Being Subject To Our Leaders

[Guest]

I'm just moving part of our discussion over here from the General/Personal Questions section, "Controversial Topics" thread. If you want to catch up where we are in things, I'm afraid you'll need to go check it out over there. I'm awfully new at this stuff and don't know how to move posts over here or even paste the right URL. (Sorry.)

Gregg

[Guest]

Hi Danny and Christopher,

Thanks tons for your in-depth responses! I know it must have taken quite a bit of time for you to pull them together.

And I sure appreciate your opening up Hebrews 13:17 for me. I’d never noticed these word issues before, and I like the possibility of what you’re saying here. That whole “persuasive” thing is actually quite beautiful and makes a lot of sense to me.

That said … I’m not quite ready to let go of this just yet. Guess I need a little more “persuasion.”

Do you remember the book, “Why Not Women?” by Loren Cunningham and David Hamilton? As a YWAMer (now an ex-YWAMer) I remember being so embarrassed when I first read that book authored by YWAMers. The authors worked very hard to try and “re-mold” what the N.T. said about wives being subject to their husbands (or the husbands being head over their wives.) In the end, it seemed that every single scripture must have been mistranslated or else subject to some kind of cultural misinterpretation. I have to tell you, about halfway through the book I remember thinking, “I think you doth protest too much!” (My butchered Shakespearese.)

So I’m a little gun shy over this whole theme of “submission” – whether it’s wife/husband, servant/master, or sheep/shepherd. I want to make sure that I don’t end up guilty of re-molding tough scriptures to better fit my comfort zones.

Maybe we could start again with I Peter 5:5. (First part, anyway.)

“You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders …”

The Greek word here for “be subject to” seems more clear to me, and is repeated in I Corinthians 16:16 in a similar kind of exhortation. (“… that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors.”)

It also seems (gotta use that word as I’m far from a Greek student, much less a Greek scholar) that this same word is used fairly exclusively in the rest of the N.T. to indicate some kind of submission to authorities.

Wives being subject to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:24 … Colossians 3:18 … Titus 2:5 … I Peter 3:1,5)

Servants being subject to their masters. (Titus 2:9 … I Peter 2:18 )

Men being subject to governing authorities. (Romans 13:1 … I Peter 2:13)

Men being subject to God. (James 4:7 … Hebrews 12:19)

I’m sure open to your help on this one, guys. How would the Greek word used in these settings be different from the one used in I Peter 5:5 and I Corinthians 16:16?

Just a couple more things …

I know, teach, and try to live by Jesus’ definition of true spiritual leadership found in Matthew 20:25-26. But does the governing type of leadership described in all the above scriptures have to stand in opposition to this servant type of leadership? Do they need to be mutually exclusive? Can’t true godly leadership both rule and serve? (I wonder sometimes if we are so affected by the world and our own experiences that we can’t even picture true godly leadership. If so, how sad.)


Danny – I’m sorry I wasn’t very clear in my remarks about house churches in the N.T. When I wrote, “… not just a few small house churches” my emphasis was on the word “few.” I think there were tons of house churches in these cities – that the whole community of believers was booming there. (Like the church in Ephesus. Can you imagine how populous they must have been to affect the economy of the Artemis shrine-makers in that place?) So, sorry about the misunderstanding. I’m with you on the whole house church thing.

Thank you guys for your patience with my questions in this. As I said before, this is an important (and relevant) struggle for me.

By His Grace,

Gregg

[Guest]

Hi Gregg,

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, I was at a church meeting this morning practicing being submissive to the elders there (who are all younger than me by the way)

Regarding your question, I’m wondering how you would take the next sentence:

1 Peter 5:5
Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for

"God resists the proud,
But gives grace to the humble."
NKJV


Is not the underlying principle here simply giving deference to others? Is Peter telling the younger to “obey your church leaders because they are in charge”? Or is he saying something more like “submit to the counsel and example of those in leadership because they are older in the faith (and therefore presumably wiser) and it is good for you to do so”? I generally take it to be the latter because of his earlier statement:

1 Peter 5:2-4
2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock;
NKJV


Just for the record, I have no problem with submitting to others who lead something when I’m gathered in the context of the organized meeting, ministry, project, etc., whether they are older in the faith than me or not. For the sake of order, I think it’s prudent to allow those who organize and oversee something to call the shots in that thing (whatever that thing may be).

