Pagan Christianity

[WillyG]

Jac,

Interesting post.

Second, I think everyone can agree that there are some who are specially gifted in the area of teaching. Whether they are elders or not, the question of how they are to function in this "organic church" (I appreciate the sentiment in the phrase--I just really don't like it, but labels are what they are). One of the nagging questions I had while reading PC was why the heavy emphasis on "the meeting"? Is a teacher (or teachers) to teach at every meeting? If not, what must be done at every meeting? What if there is no singing? What if there is no exhortation? What if people just meet, have a good meal, and leave? Viola seems to think that isn't "really" church. This, I think, may be an issue that needs serious clarification--when you promote non-organization as your organization, are you not bordering on self-contradiction? Just as "non-denominationalism" turns out to be its own type of denomination, so "non-organization" turns out to be an organization in and of itself.

For certain, organic churches have organization, because anything without organization is just confusion. I can't speak for Frank, but in DC, we have an organization that changes from meeting to meeting as the Spirit leads. The points is, "where two or more are gathered in My Name, there I will be also." If a couple friends get together to have a meal and talk sports, that isn't a meeting of the Church (even if both friends are Christians). When brothers and sisters get together to share the Lord and break bread, that's a meeting of the Church. The bottom line is that form follows function. And therein lies the organization, which changes as the needs and functions of the Church change.

In that case, I have a specific question about a particular function of the elder. In what sense is he to be obeyed?

Full disclosure: I'm pretty sure Viola and I will have strong disagreement here. I do not agree with a congregational style rule. I believe firmly in an elder rule. I wouldn't call the elders a distinct class of Christians (i.e., the laity/clergy distinction), but I would say that these are people who are operating in a very specific capacity within the local church. That is, I think they have real authority, not just more influence. I do realize that Viola doesn't like authority in human realms, especially as it relates to Christianity. That's just a standard theological position (egalitarianism) that I firmly disagree with (which goes back to our debate over The Shack and the egalitarian view of the Trinity, which I openly call heresy).

I don't think we have enough common ground here to have a discussion. In my experience, an elder doesn't care if he or she is obeyed, he or she cares if God is obeyed. Someone who wants to be obeyed should join a firmly hierarchical human institution, like the military or a private business. Even if someone wants to be obeyed in the church (which I have a hard time wrapping my mind around), upon what threat would that person enforce his or her authority? They aren't God, so they can't threaten the soul, and we don't live in Afghanistan, so they can't threaten life and limb. What can they possibly hold at risk to coerce others? Kicking someone out of the church? If it comes to that, such a move hardly seems like much of a threat at all: the meaningful emotional ties to others in the church will already be likely severed (or may not be affected, depending on how close the people were beforehand), and the recipient of the discipline has his or her choice of local churches to begin attending.

I apologize if that last paragraph is shrill, but in my experience "obedience" is a byword for bullying. "'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the LORD. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.' This is what the LORD says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the LORD Almighty is his name." I'm not a theologian or scholar, so I'm not sure what the ramifications of "egalitarianism" are outside of its denotation in the English language. But in that basic dictionary sense, we are certainly all equals before the Lord.

"The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went along. 24The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."

27Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. 29So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?"

30Cornelius answered: "Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me 31and said, 'Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. 32Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.' 33So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us."

34Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. 36You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

39"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days."

Love you all.

In Christ,

Will

[ageofknowledge]

Age,

You'll certainly hear no disagreement from me regarding the need for a Shepherd to tend to His flock. But if we usurp that role, or give in to the temptation to institutionalize it, we risk making ourselves the head of the Church rather than allowing Jesus to be the Head. In such circumstances, I often think of Uzzah, who "reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God." I think we can all relate to Uzzah. He saw the Ark of the Covenant in danger, and he reached out to steady it. But his act treated God like God didn't exist--like He was powerless to care for the Ark Himself. He acted on a human, not a divine, impulse. We should avoid Uzzah's mistake. If God tells us to steady the Ark, we are His instrument in steadying it. But if we simply look around and see that the Ark is falling with nothing to steady it, and we take it upon ourselves to remedy the problem, we walk where angels fear to tread.

