So this I can get on board with.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Authority, submission, and chain of command
- Thread starter andrew
- Start date
I mean the root word. It's a very common word in the New Testament. In the KJV it is translated faithful in Titus, but believers in many other verses.
I could be wrong about the word, and that an elder needs to have believing children. Titus is the only verse that says that. I've always found that challenging too, because as much as a child needs to be led and taught by their father, they also have free will and can choose to follow YHWH or not.
I just went all OCD and counted: 67 appearances, of which 54 are variations of faithful (53 are faithful, 1 faithfully), 10 varations of believe, 2 true, 1 sure. Looks like 'faithful' is the go to or default choice, with context reasons for the other ones. Nothing to say about that, I just get interested in numbers sometimes.
Yeah, let's not do this right now, or alternatively we could open another thread to go there. My initial thought is that "believing" might apply to children still at their parents home; it's very difficult for me to see extending that to adult children out on their own, with their own households. But it wouldn't be the first difficult thing I've had to get my mind around!
@Slumberfreeze, I had an afterthought about the gift thing. I think the main reason I brought up the gifts is because there's a division of labor issue here as well. I think most of us here are agreed that eldership is a team sport, and as I was contemplating what's going to happen when Ron and Nathan and I take up the matter of Steve's request, it occurred to me that the three of us have enough differences to guarantee that anything we're considering is going to get fully aired out. An individual submitted to eldership—the right eldership, as you expressed so eloquently in your 'lament'—should take some comfort from the fact that their situation will be round-tabled by seasoned guys who have a stake in the outcome.
If you consider the US Courts of Appeals, you have a situation where appeals are typically heard by a panel of three judges, and occasionally heard en banc (by all active judges--in the Fifth Circuit where I am that's somewhere betwee 15 and 20 judges). BF presently has three guys that are elders (in the old, experienced, non-Office sense), but I could see a larger BF down the road having five guys, or seven guys, or etc, at the top, but still only needing three guys (2-3 witnesses, but 3 to prevent ties) to deal with routine matters, and occasionally having to pull everyone together to get the sense of the complete body.
And the point of that is that most of the time nobody wants to do this work, and not that many people are really good at it. So the question in a way is, who can we get to do this work so we won't have to?...
If you consider the US Courts of Appeals, you have a situation where appeals are typically heard by a panel of three judges, and occasionally heard en banc (by all active judges--in the Fifth Circuit where I am that's somewhere betwee 15 and 20 judges). BF presently has three guys that are elders (in the old, experienced, non-Office sense), but I could see a larger BF down the road having five guys, or seven guys, or etc, at the top, but still only needing three guys (2-3 witnesses, but 3 to prevent ties) to deal with routine matters, and occasionally having to pull everyone together to get the sense of the complete body.
And the point of that is that most of the time nobody wants to do this work, and not that many people are really good at it. So the question in a way is, who can we get to do this work so we won't have to?...
My certainty about my answer here is gonna be real small, since I am wholly ignorant about how an individual ministry should run. I have more confidence discussing how a city's church leadership should be arranged. A cross borders ministry of loosely affiliated Christians is a bit on the mystifying side for me. (Which is by no means should be taken as any form of criticism of what BF is or is doing, just an admission of ignorance)
So under the assumption that BF wants to model itself as closely to Biblical Church leadership as possible, I'll say that I suppose that any who want to do the work, and meet the moral and lifestyle requirements of an elder, should be allowed to serve in this capacity. I think desire to do the work should be considered with greater weight than aptitude for the job. When I look at the qualifications of eldership the only real talents that need to be displayed is an ability to teach and the ability to rule his own house well. An aptitude for doing well the greater job of overseeing the flock seems to be neither here nor there. I think that possibly because men who are talented at being leaders of men are in short supply, it is better to swell the ranks of the elders with good men who will take the job seriously.
I would gladly hearken to a great man of God's advice, but for most things, 2-3 godly men who are maybe not so great yet working together would give as good results?