For example, when Steve comes up to hold his open discussion meetings in Camas, I don’t see him being the leader of those meetings. Even though he is by far more wise and Biblically knowledgeable than most (if not all) of us there, he’s really not the one facilitating the meeting. That is Don and Kelli. So in that context, I submit to them in terms while I’m in that context.

When I’m serving under the umbrella of Prison Fellowship, I submit to their rules and guidelines (to the extent my conscience allows) while conducting my service in the prison. If I cannot in good conscience follow their rules and guidelines, then I ought not be serving in their organization.

When I’m at a church meeting, I submit to the authority of whoever is overseeing that while I’m meeting in that context.

There are times I submit to my wife and even my kids when I’m supporting some project they are doing.

However, outside those contexts, it’s a different story altogether. I’m accountable to God only at that point, and nobody else as far as I can tell. And Jesus is my only Shepherd. He is my only King and the only one I ultimately submit to. It is true that in desiring to submit to the will of my King, I seek the counsel of other wise and trustworthy people to help me to do that. And I think that is at the heart of biblical leadership, helping each other fully submit to our King. There is no need for middle management. But there is a need for support in obeying our King, which is what we want to do anyway. But unfortunately, too often church leaders see their role as being in everyone's business.

Here's another personal example. I used to be very close with an elder at my former church who had this philosophy. He loved to "counsel" others and I remember him telling me on more than one occassion about certain single men he would "counsel" about their love life when they would meet and begin dating someone new. He'd tell them "I'd better not find out you're getting married in a couple of months". He'd want them to run all that by him first, every step of the way. After telling him how uncomfortable I was with him sharing this with me (which he almost never heeded), I would then say something like "He's a big boy, don't you think he is capable of making these decisions himself? If he wants your advice, I'm sure he'll ask you for it". But he didn't see it that way. He saw himself as a "shepherd" of these people and therefore in authority over their life decisions. I can't tell you how dangerous I think that mentality is.

Being humble and submissive to others is a kingdom attitude and it is good for us because it encourages order, relationship, and peace. Jesus (the King of Kings) is our perfect example of perfect humility and obedience AND servant leadership. But I think there is a fine line between having a submissive spirit and wrecklessly placing oneself under subjection to another. Isn't that what happened in the Shepherding Movement?

Anyway, I know that's not what you're suggesting. But it is too often the case that the paradigm of a heirarchical authority structure leads that way.

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

[Guest]

Regarding your question, I’m wondering how you would take the next sentence:

1 Peter 5:5
Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for

"God resists the proud,
But gives grace to the humble."
NKJV

I'm not answering for Gregg; I'm sure he can answer for himself. Nevertheless, I'd like to comment on your statement, Christopher:

How can "all of you be submissive to one another"? If everyone is submitted to everyone else, then in actual practice, no one is submitted to anyone!

The only surviving manuscript prior to the year 300 which contains I Peter 5:5 is Papyrus 72, and it does not contain the phrase "all of you submit to one another" but only "all of you be clothed with a humble mind toward one another".

It my belief that the phrase was added later to the group of manuscripts which the King James and related translations used.

Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." I Peter 5:5 RSV

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

Thanks for the information about that phrase, that is something I didn't know. You might be right about your theory, it's hard to tell.

However, I'm not sure how that would change what I said much. Being "clothed in humility to one another" still carries overtones of submission in my mind.

you wrote:

How can "all of you be submissive to one another"? If everyone is submitted to everyone else, then in actual practice, no one is submitted to anyone!

It would seem that way, but I don't think I would fully agree with you here. Like I said, there are times I submit to my wife and there are times she submits to me. Therefore, we submit to one another..in actual practice.