Right. Good point. However, he did appoint Moses and allow him to appoint helpers (Exodus 18). Yet Moses and his helpers were to there to follow God's leading and work to enable more good to come from God leading. Consider Numbers 25:6-9 which is an example of the community policing itself after coming to understand God's will. But a will that was communicated to them through Moses and his helpers.

God is there. God is the Good Shepherd, and He can tend to His flock. As Christians, we worry too much. God is in control. He doesn't need us to steady the Ark. He can bear it up on angels' wings, if need be. As John said, "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." As Bart has already amply explained, the Lord has given gifts to the Church (preaching, teaching, shepherding, etc) not in the form of offices, but in the form of people given by God to the Church to satisfy Her needs. We have people in the church in DC whom we respect and listen to--some would probably call them "elders." We don't offer them any title (or compensation), and, praise God, they don't ask for either one! They don't "lord it over us like the Gentiles do." They are brothers and sisters, meeting a need. Likewise, I am sure God has shepherded me many times using the encouragement and teaching of other brothers and sisters. These things happen naturally; no one has (yet) printed up business cards.

There is truth here to be sure; however, after God expresses His will then people decide what they are going to do about it. God said love one another yet Nazism arose and murdered millions of people. Jesus said He wanted us all to be one even as He and the father are one and we won't give an ibuprofen to a dying Christian at a small group fellowship. Lol... The devil and his host of false teachers, anti-christs, and evil workers are actively attempting to exploit weaknesses. You're too nonchalant and naive here friend. There is a serious spiritual war afoot. If you let them, they will come in and lead people astray, pit Christian against Christian, wreck and kill the spiritual life of everyone they possibly can... especially new believers.

P.S. if this is THE WillyG who knows Pastor Joe at VO of Whittier a GREAT BIG HELLO to you. I haven't seen you in a few years but still remember that excellent concert you put on there. Peace.

[WillyG]

Age,

Unfortunately, another WillyG. I wish I could put on a concert!

I may be naive. But what I described has not led me or others astray (as far as I can discern) over the past several years of meeting. Satan does prowl about like a lion, but he is not God's equal. We can't go wrong trusting in God. That isn't a call to inaction; it's just a call to act on spiritual, rather than human, impulses.

Love you all!

In Christ,

Will

[Jac3510]

Will,

Thanks for the reply. Let me just hone in on the issue of eldership and authority. What do you make of the following verses?

• The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. (1 Tim 5:17)

While this verse is (justifiably, I think) often used to defend clergy salaries, the more important phrase for our discussion is "direct the affairs of the church." Who is to do that? The elders. Contrary to congregationalist ideas, the whole congregation doesn't make the choices. Paul here says the elders are to do that (which is why they are so carefully chosen/recognized).

• Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb 13:17)

Does this not flatly say that some men have authority over others? The context is hardly secular. Note in verse seven the word "leader" (same in Greek) is expressly used there to refer to those who "speak the word of Christ to you" (sounds like evangelists/teachers).

• To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Pet 5:1-3)

Again, is this not plain? Notice what Peter says about elders:

1. The flock is under their care;
2. They are oveerseers of said flock;
3. The assignment over overseeing a flock under them is from God;
4. They are not do to this work out of a desire for money (which presupposes payment), but out of a desire for service;
5. This function is capable of being abused, in that these men can "lord it over" the flock. This presupposes power, which is consistent with the rest of the NT.

As much as Mr. Viola rightly points out that we read our own cultures into the Bible when we justify things like sermons, ceo-styled pastorates, and church buildings, I'm afraid he might be reading a bit of his own egalitarianism (which is a strictly 21st century phenomenon!) into the text! I don't think NT Christianity or the NT Church is one without authority, or even one without human authority (it wasn't in the Garden; it wasn't in Israel; it wasn't during Jesus' earthly ministry; it won't be during the Millennium; why should we expect it to be one now?!?). But authority, which is all from God and given from Him, is to be administered in a God-honoring way by following Christ's examples.

Now, I know you disagree, so I'm interested in your take on those verses especially. And, I'll say to you as you are fairly new to the thread, the reason I asked Bart to start this in the first place is that I am broadly sympathetic to his ideas. I'm more on his side than not. I'm interested in how many of these things get played out. I just think this is one area where he might be mistaken.