So under the assumption that BF wants to model itself as closely to Biblical Church leadership as possible, I'll say that I suppose that any who want to do the work, and meet the moral and lifestyle requirements of an elder, should be allowed to serve in this capacity. I think desire to do the work should be considered with greater weight than aptitude for the job. When I look at the qualifications of eldership the only real talents that need to be displayed is an ability to teach and the ability to rule his own house well. An aptitude for doing well the greater job of overseeing the flock seems to be neither here nor there. I think that possibly because men who are talented at being leaders of men are in short supply, it is better to swell the ranks of the elders with good men who will take the job seriously.
I would gladly hearken to a great man of God's advice, but for most things, 2-3 godly men who are maybe not so great yet working together would give as good results?
Here's another aspect: Nobody of any merit actually wants to muck around in someone else's life, let alone run it. What Christian leaders can do is help their brothers when necessary (the proverbial "servant leadership"...).
Be that as it may, it's something we're going to have to grapple with and demystify. We don't live in walled cities anymore; we live in relative physical isolation and safety with great connectivity to others not anywhere near us geographically. That's going to be a big issue for 21st century fellowship—it already is.
So I turn my head for a couple days and you guys go and write a novelette on Biblical authority and submission. . . I have tried to read and digest all I can . . . but I cannot say that I got everything from here . . . but there is one thing I noted as conspicuous by its absence. I fear I must use a metaphor to illustrate. In congregational polity, our 'democratic Christians' vote the best way forward for the church. So, what happens is a lot of infighting about what is the 'best thing to do.' People are so concerned with the 'right way' (or worse, with their own petty fears and desires) that they miss the whole POINT of congregational polity.
Once upon a time, among the radical reformers there was a group called the Hutterites. The interesting thing about the Hutterites is that they practiced a form of congregational government . . . but the "decisions" of the colony were not a matter of simple popular vote. Every vote must be a unanimous vote, because the thing at stake was not 'the best thing to do,' but determining what the will of Jesus WAS on any particular matter. So, if Jakob and Katie wanted to get married, the whole Bruderhoff would vote, and if the whole community believed that it was the will of the LORD, they would bless it. Crazy, but it actually worked. It is an extreme example, but it points to a necessary corrective. The point of ANY polity is not to determine the 'best' or 'most-effective' way . . . but the LORD'S Way. (Period)
Lots of people have noted our Western mistrust of 'centralized authority.' Especially among this group of outsiders that I am privileged to consider myself a part, authority carries sometimes sinister connotations. However, when we understand 'rule' or 'authority' or even 'decision' as being a whole-hearted pursuit of the face of the LORD for HIS will in any particular matter . . . that frames everything differently. I know this doesn't change the substance of the (very necessary) research into the meaning of key Biblical passages . . . but one of the most insidious elements of what is misnamed democratic congregationalism . . . is that somehow we are supposed to 'figure it out for ourselves' and 'manage the kingdom' . . . As if the LORD were too busy to bother with the mundane elements of everyday 'church' life. Another example:
Our family has been effected by time in a different culture and therefore our family has the 'office' of 'the Eldest.' My eldest son, knows my will and character and it is understood that there are times he is to act on my behalf. . . especially if his siblings are in danger. None of the other kids want 'his job.' In fact they fear for him because they know what it could entail . . . if our need was ever carried to extreme. There really aren't any 'perks' to the job, beyond perhaps knowing that he has my respect and deep trust. . . and that if anything happens to me he is the next in line to protect the family. It seems to me that it is similar being an 'eldest' in the household of the LORD. It is less a 'position' than a part of the life cycle of responsibility and discipleship. Some of you are now elders . . . and really have no choice to be otherwise. The eyes of the Father are upon you, and it is your responsibility to set an example in love, teaching and sacrifice for your younger siblings. Rule is only and ever the rule of the LORD. . .there are, though, some who help us, instruct us, discipline us, coach us, not for the sake of an entity, club, or organization . . . but out of personal obedience to the one who has called them. Thanks guys, I can already promise I won't always trust you, but you already have my respect, attention and good will . . .