I know you are not a Trinitarian, but I personally believe the Godhead is also submissive to one another like this in actual practice. There are times that the Holy Spirit sends Jesus and he submits:

Matt 4:1
4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
NKJV

And there are other times that Jesus sends the Spirit and He submits:

John 15:26
26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.
NKJV

Submitting to one another is not about who's boss all the time, it's about what does the occassion call for IMO.

Thanks again for the info on that verse.

[Guest]

Paidon,

You can answer for me on this any day! Sure appreciate your input. When I first read Christopher’s response, I thought, “Whoa! I don’t remember that being in there!” (Thought maybe I’d hit a senility bump or something.) I relaxed a bit when I realized it’s in the KJV but not my NAS. Figured it must be one of those Textus Receptus versus Alexandrian Text issues … and now you’ve explained it more fully. Thanks!


Christopher,

Thanks for the great response! I think you’re honing in on the guts of this issue. But before getting into that – maybe I should try and address your I Peter 5:5 question. I realize that not everyone might accept Paidon’s explanation, so it might be a good idea for me to explain my take on this one phrase anyway. (After all, something similar – though in a slightly different context – is written in Ephesians 5:21. “… and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”)

Here are some of my thoughts on this I Peter 5:5 phrase:

1. I think the meaning of the first word “yes” may be important to understanding the purpose of the phrase. Is it an emphatic word of agreement that seeks to sum up what was just written, or is it a word meant to wrap up a larger discussion that’s taken place? (Of course, maybe it’s something else altogether.) Commentators seem somewhat divided on this, and I sure don’t have the knowledge to figure it out.

2. We might be able to put the I Peter 5:5 phrase in the same boat as I put Ephesians 5:21. That the idea of being “subject to one another” doesn’t mean that everyone is subject to everyone, but that we all have different “subjecting relationships” in life that we need to humbly enter to. (In Ephesians 5-6, Paul goes on to list several of these relationships – wife/husband, child/parent, and slave/master.)

These are fairly obvious submissions. I would think that if Paul’s meaning had been that we should all submit to everyone, he would have mentioned (at least in passing) that husbands should submit to their wives, that parents should submit to their children, or that masters should submit to their slaves. (Would have been a great way to drive his point home … if this were the point he was trying to make.) By the way – I very much agree with you on the need to submit to whoever is in charge of the sphere we’re stepping into, whether wife, child, or employee. My wife and I determined a long time ago that she would be in charge of the kitchen, so I gladly submit. (She has since delegated the dirty dishes to me. I’m not so sure I like her leadership style.)

3. If this Ephesians 5:21 explanation is not the correct way of viewing I Peter 5:5, then I think it must be dealing with a couple different kinds of submission. (Because, practically, as Paidon pointed out, “If everyone is submitted to everyone else, then in actual practice, no one is submitted to anyone!”) One might be a general kind of submissive attitude, while another might be a specific submission to specific authority. Since this option hasn’t been high on my list of possibilities, I’m sorry to say that I haven’t really thought through it too much.

All that said, Christopher, I feel like you started to touch the crux of this church authority issue in your last post to me. Doesn’t this whole thing come down to defining what the church leader’s actual sphere of authority should be? (You’ve probably been saying that all along, and I haven’t been getting it.) Basically – if they step outside their biblical sphere of authority, we’re not required to submit to them. And if we are inside their biblical sphere of authority, we’re under the obligation to “be subject to them.”

So … what is this biblical sphere of authority? In what areas does the church leader have a right to speak authoritatively into our lives?

Does their sphere of authority (responsibility) include teaching and doctrine within the body?

Does their sphere of authority (responsibility) include God-given vision or prophetic direction for the body?

Does their sphere of authority (responsibility) include holiness and purity in the body?

Does their sphere of authority (responsibility) include healthy relationships in the body?

Does their sphere of authority (responsibility) include making disciples of all nations?