Thanks again.

[ageofknowledge]

Age,

Unfortunately, another WillyG. I wish I could put on a concert!

I may be naive. But what I described has not led me or others astray (as far as I can discern) over the past several years of meeting. Satan does prowl about like a lion, but he is not God's equal. We can't go wrong trusting in God. That isn't a call to inaction; it's just a call to act on spiritual, rather than human, impulses.

Love you all!

In Christ,

Will

I haven't experienced and or even had a chance to examine what you experienced. I acknowledge that if it is working, don't fix (e.g. break) it.

We're kind of looking at this thing big picture WillyG as in what works in the micro and the macro. What you are doing is working. But will it scale upwards if a big revival arises in it?

[DannyM]

Danny,

Thanks for taking the time to read my post. I'll offer two clarifications.

When I mentioned "false teachings," I meant to draw a distinction between those and outright falsehoods, like, "Christ was not the Messiah," or "God is not three Persons." When the sharing during the meeting addresses basic matters of doctrine, that sharing tends to focus on the nature, sacrifice, and resurrection of Christ. As I stated earlier, I have yet to encounter a situation in several years of organic church life where sharing contradicts the basic precepts of Christian religion. If we did have such a situation, I think the Body would handle it as I mentioned in my earlier post. Probably not much need to elaborate.

However, we all encounter the false teachings I referenced earlier in any church (institutional, organic, or otherwise) we might attend. We listen to a sermon that perhaps echoes the basic precepts of Christianity, yet it misses the point. The words grieve our Spirit. We want to get out of there. I am sure all of us have experienced this before. Nothing being said DIRECTLY contradicts any Christian creeds, but the spirit of the words invalidates what we know to be the truth of God in Christ.

An example might help. In most American churches, the teaching tends to focus on either 1) sins to avoid or 2) Christian disciplines to practice. The messages are works-oriented. They seem to convey the thinking, "If you [do/don't do] this [Christian discipline/sin behavior], God will be more satisfied with you." Yet we know that Christ is already fully-satisfied with us--there is absolutely nothing our finite lives and behaviors can do to add to or detract from the infinite nature of His sacrifice (do not take this as an endorsement of license). But the bottom-line point of this example is that a message about my behaviors seems to indirectly cast doubt on the perfect the work of Christ. To me, that is a false teaching.

Our response in the institutional/consumer model of church is probably to look for another church, because institutional churches are disposable. There are probably tens of thousands for me to choose from in the DC metro area, so I can go somewhere else that tickles my ears a little more pleasantly (or, in a more pious vernacular, that doesn't grieve my Spirit as much).

But in an organic church, the point isn't the goodness or badness of the teaching. The point isn't that the singing is great, that it makes me feel happy inside. The point isn't for me to personally grow into a spiritual giant. The point is for Christ's need to be satisfied. What is His need? He wants one Body, composed of many members. He wants one Bride, perfectly proportional and seamless. "Foxes have holes, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head." He wants a home. WE (not I) are that Home. We are His Body. We are His Bride. That's why His spends the last hours of His earthly life begging and praying for unity, that we may be one as He and His Father are one. When you hurt me and I turn the other cheek, or when you say something that is false and my Spirit says, "Let it be," even when the old man screams, "Strike him down! Falsehood!!!" THAT is the peace that surpasses understanding. That peace isn't some flaky emotion, meaningful to me but meaningless to US. The peace that means something to Christ is the peace in our relationship with each other. The peace He craves is His love, expressed in you to me and in me to you.

That peace expresses itself when I place His need above my "wish dream." The term is short-hand for a concept described by Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his book "Life Together." At this link (http://www.hiswayministries.org/fddisillusion.htm), there is a VERY short essay that encapsulates the whole message of his book. Bottom line: the false teachings we lash out against most in church are not central elements of Christian theology--they are minor disagreements blown out of proportion because they contradict our vision of the church. We ALL have a wish dream--we all want the church to look like the perfect image in our heads, and anything that contradicts that perfect image we call "false teaching." If you preach a social gospel, and I believe in conservatism, then I use the Scripture to tear you apart, and you do likewise. That is the whole, entire history of Christendom in a nutshell. Which is why we have 33,000 denominations and a history just as bloody and sinful as any false religion. What a testimony.