cheers,
Once upon a time, among the radical reformers there was a group called the Hutterites. The interesting thing about the Hutterites is that they practiced a form of congregational government . . . but the "decisions" of the colony were not a matter of simple popular vote. Every vote must be a unanimous vote, because the thing at stake was not 'the best thing to do,' but determining what the will of Jesus WAS on any particular matter. So, if Jakob and Katie wanted to get married, the whole Bruderhoff would vote, and if the whole community believed that it was the will of the LORD, they would bless it. Crazy, but it actually worked. It is an extreme example, but it points to a necessary corrective. The point of ANY polity is not to determine the 'best' or 'most-effective' way . . . but the LORD'S Way. (Period)
Lots of people have noted our Western mistrust of 'centralized authority.' Especially among this group of outsiders that I am privileged to consider myself a part, authority carries sometimes sinister connotations. However, when we understand 'rule' or 'authority' or even 'decision' as being a whole-hearted pursuit of the face of the LORD for HIS will in any particular matter . . . that frames everything differently. I know this doesn't change the substance of the (very necessary) research into the meaning of key Biblical passages . . . but one of the most insidious elements of what is misnamed democratic congregationalism . . . is that somehow we are supposed to 'figure it out for ourselves' and 'manage the kingdom' . . . As if the LORD were too busy to bother with the mundane elements of everyday 'church' life. Another example:
Our family has been effected by time in a different culture and therefore our family has the 'office' of 'the Eldest.' My eldest son, knows my will and character and it is understood that there are times he is to act on my behalf. . . especially if his siblings are in danger. None of the other kids want 'his job.' In fact they fear for him because they know what it could entail . . . if our need was ever carried to extreme. There really aren't any 'perks' to the job, beyond perhaps knowing that he has my respect and deep trust. . . and that if anything happens to me he is the next in line to protect the family. It seems to me that it is similar being an 'eldest' in the household of the LORD. It is less a 'position' than a part of the life cycle of responsibility and discipleship. Some of you are now elders . . . and really have no choice to be otherwise. The eyes of the Father are upon you, and it is your responsibility to set an example in love, teaching and sacrifice for your younger siblings. Rule is only and ever the rule of the LORD. . .there are, though, some who help us, instruct us, discipline us, coach us, not for the sake of an entity, club, or organization . . . but out of personal obedience to the one who has called them. Thanks guys, I can already promise I won't always trust you, but you already have my respect, attention and good will . . .
cheers,
Okay, your whole post was good, but this was really good. I added some highlights to parts I thought were even gooder than really good. Very provocative.
@ABlessedMan , you are not the only one who got a little overwhelmed by this thread
As this has all played out, I think I have come to some reconcilliation in my head about how "Eldership" might play out in my life.
Meatspace:
My daily and weekly interactions with my home church will continue like they have for many years now. I have been deemed to meet all the requirements for this very function (elder) by my own congregation. I have not only submitted to authority in the past, but have been called on to counsel and discipline those defying leadership/Eldership within our congregation. I am still accountable to God himself, and to my family, but I am also accountable to the entire congregation to live up to this designation and maintain their confidence (everyone serves someone).
Cyberspace:
What did I miss?
Feel free to poke holes in this approach.
As this has all played out, I think I have come to some reconcilliation in my head about how "Eldership" might play out in my life.
Meatspace:
My daily and weekly interactions with my home church will continue like they have for many years now. I have been deemed to meet all the requirements for this very function (elder) by my own congregation. I have not only submitted to authority in the past, but have been called on to counsel and discipline those defying leadership/Eldership within our congregation. I am still accountable to God himself, and to my family, but I am also accountable to the entire congregation to live up to this designation and maintain their confidence (everyone serves someone).
Cyberspace:
- I am willing to submit myself to the expectations of the BF site and forum, or accept revocation of posting privileges if I violate protocol.
- In matters of plural marriage (only) I am willing to submit myself to counsel, direction, and rule by those seasoned veterans of PM worthy of being considered elders.
- Since I have no experience in PM, and can only see through my glass darkly, I need to digest the counsel of those with proven track records of maintaining a unified plural family (it need not be a perfect family, but one in order).
- I am willing to implement rulings by these elders as I know they have a sncere desire to see a future PM succeed and be a good testimony to the non- believer or non-practitioner.
- I reserve the right to revoke my submission should any or all of the elders prove themselves to be unworthy of such submission (moral, and/or biblical shortcomings) or should their rulings prove to be consistently unreliable.
What did I miss?
Feel free to poke holes in this approach.
I meant under his direct leadership as seen in the gospels. These other gentlemen were not under his direct earthly administration of leadership (as far as we are told in scripture). Right?