In your example of the Prison Fellowship, the lines seem pretty clear. You “come under” their umbrella when you are doing their ministry. But things get a little more muddy in the local church context, don’t they? Especially if we view the local church as something more than an organization, series of meetings, or menu of ministries. (Which I’m sure you do.) If we broaden the sphere of local church to match what we truly believe local church should be, then the church leader’s sphere of authority will extend in like manner, won’t it? In other words … if our idea of submitting to church leaders is limited to their role over church meetings and projects, then haven’t we relegated church to being merely a series of meetings or projects?

One more last thought …

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our churches were filled with people who desired to humbly and completely open up their lives to the wisdom, counsel, direction, and protection of godly shepherds? People who would actually invite their leaders to come stretch out their sphere of authority to cover every area of their lives? To say, “You’re welcome to come into my life – my finances, my marriage, my family, my walk with God, my mission in life – and help me become what Jesus wants me to become.” (And I don’t mean putting ourselves under the control of others, but under the "weighty" counsel of others. You said it well, Christopher – “I think that is at the heart of biblical leadership, helping each other fully submit to our King.”)

Thanks again for helping me sort through some of these issues. I don’t have very much opportunity where I am right now to process this stuff with others, so it’s a joy to be able to bang out some of these things with you. (And the others here on the forum.) Sorry if my thoughts seem messy at times … but the messier it seems, the better the processing.

By His Grace,

Gregg

[Guest]

Matt 4:1
4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
NKJV

And there are other times that Jesus sends the Spirit and He submits:

John 15:26
26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.
NKJV

Is there a difference between the Spirit tht led Christ and the "helper" which He later sent? The helper I have taken as the very Spirit of Christ, while the Spirit which led Him is a different thing altogether? But, now I think maybe it's the same Spirit and the reason Christ had to leave to send the Spirit could be an authority issue as He had shed Himself of some of His glory in his humanity. If different, which is the "Holy Spirit"? Am I just trying to fit things in nice buckets that don't exist?

[_Steve]

I don't know that I have an answer to Darin's question (perhaps someone will).

I did have a few thoughts about the issues in which Gregg and Christopher are currently engaged, however.

In my opinion, there are churches that have (and should have) appointed leaders, and there are churches that do not have (and do not need) appointed leaders. One kind of church may become the other kind, depending upon changes in circumstances.

I think there is good evidence to conclude that the church in Corinth, in Paul's day, did not have appointed leaders. They are never mentioned, even though serious issues, including church order and church discipline needed to be addressed. I believe there were de facto spiritual leaders (like the household of Stephanus and others "such as these"—1 Cor.16:15-16) to which willing submission was urged. I do not know why Paul did not see fit to appoint and eldership in Corinth, but it may have been for lack of enough qualified men to be entrusted with such a position.

Also, the churches that Paul and Barnabas planted on their first missionary journey existed and functioned without appointed leaders for a little while, until the apostles returned and made such appointments (Acts 14:21-23). This may have also been the case with the churches in Crete (Tit.1:5)

In such churches, it would seem, the saints were expected to automatically recognize spiritual maturity and the leadership-gifting in certain brothers, even without formal appointment, and to submit to the truth and the wisdom that they contributed to the life of the local body. I have seen this work, at times, in certain churches. I like this situation best, though it may not work for everyone.

The second kind of church has (and should have) appointed leaders. This may be necessary because of general confusion in the church arising from the teaching of dangerous heresies by some whom gullible sheep mistake to be spiritual leaders. There may be other reasons for needing such official leaders as well, though they don't immediately come to mind. Oh yes, I just remembered another. One reason might be that the legal conditions of the 501(c)(3) corporation requires a church to have a governing board. But this may be, in some people's minds, a good reason to forego the establishment of such a corporation.

The problem here, of course, is, in the absence of the apostles to do the appointing, wherein does the authority to make such appointments lie? In modern times, some churches opt to vote for certain candidates, while others accept the appointing authority of an outside agency (denomination). It might be best to follow the apostolic procedure of Acts 1, where qualified candidates are identified by the congregation, but the actual approval of each man is determined by God, and made known through the casting of lots (Prov.16:33).