When I say we bear with false teaching, what I mean is that I permit others to trample my wish dream (in my more Christ-centered moments). Because I am human, sometimes I don't, and then they let me trample their wish dream. All of this is better known as the Cross. The Church is One Body, perfected in love, because you are my Cross to bear. When I permit your false teaching, I actually "take up the Cross and follow Him." He didn't respond to His accusers, either. In fact, as they insulted and murdered Him, He prayed, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they are doing." THAT is the peace that surpasses understanding. THAT is church life.

I apologize again that I have taken so long to describe a very simple concept: bearing with one another. "Though He slay me, yet shall I love Him." And when we hear the many members say that to one another, we see church life, whether it occurs in a building or in a family room. The life, not the location, make the gathering satisfying to Christ.

Love you all. Hope this helps.

In Christ,

Will

Will,

You clarified that for me perfectly. Thank you very much. Do not apologise for the length of your reply — it was a pleasure to read. What really hits the spot for me is when you say that faith alone does not mean an endorsement for license. Paul spoke of faith alone; James spoke of faith not being any good without deeds. For me there's a middle ground: Paul, for me, was simply decrying the old laws of the Jews; while James was speaking of the (obvious) need to look after those in trouble and not turn away from them. Thus, while faith alone in the glory of Christ will save you, this means not that we can just go about our daily lives with no concern for others, especially those in needs. And, as you rightly say, faith alone does not mean we have license to sin.

I hope I've read you right.

I can empathise totally with you on the “false teachings” that are merely minor in the scheme of things. It is good that we challenge each other on such issues. So long as you don't say to me, Dan, Jesus wasn't fully human or wasn't fully divine or wasn't God incarnate then I'll refrain from having heart palpitations… ha ha

Peace to you brother.

Dan

[joanne]

Age, I too am concerned about the Big Picture. But I think that the Big Picture, if this movement towards organic church grows, and the institutionalized church wanes, then our template may look a bit like what is happening in China and South Korea. There are untold numbers of small (tiny, really; in North Korea a gathering of believers is usually two people) gatherings who are connected with each other in an amazing webwork of communication both spiritual and physical ("The Heavenly Man" is an excellent book for discovering what the organic church movement would look like on a grand scale).

Clearly there are people whom others naturaly gravitate towards, who speak the words of God, who lead from underneath and many cooperate with them. We would call them natural born leaders, and such people show up in every venue. I'm married to a natural born leader. I can tell because I usualy end up leading in the groups I'm in, if there isn't already strong leadership, and I discovered early on an inner desire to cooperate with my husband (before we were married). I've watched, over the years, how he unconsciously ends up leading, and people love to cooperate with him, admire him and look to him for counsel. There is nothing ungodly in this. It is, in fact, from an anthropological point of view, perfectly natural human behavior.

In an organic structure, there are going to be people who are organizers, Big Picture people, strategists, if you will, those who inspire and spur on, those who analyze, those who are the sweet glue that keeps everyone together, and those who are the Doers, working hard and asking for more. That's the body, and Paul talks about it. But the body works cooperatively together, there is no lord who must be obeyed Or Else. The only lord is our Lord Jesus, Messiah, Who directs supernaturally.

Anthropologically speaking, there is a certain maximum number for a group in which every person can participate. it's 50. Over fifty, and there will be some who, as we say, slip through the cracks. Interestingly enough, the Quakers intuitively reached this understanding four hundred years ago and limited their gatherings to 7 times 7 people. But what do we do if a gathering grows to more than fifty people? What do we do with organizations that, in order to pool resources for very big projects, must become very large? Can representative governance work?

Well, it can, and it did in the New Testament, but there was certainly a twist to it, in that the church in Jerusalem, the whole church ultimately made decisions together which would affect all Christians everywhere (Acts 15). So that involved more than the apostles, more than local elders and even deacons, but every person. It didn't involve any representantives from any of the other outlying churches. Huh, right? Yeah, I don't know what to think about that, but it is sure interesting, anyway.

