Westerner who is heavily influenced in his thinking about authority in terms of democracies and republics. I agree that many times we can't obey the biblical model because we're so messed up we need to go beyond it to try to straighten things out again, but this is a dangerous move, as it sets a precedent that could oust genuinely qualified elders who do not please the masses.

    If you want a good modern analogy, if you have the power to fire your boss, and your boss has the power to fire you, none of you really has any power to fire anyone. Now, it would be you who is making the argument that all are equals and no authority really exists between elder and laity. I'd think again about this argument.

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Now, what you've described here are two different things: a personal sin you commit against someone that is brought to your attention by that individual and the authority to judge you on the matter. So maybe I should have been more clear. I believe that someone can bring to you a complaint, even about you. As a fellow Christian, and a model for other Christians, you should obey Matt 18 IF YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE SINNED. You see, the issue becomes sticky when you both disagree about what the Scripture says on the matter, and whether you have sinned or are doing something right in the eyes of God. Who is to judge the matter? Should the layman defer to you or you to the layman? That's what I was getting at. If the layman still thinks it is an issue, and you are sinning against him, let him bring it to the elders as a complaint. If they agree with him, then you should ask for forgiveness, submitting to the elders. If they do not agree with him, then he needs to submit to them, not continue to try to oust you for sinning. Do you see what I mean here? Maybe I'm not making myself clear on this.

    "Concerning the issue in Corinth: there is a big difference between *recognizing* a certain leader's abilities and *favoring* a certain leader's abilities. The issue in Corinth was that they were favoring one leader over another. They were making celebrities out of the leaders they favored. That's very different from simply recognizing that one leader is stronger in teaching while another leader is stronger in administration and having those two different leaders focus more on their area of strength and desire. In any given church, there are going to be certain leaders (or A leader) who teaches better (sometimes MUCH better) than the other elders. That doesn't mean those other elders aren't given teaching opportunities, that doesn't mean those other elders shouldn't even bother to become better teachers, it simply means that the steady diet comes from the one(s) who are better equipped. As John MacArthur says, "It doesn't matter what your title is, the sheep go to whomever they feel can feed them."

    I think that this distinction here is arbitrarily made and it doesn't have a genuine application to real life. If the sheep are going to whomever they think will feed them, and those sheep are attracted to the most gifted or prominent in their minds (simply because people usually go to whomever they think is closest to God and can get them close too), then favoritism and deferring to one who is viewed as a greater teacher than the others seems to be exactly the same thing, and exactly what is going on in Corinth. If you remember, the issue is precisely about the insightfulness of a particular teacher's teaching. That's the whole point of Paul talking about the wisdom of men versus the wisdom of the Spirit that all teachers have in the Word. That's why he discounts the insightfulness of men and says that there should be no deferment to one teacher over another. That's the whole point. So MacArthur is arguing against Paul at this point. This is a flaw among the sheep that needs to be corrected, not something that we should encourage by setting up our authority structures this way.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I never said that everyone should submit to each other, or that no one should have authority over anyone. But I do believe there are occasions in which elders are to submit to the people of the church in matters of sin. That's why I used the word "rebuke." And I do find it interesting that Jesus doesn't single out the leadership of a church when giving instructions about church discipline in Matthew 18. The final authority lies with the whole church, not just the elders (18:17). And the decision to oust an unrepentant person is based on the majority's opinion (2 Cor.2:6). So there does seem to be a certain authority that is granted to the church - a fact that is important for leaders to keep in mind.

    Question for you: What does Paul mean when he says, "Let the elders who rule WELL be considered worthy of double honor" (1 Tim.5:17)? Does he mean ...

    OPTION #1: Some elders lead/govern/rule well and others don't. But that would imply that Paul's allowing for negligent leaders on an elder team. In other words: "Let the elders who are good at their job be paid, but let the elders who are bad at their job not be paid." Obviously Paul doesn't mean that. Therefore he must mean ...