Even where it becomes necessary to appoint leaders in a congregation, I do not think it desirable to create a "position" or "office" that automatically must be filled when that person dies or is otherwise no longer serving in that capacity. That is, I don't think that succession to office is desirable—nor even possible, without institutionalization being the result. I think a church ought to have appointed leaders:

a) if they need them,
b) if they have among them recognized, qualified individuals; and
c) for as long as they need them (and no longer).

When a leader's position is vacated, it should not be automatically assumed that this leaves a vacancy to be filled. It is true that the apostles viewed Judas' position in this way, but that may have been because Jesus indicated that there should be twelve permanent and faithful apostles, to sit on twelve thrones (Matt.19:28). The other (faithful) apostles were not succeeded in office when they died.

One of the problems I have with the appointed, local-church-leadership model is that it almost always pertains to a model of "local church" that has no parallel in Scripture. As I understand it, the apostles recognized only one "local church" in a given locality (city). Our model usually defines a local church as only one congregation, among many, in a given city. The appointed leaders of our modern "local churches" are only the leaders of their one congregation. They may have no significant relationship or accountability to the leaders of another congregation in the same city. Perhaps they should not, but it is a situation that did not arise in the first century (it started to, according to 1 Cor.1, but Paul quashed that emerging denominational spirit).

I do not say that it would be impossible, in modern times, for all the Christians in one town to recognize the same appointed leadership (this is probably the case in many mission works, where one missionary or team is the spiritual parent of all the Christians in the village). I only note that this circumstance does not accrue in modern cities in the West, where most of us are living.

Because of this, exhortations to first-century Christians to "obey your leaders" may not have a one-to-one correspondence to the duties of Christians in an American congregation (which is not to say that there is no relevance—only one that must be explored prior to application).

For example, if Christopher had been required to submit fully to the appointed leaders of his earlier church affiliation, he would have had to repent of recommending my program to his friends, and would have to live under a dispensational system for the rest of his life (unless his elders eventually changed their doctrines). However, Christopher was able to (or was forced to) leave that congregation and join another in the same locality, which tolerates his views. This worked out well for him, but would not have been possible if he were biblically required to unconditionally submit to the leaders of one congregation in the Portland Area.

If the biblical scenario pertained in Portland, then one group of leaders, sharing the doctrines of the apostles (by whom they were appointed) would determine the range of beliefs that would be tolerated in the city-wide Christian community. Since we don't have the apostles here to do the appointing, nor even to settle modern disputes about what the apostolic doctrines were, I would not see such a city-wide leadership to be desirable, unless they held very gracious policies as to doctrinal freedom of conscience.

On the other hand, if such liberty of conscience on things non-essential were to in fact exist in such a leadership, it would go a long way toward solving our present difficulties with church discipline (i.e., that one local church can place a person under discipline, and another local church will ignore the discipline).

These are my thoughts, as I read this discussion.

[Guest]

And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Ephesians 4:11-14 RSV

This passage seems to indicate to continuance of the five ministries, (or the five-fold ministry if you prefer). That we have not yet attained to the unity of the faith is evidenced by the pleroma of denominations, cults, and other groups within Christendom. Neither have we reached maturity to the measure of the stature of Christ. This passage seems to say that God's gifts of these ministries will continue until that happens.

The position of the expression of the Church of Christ with which I fellowship, is that God has restored to the Church this five-fold ministry, and that it will continue until "the coming together of the Body of Christ" becomes a reality. Although the leading brethren do not call themselves "apostles", they are recognized as such. Local elders or overseers are appointed by these apostles as the Spririt directs through the laying on of hands and prophecy. Thus "submission to those who rule over you" has become a reality in practice for us.

[Guest]

Is there a difference between the Spirit tht led Christ and the "helper" which He later sent? (Darin)

I don't know that I have an answer to Darin's question (perhaps someone will). (Steve)

I won't claim to have the answer, but I have certainly always assumed it is the same Spirit, as seems (to me) to be indicated in the following:

Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.

Joh 15:26 And when the Comforter has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all.

But I don't know if this is a valid assumption to make.