Today, in massive aroganizations, there are the core leaders, and the typical heirarchical structure (except I think the Quakers still make major decisions unanimously; would have to check that out). Nothing wrong with that, so long as it is not how the local gatherings of believers operate. And there must always be a willingness to cooperate, since that is actually what Paul instructed, rather than master/servant obedience (at least according to the Greek scholars I've read)

[DannyM]

Danny,

No worries on the typos. I'm the king of that myself. I often put my head down and plough through something I'm trying to say and my spelling and grammar suffer for it if I don't go back and clean up and I don't always so no apologies needed.

You know the score! Thanks Bart.

Were there church locations before Constantine? I think there is evidence that there might have been. There's no evidence within the NT itself of any. In PC, Viola and Barna say that the first recorded use of the word ekklesia to the refer to a Christian meeting place was Clement of Alexandria around AD 190. In that instance though, he wasn't referring to a dedicated building. He was referring to a home.

According to PC, and it's extensively footnoted, there were no dedicated building for christians meeting until after 300 AD. It indeed didn't become common until Constantine and the reason is pretty obvious, in that there was persecution and many of the meetings were underground figuratively (and in the case of the church in Rome, literally.)

So, of course believers met in buildings and not in the open. The issue isn't that buildings are bad. They're tools. God doesn't dwell in buildings. I would even say that I don't think it's "wrong" necessarily for a body of believers to own a building. I think, and some of this is emotional for me because I've been personally involved in building millions of dollars of religious buildings, that in retrospect when the church (as a body of believers) becomes tied to a building that some very predictable and undesirable things happen. The ongoing expense requires that decisions be made to maintain that building. So, in order to justify the expense most of the meetings of that body then become tied to the building and the meeting in homes and more intimate levels of fellowship are bypassed and the body, I believe suffers for that. The focus shifts to numbers and efficiency in providing the programs and services based out of that building to generate by means of the offerings and the fees related to the activities needed to continue to support the building (and also the staff needed to maintain the building and the programs that attract those who are now consumers to the building.) Decisions made by the organizational structure based in that building are now guided by the elephant in the room at every meeting and in every decision that that elephant has to eat. It's subtle (although not always) but that explains the measure that begins to guide other decisions. Elders or whatever that particular tradition holds to in terms of polity, are now selected not just on their spiritual qualifications, but if there are people in the church who are known to be rich or contribute strongly there's a strong temptation to put them into positions as opposed to others because their contributions or their talents in managing business affairs are seen as very desirable and that elephant has to keep eating and so without even often stating those reasons, there's a hierarchy that can form based upon the ability of leaders to personally or by their business acumen to be placed into position that they may or may not be qualified spiritually to do. When conflicts arise within the body, that elephant sits in the room as well as to what actions the other leadership will or will not take to address and resolve issues.

So monetary decisions take a perverted precedence — this I have witnessed myself. But there is a difference between the struggles for a church to maintain herself and keep her roots and a church who becomes obsessed and corrupted by the wealth and power that comes. If a church becomes wealthy then she shouldn't even know it; money has to be reinvested into Christian programmes that help the community (the original church!) in all sorts of ways, from activities to drug rehabilitation programmes/centres etc. What you speak of is obviously plain wrong and I cannot imagine anyone I know disagreeing with your main contentions.

Am I simplifying things? Yes. However, Jesus seemed to have a lot to say about deferring to the wealthy in giving them positions of honor at the table for instance, didn't He? I can tell you without hesitation that I've seen these dynamics at work, inexorably and undeniably in many contexts within Churches where the slightest suggestion that this was taking place would be met with indignation and vehement denial. It would very rarely ever be said openly in any meeting and especially not before the congregation at large. In practice however, I can tell you in several different contexts and organizations that as the treasurer or administrator, which I many times was, when positions of leadership were being vetted, I was asked quietly to check the giving records to report back whether the nominee was giving to the church and if the amount being given was indicative of a tithe. The reason given was that someone who was not tithing was not spiritually committed to the Church and should not be leading. Now set aside that perhaps this was a legitimate reason in the minds of some (and set aside that it's debatable that this is a purely Biblical standard for eldership or leadership.) One of the practical results in many situations is that leadership in asking me to do this (and I did it so I'm not denying my own complicity) was pushing right against the public declarations they made that giving to the Church was private and not looked at by Church leadership. Also, consider that this assumed that those giving anonymously through loose cash and who chose to keep their acts of charity between them and God (as for example, a certain Jesus encouraged acts of charity to be done to avoid doing them for influence and praise from men) and effectively disqualified some from leadership for causes which they themselves were unaware as they were never told that this was taking place. Do you see a problem with that? I do and I see it tied into the structre established which is driven in many cases by the need for a cash flow to pay the 80% average of most churches that goes immediately off the top of every dollar given for staff salaries and building maintenance.