    OPTION #2: Some elders rule ESPECIALLY well, while others just rule sufficiently. If this is the preferred interpretation, then obviously there is some sort of a distinction made among the elders. It's not that the elders who rule especially well have more authority, but because they are a little further down the road in terms of knowledge, maturity, experience, etc., they are distinguished and therefore naturally carry greater influence. He is responsible for training up elders who are younger, less experienced, less knowledgeable, etc. In training these less experienced elders, he is, therefore, a leader of leaders - not in AUTHORITY, but in ABILITY. You don't have to give him any special title like "pastor" or "lead pastor" (while everyone else is referred to as "elder"), but there is a natural recognition among the church that certain elders provide leadership to other elders.

    Also, just because something isn't prescribed doesn't automatically mean it's prohibited either. The Spirit of God has left a number of ecclesialogical questions ambiguous. We are to depend upon His power first and foremost instead having every single detail spelled out for us. Some churches may ask one of the elders to be a leader among the leaders and to bring the Word to them every Sunday. It may not be prescribed, but neither is it prohibited. If you're going to say it's prohibited, then you're going to have to find a prescriptive passage that explicitly prohibits it. :-)

    I'm not interested in gaining control or being "the top guy" who has the most authority and the final say. I just want what's healthy and biblical. I don't want to be the one in control, but neither do I want a church to lack the necessary leadership it needs to function properly.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks again, Josh. I appreciate your straining to find a good argument. It shows that you're thinking through this, but I have some issues still with what you've said.

    Well, of course, punishment has to be given by the church majority because the final step in church discipline is taking the sin to the church and telling the church to shun the individual. If they don’t inflict this punishment upon the individual, they’re not in submission to the direction of the elders. But this is a matter of discipline directed by the elders, not directed by the majority, so I think you’re trying to look for something that isn’t there. The congregation does not have authority to “rebuke” an elder. They have the authority to bring a grievance to him. There is a major difference. Your children don’t have the authority, with or without the Word of God, to rebuke you. They can bring a grievance to you.

    Josh, the difference between our views is that mine is actually informed by the ancient world’s understanding of authority and procedures to bring grievances and yours is still reading the texts through a modern Western grid. You need to see what is said in light of monarchic, tribal, patriarchal, top-down, authority structures which are to govern with concern and listen to those over whom they are placed, but those over whom they are placed are commanded to obey, not rebuke their elders. If they have a complaint, they have to bring it to the individual elder with whom they have a problem. If they make an accusation against him to the elders, they have to have two or three witnesses, and then judgment is left to the elders. It is never the prerogative of the laity to rebuke/correct an elder. This type of thinking is why we have so many church splits and heresy running rampant. Every man is his own authority when he doesn’t agree with your authority anymore. There are no occasions when you should submit to your children. You can hear them out and act upon their requests and complaints, but they don’t sit in judgment over you in order to rebuke and correct you. Those things are the job of those in authority. A servant doesn’t rebuke his master to where his master must submit to him. A subject doesn’t rebuke a king so that sometimes the king submits to him. A child does not rebuke the head of the family so that the head of the family sometimes submits to him. That’s not the way authority works in the Bible. Authority represents God, even though it does so imperfectly. That’s why Roman Christians are told to obey Nero. They are not told to rebuke him. Michael the Archangel dares not rebuke the devil due to his higher rank, but instead says, “May the Lord rebuke you.” So positions of authority should not be set aside sometimes in order for the people to be allowed to rebuke the leadership, precisely, because that leadership represents God whose authority is not to be set aside at any time.

    So, again, there is no evidence that the laity have authority to rebuke/correct elders at all. They can bring up complaints. They can bring up objections if anyone knows of any secret conduct of someone becoming an elder, but it needs to be established with other witnesses and it is only brought to the eldership to be judged by them.

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. To answer your question about 1 Tim 5:18, it’s actually Option 1, not Option 2, because he says that these elders are ruling well. Hence, they deserve “double honor.” So if these elders are doing something in distinction from other elders by working hard at preaching and teaching, that means the other elders aren’t working hard at preaching and teaching, and therefore, not ruling well. You can’t divorce the concept of them teaching as opposed to others with the idea that working hard at preaching and teaching is what Paul means by ruling well. Hence, those who aren’t working hard and preaching and teaching aren’t ruling well. That’s the whole point. You’re trying to make it about a group of elders who teach versus those who don’t teach, or don’t teach as much or as well, but that isn’t what the text says. It says that one group is working hard at preaching and teaching, and therefore, ruling well, as opposed to the other (hypothetical) group who is not. Hence, the worker is worthy of his wages. Give them (not him) double honor/wages. So it can’t mean option two, because you have to cut the verse to pieces and leave out half of what is said in order to do that.

