Hi Gregg,
Thanks for taking the time to respond with your thoughts and with scripture. Christopher pretty much said what I would have said, but I'll try to add a little bit from my own perspective.
There’s something, however, that just doesn’t sit right with me about this statement. Maybe I’m just not understanding it right. Doesn’t the N.T. seem to exhort us to be subject to our appointed elders – no matter what kind of relationship they have with us? That it’s because of their position that we are biblically obligated to listen to them? (Hebrews 13:17) (I Peter 5:5)
As Christopher alluded to, there are cultural and translational issues here. Regarding Hebrews 13:17, the Greek word translated as
obey is
peitho. There was a Greek goddess named Peitho. She was the goddess of persuasion and seduction. The word
peitho refers to persuasion, not blind obedience (there are other Greek words, used elsewhere in the NT which actually mean
obey, particularly in reference to our obedience to Jesus). A better translation of Hebrews 13:17 would be "Allow yourselves to be persuaded by your leaders..." In other words, give them a fair hearing; the benefit of the doubt; lend them your ears; consider what they have to say. This reminds me of the way Quakers refer to certain individuals as "weighty Friends", which means their words carry weight and should be given serious consideration. This would have been especially true in the culture of the early church where, as Christopher pointed out, literacy was low and those with knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures were highly valued. The word
peitho also brings to mind Luke's commendation of the Bereans who, only after carefully examining what Paul taught, allowed themselves to be persuaded.
The Greek word translated as "leaders" in Hebrews 13:17 (
hegeomai) is a somewhat generic term meaning
guide,
leader,
ruler, etc. In Jesus' view, however, leaders are to be "servants of all" (Matt. 20:25, Mark 10:42).
In my NIV Bible, the words "Obey your leaders..." are followed with "...and submit to their authority." In the Greek, "...to their authority." is absent. This was added by English translators. The word translated as
submit is
hupeiko, which means "to yield" or "to come into agreement".
So, to put this all together, I understand Hebrews 13:17 as saying, "Allow yourselves to be persuaded by your leaders and come into agreement with them." If one's leaders truly are servant-leaders and are mature. wise and
weighty, then this admonition makes perfect sense.
But the fact that this passage is an admonition also makes it clear that "submission" is a choice (see also Phil. 2:5-11). Such a choice can only be made as a gift. In the NT church, submission to leaders is never demanded or forced. That would not be "submission" but
subservience. Biblical "submission" to leaders is a freely given yielding of one's preferences in light of the trust earned by the leaders.
The same applies to 1 Peter 5:5
And we know from Paul’s church planting example, and from his instructions to Titus in Titus 1:5, that elders are appointed. (“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you …”) They don’t just choose themselves out – though it is expected that men should desire to “aspire” to such a position in the church. (See I Timothy 3:1) So aren’t we obligated to “be subject” to any elder who is appointed … whether or not we have a relationship with him? Is the authority of our church leaders based in our relationship with them, or in the position given to them when they are appointed by whoever it is that appoints them?
The word
kathistemi has more to do in this context, I believe, with
publically recognizing who the elders are, not with creating elders through ordination or appointment. In other words, Titus and Timothy were given instructions by Paul on how to recognize who the elders were. The elders (to go back to Wimber's saying) were already
elding. These were existing Christian communities that Titus and Timothy were going to. Titus and Timothy were not bringing in hired pastors or conducting job interviews. Rather, they were affirming the people who were
already naturally functioning as elders (according to Paul's guidelines, which emphasize character) within the communities. Titus and Timothy were publically putting their Apostolic seal of approval on these elders.
And one other thing that tugs at my mind here: These were booming communities of disciples we’re talking about … not just a few small house churches. How would it have been possible for the elders in these places to have the kind of relationship you mention with all these people? So what would the elders’ authority here have been based on … their relationship with the people, or their position as appointed elders?
Quite the contrary, these were in fact "small house churches" scattered throughout the cities and towns. Christians didn't begin meeting in dedicated church buildings until the 4th century. Prior to that time (and during the time the NT was written), churches met in homes and rented facilities (such as the school of Tyrannus). These would have been, by our modern standards, small gatherings. They also followed the synagogue model of being interactive and participatory. They looked nothing like the typical modern church service.
The members of these churches lived in close, familial community. They lived geographically close to one-another. They saw each other daily. Churches existed within neighborhoods. They had relationships (hopefully good, but sometimes strained) with other churches meeting in houses in other neighborhoods. So in an individual
ekklesia (church), the people would have known each other very well, including the elders. It was only later that hierarchies and a seperate clergy class would develop and that church congregations would become large and diffuse.
A couple of good books on this topic:
Going to Church in the First Century by Robert Banks
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Church-Firs ... 0940232375
The Ancient Church as Family by Joseph Hellerman
http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Church-As ... im_b_img_3
Rethinking the Wineskin by Frank Viola
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Church-Firs ... 0940232375
I strongly believe that leaders in the church do need to earn their place of leadership – their place of authority to “rule” in the body. (They certainly have to qualify according to all that’s in the I Timothy and Titus lists.) But don’t we need to honor these appointed positions with all due respect whether or not we know them well enough to respect them? Especially since we have tremendous freedom in regards to what church (and therefore church leaders) we choose to be part of?
To me, "honoring" someone in an appointed position means I'll give them the benefit of the doubt while I'm learning their character. But someone having an ordination paper or a title really doesn't mean much to me beyond that. I've known too many pastors who are just as screwed up and ignorant as anybody else. In some cases, more so.
I sure hope I’m not poking a hornet’s nest here. I just want to try and better understand our scriptural obligations as shepherds to our sheep and as sheep to our shepherds.
No worries Gregg. This is good dialog!
), and follow the example laid out by those who are living it.