Good grief Bart, this sounds like a form of indulgences, or “cash for peerages” as those in the UK would be familiar with in the political world. I'm stunned, even by the standards I myself am familiar with!

Forgive me for making this example the key as there are many other ways to look at things. I bring this up because it was at the heart and core of much that I did and my role in the church. I could tell some very more detailed stories of some horrific things that I just became jaded to over the years because my role and the needs of the organization dictated it and it went with the job. Does that make me emotionally involved and perhaps not completely objective? Perhaps, but then too, it also makes me very unpopular as a great deal of that elephant in the room requires a complicit agreement of all in leadership to not speak openly of it.

Sorry for that. That was quite a rabbit to chase based on what you say, and it probably says more about me than it does the issue to some but so be it.

Not at all. Well from what you say there is no way you are wrong. I think you know that, objectively, you are correct. I'm not easily shocked but I'm definitely a little taken aback at this. I thought I'd seen and heard it all…Seems not. Keep right on brother.

Dan

[ageofknowledge]

Good looking out Joanne. I see what you're saying.

[WillyG]

Will,

Thanks for the reply. Let me just hone in on the issue of eldership and authority. What do you make of the following verses?

• The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. (1 Tim 5:17)

While this verse is (justifiably, I think) often used to defend clergy salaries, the more important phrase for our discussion is "direct the affairs of the church." Who is to do that? The elders. Contrary to congregationalist ideas, the whole congregation doesn't make the choices. Paul here says the elders are to do that (which is why they are so carefully chosen/recognized).

• Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb 13:17)

Does this not flatly say that some men have authority over others? The context is hardly secular. Note in verse seven the word "leader" (same in Greek) is expressly used there to refer to those who "speak the word of Christ to you" (sounds like evangelists/teachers).

• To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Pet 5:1-3)

Again, is this not plain? Notice what Peter says about elders:

1. The flock is under their care;
2. They are oveerseers of said flock;
3. The assignment over overseeing a flock under them is from God;
4. They are not do to this work out of a desire for money (which presupposes payment), but out of a desire for service;
5. This function is capable of being abused, in that these men can "lord it over" the flock. This presupposes power, which is consistent with the rest of the NT.

As much as Mr. Viola rightly points out that we read our own cultures into the Bible when we justify things like sermons, ceo-styled pastorates, and church buildings, I'm afraid he might be reading a bit of his own egalitarianism (which is a strictly 21st century phenomenon!) into the text! I don't think NT Christianity or the NT Church is one without authority, or even one without human authority (it wasn't in the Garden; it wasn't in Israel; it wasn't during Jesus' earthly ministry; it won't be during the Millennium; why should we expect it to be one now?!?). But authority, which is all from God and given from Him, is to be administered in a God-honoring way by following Christ's examples.

Now, I know you disagree, so I'm interested in your take on those verses especially. And, I'll say to you as you are fairly new to the thread, the reason I asked Bart to start this in the first place is that I am broadly sympathetic to his ideas. I'm more on his side than not. I'm interested in how many of these things get played out. I just think this is one area where he might be mistaken.

Thanks again.

Jac,

Thanks for the post and for your good humor--it makes the conversation worth having.

To tell you the truth, I don't make anything of the three verses you offer. I have seen men of spiritual authority come to DC and build up the church at our invitation; in fact, Frank is coming to DC to do just that in July. We plan to carry many of his expenses in that endeavor. We'll probably do all of the things he tells us to do. Is that reflective of your verses? Your call.