    “Also, just because something isn't prescribed doesn't automatically mean it's prohibited either. The Spirit of God has left a number of ecclesialogical questions ambiguous. We are to depend upon His power first and foremost instead having every single detail spelled out for us. Some churches may ask one of the elders to be a leader among the leaders and to bring the Word to them every Sunday. It may not be prescribed, but neither is it prohibited. If you're going to say it's prohibited, then you're going to have to find a prescriptive passage that explicitly prohibits it. :-)”

    LOL. I’m Reformed, not Lutheran, so I believe in the regulative principle, not what you described above. I believe that if the Scripture has set up one structure, that’s the structure that should be followed, regardless of whether any other structure isn’t explicitly prohibited. Having a juggling monkey entertain the church during the sermon isn’t explicitly prohibited either, but I would still say it’s wrong.

    And you have to remember, Josh, this wasn’t ambiguous for them. They understand tribal and familial language. We don’t. We understand democratic and republican language, so we’re continually trying to read that into the text. It then becomes confusing for us when things don’t line up. It’s because we’re looking through the wrong glasses.

    Again, I don’t think the church is going to blow up, or that God will not work through His preached Word because the structure is wrong. I just think that it isn’t healthy to institute something based on our own reasoning and experience over the Word of God’s witness. And I have seen, many times, the problems that arise because of it. Are there other problems that could arise from the biblical model? Sure, especially when the qualifications are not held up when elders are instituted in the first place, but I’m not willing to die for a man-made model of ministry when I can do so for God’s model that more accurately represents what He wanted in the church. Twelve were named out of his disciples, to govern the rest, not one with eleven supporters. The one who advances among them, the one who is their king, their leader, the head Shepherd and elder, is Christ, and the same should go for us.

    I could get into the practical side of this by mentioning how unwise it is to let one lead over the others, but why do I need to prove the worthiness of the biblical model over other models? Again, Josh, what you need to show is that the Bible supports something other than an elder rule model, where all elders have equal authority and leadership, no one of them ascending higher than the others, other than to take turns exercising their roles and directing.

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. “I'm not interested in gaining control or being "the top guy" who has the most authority and the final say. I just want what's healthy and biblical. I don't want to be the one in control, but neither do I want a church to lack the necessary leadership it needs to function properly.”

    Sure, I don’t think you do either, Josh; but many do want to rule. In fact, more than just a few, but the majority of pastors I have known desire to rule and have control. Many of them are control freaks, and that is why they want to be at the head. They can’t let others have equal authority. It scares them too much that things will get out of control, as though it was their own personal church over which they needed to have sovereignty. I only want what is healthy and for the church to function properly as well, but we can’t be the decision makers in what is healthy and functioning properly, because we don’t have Christ’s view of things. We may things are going great for 50 years and only then, or even after we die, things fall apart precisely because we have been cultivating a destructive structure and mindset in the church eldership and laity. That’s why I’m pressing you for a biblical foundation that is more than just something built on cursory readings and prooftexts. Give me the strongest prescriptive argument you’ve got. ;-)
    If you can’t muster one up, or find yourself stretching the texts, maybe that means you should look again at the model for which you’re advocating.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, first let me say, I don't think we're that different in our models. I certainly agree that a church should be ruled by a plurality of elders who have equal authority, where the people are to humbly submit themselves to them. I have regularly told our church that we shouldn't allow western, democratic ideologies to govern our thinking, but should, instead, look to Scripture. And we have done that. We are currently building a team of elders who have equal authority. The reason this church got into trouble is because the guy who started this church viewed it as his baby, and he felt he had the right to fire me whenever he wanted because he was, essentially, the CEO and chairman, and I was the hired hand. I spent countless hours trying to convince him that no one elder holds more authority over other elders, but to no avail. So, trust me when I say that our models for leadership are not that far apart.

    And concerning the church discipline issue, I truly don't believe that I'm the one who is "trying to look for something that isn't there." Yes, the elders provide the necessary guidance to the church throughout that process, but the final decision belongs to the church, not the board of elders. Paul said the decision is inflicted on the unrepentant person "by the majority." Jesus said to "take it to the church." In both instances, there is no mention of the eldership. Certainly the eldership is involved, but it seems, to me, at least, you're actually the one looking for something that's not there in this case.

