Church Authority

The Church
User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:27 am

Steve,

Obviously you have an aversion to one man being recognized as a leader in a local church. But if several men are recognized as (equal) leaders in a local church, now, all of a sudden, it's okay. How do you explain this contradiction?

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: Church Authority

Post by backwoodsman » Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:30 am

dwight92070 wrote:So can I assume that your unwillingness to answer my question means that you are also unwilling to admit that you may have interjected your presuppositions in the text?
I'll be happy to answer your question, just as soon as I'm reasonably certain I can give an answer you'll understand. That's partly why I need your carefully considered answer to the last paragraph of my last post; then we can proceed from there if you like. (The answer to the first paragraph seems clear already.)

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Church Authority

Post by Singalphile » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:43 am

I have the day off, so I've spent some time on this issue this morning.

First, biblical Christian leadership is not like non-Christian leadership. You can see that just from Matt 20:25-28, Matt 23:5-10, 1 Peter 5:1-4.

After looking through all of the NT usages of "elder", "overseer", and "lead"/"leading", I think you will see that the presumption is that a community of believers will contain multiple elders/overseers/leaders.

I can't think of a reason to be dogmatic about that. There doesn't appear to be any universal command about it, one way or the other. If only one man is qualified or available or needed and recognized as a leader/overseer/elder, then that will do.

It makes as much sense to insist on only one elder as it does to insist on only one deacon or only one teacher. (Deacons (i.e., servers/servants) are also required to be good managers of their children and home, incidentally (1 Tim 3).)

The other issue is that our idea about "church" is arguably very different than what our 1st century bros and sisters had in mind. I imagine that they'd be bewildered by us (e.g., living literally a stone's throw away from half a dozen Christians, yet having nothing to do with them).

Anyway, that's about all I can say about it.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Church Authority

Post by Homer » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:46 am

Steve,

You wrote:
Leadership is a spiritual function (a gift of the Holy Spirit—Rom.12:8—like teaching or other gifts) that any number of people in the church may provide, as needed—with or without official ordination to leadership office.
You appear to be going from advocating elders to recommending none. It seems to me that the same scriptures that support the idea of a plurality of elders also support the idea that there should be elders. This, of course, would only be the case where there were those qualified to be elders.

When a church functions as it should there ought to be a way to formally acknowledge and choose elders. When there are no recognized leaders in a group the situation often becomes one where the wrong kind(s) of person(s) (aggressive/assertive personality, have van axe to grind, etc.) take over the leadership by default. This is often a long process full of difficulty. If you put a group of dogs together within minutes they will have a leader. With people, sooner or later there is likely to be trouble.

User avatar
jasonmodar
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 2:54 pm

Re: Church Authority

Post by jasonmodar » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:49 am

dwight92070 wrote: I would love to do the face-to-face coffee thing, but that could only happen if you live near Denver.


I'm in Nor Cal. If you ever find yourself in the Sacramento area let me know! Likewise I'll drop you a line if I find myself near Denver.
What does your church look like?


I'm not certain what you're asking here but I'll answer it by saying my church's denomination is Nazarene. You can find out more about them here
Do you have multiple elders? Are you one of them?
We do have multiple elders/leaders. I am one of them as a member of our church's board.
How long have you been attending?
Almost 2 1/2 years.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:42 pm

"Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time?" Matthew 24:45

Here we see the master put one slave in charge of his household. "In charge" means he has authority over the household, not as a dictator, but like a father wanting what is best for his family. See 1 Timothy 3:4-6 for the same scenario. Jesus is the master, the slave is a pastor (overseer, elder, shepherd) and the household is the church of God, which it is called in scripture. More specifically the household is that local assembly of the body of Christ, be it in a house or another building, that Jesus put that pastor in charge of. He is a manager, a benevolent ruler, a leader, a spiritual "father", a spiritual authority, etc. We don't need to split hairs over his "title". The important thing is his function and his calling and gifts.

I don't see how this can be misunderstood, unless someone wants to insert their preconceived notions of Biblical authority into the text. To insert another spiritual overseer here (or 2 or 3 or 4) with the same function, calling and gifts would only render the household dysfunctional. A family cannot function properly with 2 fathers. It is unnatural and detrimental to the whole household. This is not to imply that there cannot be another man, or several men, who could bring great benefit to the family, but ONLY under the watchful eye of the father, who gives them permission to "enter his sheepfold". A pastor and his sheep can greatly benefit from the ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers, but they do not replace him. They have a different calling and different gifts. In fact, once the pastor recognizes a true apostle or prophet or evangelist or teacher, he can "submit" to them and learn from them, but he never gives up his God-given role of being a shepherd. The shepherd is the door of the sheep. All others must pass through him to have access to the sheep. The sheep are there willingly because their shepherd cares for them and feeds them. If their shepherd mistreats them, abuses them, etc., they are free to find another shepherd who will take proper care of them. Isn't this what the Bible clearly teaches?