I'm tempted to dismiss our differences of opinion as mostly a matter of semantics, but that would be a dodge. I believe in God's authority over my life. If brothers or sisters whose lives I respect speak things into my life, I listen to them. I don't do that because three unrelated verses from three separate letters to three different churches tell me to do so, I do it at Christ's leading.

You say that Frank reads egalitarianism into the scripture; I disagree. You offer me three scriptures as evidence that I should turn my life over to elders and leaders, I offer you the entire life of Christ as evidence that "the least shall become the greatest, and the greatest shall become the least." Isn't it telling that, right before the perfect God-Man dies for our sins, He washes His disciples feet? He literally becomes their Servant. I welcome that elder into my church and gladly submit to him or her.

If submitting to an elder is eating from the Tree of Life, brother, submit to that elder! If not, don't! These matters are not like interpreting laws, where we parse out individual words and attempt to discern with our minds (again, that other Tree) how we should apply them to a given situation. If we do that, suddenly we are under the Old Covenant, and we should refer ourselves in short order to the Book of Galatians. At the end of the day, His grace is sufficient.

Brother, I hope this is edifying--if not, God forgive me.

Love you all.

In Christ,

Will

[Canuckster1127]

Jac,

Thanks for the feedback and for the questions with regard to elders. I suspect we are perhaps destined to disagree but I will attempt to give my view in this regard from both an exegetical perspective and an historical context for the church as it existed and functioned at the time the passages in question you reference were penned and received. I'll also say that respectfully, I think there is some eisogesis that takes place in the context of the passages that look back at how hierarchy developed in the church and how these verses, improperly in my opinion, were used to support, depending upon your perspective the existance of the "offices" or the extent and manner of the authority presumed to be wielded.

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb 13:17)

I quoted this verse earlier myself. You're probably way ahead of me by now in the area of exegesis and so I'll not try to dazzle you with anything, but since I know you'll understand and appreciate it, allow me to point out a few things and ask that if you disagree with me on them, then please explain what you believe their significance to be.

The word translated "obey" here is not hupakuo which is the common word that would be used if the sense were obedience in the sense of a hierarchical superior to an inferior. The word here is peitho. Further the verb form is the middle passive. Peitho as I think you know or could determine for yourself very easily is not at all used to denote mindless obedience. Peitho means to persuade or win over to a position. I think the better translation here would be "Allow yourselves to be persuaded by your leaders."

The word submit is hupeiko. It means to yield, retire or withdraw like a surrender after a battle. Spiritual oversight, as I think WIllyG said isn't worried in the least with their own personal authority, they are more concerned in seeing the entire body submit to god and to one another in the context of healthy, loving body life. Those recognized for their gifts of wisdom and leadership then are to be given respect. That's a far thing from the idea of an office where the office carries the authority and the right of the person occupying it, regardless of their personal qualifications and their living in the midst of those they serve in loving two-way submission and respect.

So, we're talking about body life here with two parties who are in loving relationship with God and with one another, with both willing to yield and sacrifice themselves and their positions for the benefit of the other. That's completely counter-intuitive to human hierarchy and that beautiful picture can be marred by either party failing to come in that frame of heart and mind. It's a buzz word today, but the concept here really is servant-leadership and not bureaucratic exercise of positional power.

In terms of the accounting, the only party in this context is the accountibility of the leader to God. That doesn't infer authority in terms of human or organizational hierarchy and has already been pointed out, in Acts 15 where we see the greater body at work in this regard with leaders involved and engaged in debate and seeking to come to God's mind, where you have the closest at large meeting of those leaders with direct relationship and apostolic connection to Christ, you see them engaged in pursuasion and the final decision being made corporately by all involved.

I'll pick up and continue on this for the other passages you raise, but this is all I can handle tonight.

blessings,

bart

[joanne]

Jac, you might find "The Way Church Ought To be" an interesting read (by Robert A. Lund). He talks about church governance in chapter 8. I know that ostensibly this discussion is based around "Pagan Christianity," but the points you bring up are covered, I think, a bit more extensively in this book, and would be, generally, in agreement with Frank Viola's writing.