    And your illustrations of ancient patriarchal culture, etc. fall short. You're trying to make kings and patriarchs analogous to elders who rule and have final authority, but that goes against the very point of your article. The point is that the church is a different entity than the organizations of the world. The church's king and patriarch is Christ, not the elder board. Christ and his Word has the ultimate authority in a church. This is evidenced when Peter said, "It is better to obey God than men." They had the authority to disobey and essentially ignore those spiritual leaders because those men were in direct conflict with Christ and His Word. It is the same in the church.

    And I think you're simply being playful with your language when you talk about the difference between bringing a grievance and a rebuke. If an elder speaks a harsh, unkind word to someone in the church, according to Matthew 18, that person is to go directly, and privately, to the elder and "show him his wrong." Perhaps you don't view that as a rebuke, but I certainly do.

    Having said all that, though, I think your overall points are well received, and I believe I've been sharpened by the dialogue. You're right. Most pastors are control freaks who are scared to death of losing that control, and it leads to all sorts of harm. I agree that there shouldn't be one person who is above anyone in anyway. I have a lot to consider. Thank you for your time and wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks Josh. I don't think we're that far apart either. Just to clarify a couple things though:

    The reason why I brought up the analogies between those types of government is not because the eldership mimics those authorities directly, but because they display what having authority means in the ancient world. It is top down, never flipped. That's why a grievance is not the same as a rebuke. A rebuke does not consider the position of the individual as superior. A grievance approaches an authority very differently. It is Abraham pleading with God, "Should not the judge of all the earth do what is right?" not the rebuke of a superior, "You're not doing what is right and you're going to need to do otherwise now." Do you see the difference?

    Likewise, taking something to the Church means taking it to the Church. You seem to be equating "church" with the idea that the laity have disciplinary authority. The same goes for the "penalty by the majority" in 2 Cor. But both of these don't say anything about the laity having authority. That was my point. You're reading that into it. They just say that the laity are involved. But if we understand that judging authority is for the elders, then we understand, in light of 1 Cor 5-6, that the laity are only involved in that they obey the eldership now and not associate with one under discipline. We're never told they're involved in passing judgment on the matter.

    And that actually creates a problem, because, according to 1 Tim 2:11-12, disciplinary authority can only be exercised by men (specifically elders), so what you end up doing if you believe that the laity have disciplinary authority is to include the women among the laity in that authority and end up breaking 1 Tim 2:11-12 and 1 Cor 14:34-35. I think it's much more consistent to take everything that is said in Scripture, with the understanding of the way authority works in the ancient world, to mean that the laity only participate in their obedience to the decision of the elders to convince or shun an unrepentant so-called brother rather than seeing it as a joint decision of the majority. The majority are those who obeyed and worked to convince or shun, not those who passed judgment (I'm of course assuming that the majority refers to the larger congregation rather than the group of elders.) So the decision does not belong to the laity at all, except that they decide to obey or not to obey the leadership's decision.

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  25. "This is evidenced when Peter said, "It is better to obey God than men." They had the authority to disobey and essentially ignore those spiritual leaders because those men were in direct conflict with Christ and His Word. It is the same in the church."

    Yeah, this is a sticky issue because 1. this is a secular authority defying what God has clearly said to the apostles, and 2. most conflicts arise when you have people think that God is on their side and the other side is in the wrong. That leads to church splits when no one submits to authority. If the elders are chosen correctly, then the laity should defer to them, as God leads His church through them. So it's not really just a matter of doing what God says over man, but doing what you think God says versus what the authorities God has instituted to speak for God say God says. Obviously, if someone is in clear violation of the Scripture to where he cannot even claim to be basing his thought or actions on Scripture, then he has no authority at all (the authority of the elders is interpretive and disciplinary authority of the Scripture, so they cannot move beyond those spheres, lest they lose any authority they have). So my point really has to do with when two groups conflict. You're always going to have laity think the Scripture says one thing and you think it says another. That's the scenario I'm thinking of here.

    Thanks again, Josh. I appreciate you making me draw out these things further. God bless you and your ministry, my friend.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.