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:52 pm

backwoodsman,

I'm not going to play your game of "I'll answer you, only if you first answer me, after much careful consideration, and only then will I be happy to answer you." We're both mature adults. Lets stop the game playing.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:55 pm

steve wrote:Hi Dwight,

You express this concern:

Steve speaking:

Wouldn't proper teaching be a better defense against false doctrine than the mere presence of official leaders? A church officer can mandate what doctrines should be accepted, but there is no shortage of such leaders who fail to teach good doctrine. Wouldn't the effective education of the congregation be a more effective strategy in maintaining doctrinal purity than any top-down mandate from a leader?

Dwight speaking:

Your wording is quite telling. Is that what you think of when you think of a church with just one recognized shepherd - that he MANDATES what doctrines should be accepted? No wonder you don't like this scenario! Who would? That would be spiritual abuse and I would run from that as fast as possible. You say it again in your last sentence - you speak of a "top-down mandate". That's not a true shepherd at all.

If a man is already teaching and equipping the church as a teacher, what is added to the church's security by making this man an official leader? Elders should teach, to be sure. But must a teacher "eld"?

2) If we answer, "Recognized leaders can go after the straying sheep, and seek to bring him back!" I would reply, what prevents anyone who is not a recognized leader from doing the same? Men who are backsliding are more susceptible to the influence of people with whom they are in relationship, I would assume, than to appeals from ecclesiastical officials.

Paul believed that the members of the church were competent to "admonish one another" (Rom.15:14). In Galatians 6:1, he envisions a case where a brother needs to be restored, and encourages "you who are spiritual" to take on that responsibility (not necessarily those who are recognized elders, though they might also do so). James seems to indicate that the pursuit and recovery of a straying brother might be any believer's task (James 5:19-20).

Leadership is a spiritual function (a gift of the Holy Spirit—Rom.12:8—like teaching or other gifts) that any number of people in the church may provide, as needed—with or without official ordination to leadership office.

You asked how many elders are in my church. I don't know. I am in the church of Temecula, California, and I have not had occasion to identify all the elders in this city. The home group I attend has no appointed leaders, though I teach there regularly. I follow the lead of spiritual men, not people who hold church offices. Paul said, "Imitate me, as I imitate Christ" (1 Cor.11:1). As I mentioned earlier, there are times when such official recognition of leaders may be needed. However, the church's existence does not necessarily depend upon such, in every case.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:39 pm

steve wrote:
You asked how many elders are in my church. I don't know. I am in the church of Temecula, California, and I have not had occasion to identify all the elders in this city. The home group I attend has no appointed leaders, though I teach there regularly. I follow the lead of spiritual men, not people who hold church offices. Paul said, "Imitate me, as I imitate Christ" (1 Cor.11:1). As I mentioned earlier, there are times when such official recognition of leaders may be needed. However, the church's existence does not necessarily depend upon such, in every case.
Dwight speaking: I asked you how many elders are in your church. I think you knew what I was asking (I may be wrong), i.e. how many elders are there in your group that you regularly attend, but that's not how you answered me. Your answer was that you don't know how many elders there are in the whole city of Temecula?

Dwight speaking: Excuse me, but why do you do that? Do you only think in terms of a church being all the believers in any given city? Biblically, a regular gathering of believers meeting in a home can be called a church. Romans 16:5, 1 Cor. 16:19, Col.4:15, Phm.1:2 On the other hand, it could also simply be a Bible study. In my mind, the difference between the two is exactly what we are discussing: A church has a recognized shepherd. A Bible study does not. The Bible study may or may not have a leader, but if there is a leader, he does not necessarily have to have the qualifications of a shepherd or an elder. I do understand that a Bible study is comprised of Christians who are part of the church (i.e. the church universal), but a Bible study, Biblically, is not a church.

Dwight speaking: It's also quite telling that during all these blogs, you have been defending what you claim is the Biblical practice of a plurality of elders in a church, and yet in the home group that you regularly attend, you not only do NOT practice a plurality of elders, but you have NO appointed elders. I understand that one or more of the men in your group may meet the Biblical qualifications of an elder, but apparently because you folks do not accept the practice of appointing a shepherd, none has been appointed.

Dwight speaking: Your statement "I follow the lead of spiritual men, not people who hold church offices." is very troubling to me. It seems like the idea of someone holding a church office is almost offensive to you. It must be offensive in your home group also, or else one or more elders would have been appointed. Paul held a church office, so did Peter, and John. They were all apostles, which is a church office. Don't you follow them? Paul was unashamed of the office God put him in. He referred to himself as an apostle. Ephesians 4:11 tells us of 5 church offices that Jesus created. They are not man-made positions.

Dwight speaking: It appears to me that the practice of a plurality of elders, in reality, is NO elders at all. It basically throws Ephesians 4:11 out the window.

Timios
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:57 pm

Re: Church Authority

Post by Timios » Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:36 pm

Dwight wrote:To insert another spiritual overseer here (or 2 or 3 or 4) with the same function, calling and gifts would only render the household dysfunctional.
I don't think so. Each one of them likely is differently gifted, and thus the whole group of overseers would have a more comprehensive ministry. Also there is the matter of checks and balances, where a group of overseers collectively would prevent just one of them from becoming a little dictator. Is it not more likely that a single overseer would deviate from apostolic teaching and practice than would a group of several overseers?

Post Reply

Return to “Ecclesiology”