In this chapter Lund draws some conclusions about the word elder, which is used, it appears, interchangeably with bishop/overseer/presbyter/pastor. It seems the function of all these words is the same. In other words, the elder is the same thing as the bishop/overseer/[episkopos] or pastor/shepherd or presbyter.

Every church had more than one elder performing oversight, with no Biblical exception. "The seeds for a single person elder or overseer were sown early in the second century." There was no "chief among equals" in the New Testament model. No Biblical support for it, it was in fact Ignatius' idea and everyone agreed to it (for instance, here is one of the things Ignatius said, "Respect the bishop as a type of God, and the presbyters as the council of God, and the college of the apostles").

According to Lund, the elders functioned as "cheerleaders, coaches and security guards." Not bosses. To willingly agree with them, and to willingly cooperate with them, to respect their wisdom and to trust their counsel were godly ways of helping them to cheerlead, coach and protect. This is not the same kind of "submitting" and "obeying" that takes place, or is at least expected to take place, in a typical institutional church today, particularly since the kind of oversight that takes place today is typically also not the same as what Paul and Peter were talking about and teaching, nor what the Lord Jesus taught.

Congregational style is still within the institutional framework by the way, but a close reading of Acts 15 reveals that the whole church was involved in decision making. Every person participated. The most telling phrase in that story is "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.' That reveals the way they were able to come to a unanimous decisions. They asked Jesus and they listened to Jesus' answer.

[ageofknowledge]

.

[zoegirl]

But suppose we do see so many of these small organic churches spring up? What's to stop multiple false teachers from misleading small groups?

I wonder if, once the phenomenon of the organic church develops, we see the need to bring about organization to these small bunches of people who may or may not have good scholarship at the helm. I wonder if we would see a response to develop a stronger paradigm of leadership...and then develop a path of for decisions....and then a church government...

I wonder if this seems a refreshing change to the bureaucracy of the large churches...

for instance, I remember the large growth of non-denominational churches....the almost rebellious nature of the establishment of these churches....one huge church near me almost brags that "there is no doctrine you must follow" which, of course, is baloney since even a "statement of faith" is a doctrine...now I wonder if this is just a reaction to the staleness of the current church.

Now I know I need to brush up on my history, but the early church sought to establish doctrine and develop an organization to the teaching. From the epistles to the creeds, there was an understanding that there was a need to establish that this is what we believe. And every group of believers has done this and once oyu bring together a group of people, you bring with it the need to establish a way for these believers to interact together (church government).

Now I don't have any vested interest in this....to some degree this paradigm is very refreshing to me. Churches have certainly not been very positive lately for me. These are just some thoughts as I read through the posts...

[ageofknowledge]

You realize Jonanne that as easily as they follow you they could someone else. I've met people of different ages who fell for the Children of God and Mormonism following false teachers thinking they were on track to God. So what do you do when a bad apple enters your barrel? Is there a policy?

Using an anthropological argument you could argue for the pack or the gang mentality just as easily.

Perhaps settling on a standard of discipleship and empowerment of the sheep is the answer. Right now most are kept safely in their pens (e.g. pews) and encouraged to pursue emotional and intellectual self-fulfillment while exhorted to be obedient and part with their money and some end up doing a bit of ministry here and there as they feel "led." This keeps most of them safe from false teachers, false religious institutions, and that Catholic doctrine and history that actually is heretical and inaccurate (not to be confused with the Catholic doctrine and history that is not).

If we do away with the pen and squeeze approach and build a careful standard by which Christians can be properly discipled and empowered then you can achieve the same result without losing them to false teachers, false worldviews, heresy, etc...

We could start by assigning new believers to established proven believers in the churches we have now instructing the mentors to use our standard comprehensive methodology for first discipling and then empowering each new believer (in an age and gender appropriate manner of course). But wait! That would never work. We could be asking the God bubble and bubblettes to give up football and soap operas and actually sacrifice of themselves if it became necessary. There's the hole in the plan right there. Much easier to just form a small group and dissiminate a study and if people suffer and die due to a lack of care in the meeting clear the chair and say like Nurse Ratchet in One Flew Over the CooCoo's Nest, "Next!"