Nice!@ABlessedMan , you are not the only one who got a little overwhelmed by this thread
As this has all played out, I think I have come to some reconcilliation in my head about how "Eldership" might play out in my life.
Meatspace:
My daily and weekly interactions with my home church will continue like they have for many years now. I have been deemed to meet all the requirements for this very function (elder) by my own congregation. I have not only submitted to authority in the past, but have been called on to counsel and discipline those defying leadership/Eldership within our congregation. I am still accountable to God himself, and to my family, but I am also accountable to the entire congregation to live up to this designation and maintain their confidence (everyone serves someone).
Cyberspace:
- I am willing to submit myself to the expectations of the BF site and forum, or accept revocation of posting privileges if I violate protocol.
- In matters of plural marriage (only) I am willing to submit myself to counsel, direction, and rule by those seasoned veterans of PM worthy of being considered elders.
- Since I have no experience in PM, and can only see through my glass darkly, I need to digest the counsel of those with proven track records of maintaining a unified plural family (it need not be a perfect family, but one in order).
- I am willing to implement rulings by these elders as I know they have a sncere desire to see a future PM succeed and be a good testimony to the non- believer or non-practitioner.
- I reserve the right to revoke my submission should any or all of the elders prove themselves to be unworthy of such submission (moral, and/or biblical shortcomings) or should their rulings prove to be consistently unreliable.
What did I miss?
Feel free to poke holes in this approach.
And I look forward to the time that BibFam is more meatspace than cyberspace to you.
Very well done, sir! I'm stealing it!
The converse (this is off the top of my head, but let's go!) would be that you're welcome here as long as you maintain the decorum established and enforced by the moderators, and as long as you are motivated and teachable, you'll always find ready help with your relationships, and of course we reserve the right to terminate any counseling or support we're providing if we feel we're wasting our time.
What else do we need here to set the ground rules? I can see higher levels of commitment among men, but doesn't this basically get us started?
(Mojo, I liked what you said about meatspace, too, but until we have a BF fellowship on the ground, it's what's going on right here that's of primary interest to me.)
Unpack what you mean by "direct earthly administration of leadership". Eleven were with Jesus during his earthly ministry, and one got smacked off his horse and got a talking-to. Presumably all were led by the Holy Spirit, say from Pentecost forward. But Paul's use of plural pronouns in some of his letters, and (I'm doing this from memory from a long time ago, but I think this is right...) use of the plural 'apostles' in a couple of places, makes it appear that he considered other men besides the 12 to be legit apostles.
Before anyone reminds me about distractions and diversions, this point would actually be relevant to any thorough discussion re the appointment of elders. My thinking, though, is that I'm willing to table this whole issue for now (we're not there yet), and resurrect it later when/if necessary, but if we need to open this can of worms now it needs to be on a different thread.
Interesting, but yes, let's table
I think it's also interesting that apparently Timothy and Titus were sent by Paul in a designated position of some authority to the churches.
I guess I included the two to separate the functions each has in my life and as to not have one usurp the other in matters of conflict.
Example:
If my home congregation insisted I drop my understanding of polygyny or followership with BF, or suffer disciplinary action, I would reserve my independence to follow the leadership/direction of BF, because I would see that as a direct rejection of polygyny (which I can't see a scriptural justification for).
If BF elders required me to leave my home congregation simply because it does not accept polygyny, but my congregation has not threatened to excommunicate me for my beliefs, then I would side with my congregation and maintain their fellowship.
Note: these are just examples. I am not saying either is a possibility...but I'm not saying they are an impossibility either.
I hear you, and agree.
Soon (as bandwidth permits) I'm going to open a thread re "21st century church" and the impact of the internet on the body of Christ. There are some things we won't begin to understand for 100 years or more, but I think we have enough preliminary data collected over the past 20-25 years to start having a conversation and trying some experiments.
As a teaser, consider the impact modern transportation options have had our our ability to choose our fellowships. When people mostly walked to get around, or rode or horse or a mule if they could afford it, any Christian "fellowship" (or any other community of people) was limited to your village, or the section of town you could get around in within reasonable walking distance. Now, with cars, a 30' drive each way to church is nothing, and we can gather with people from all over a major metropolitan area that we only see a few hours a week, while remaining relatively ignorant of what's going on in the lives of the people in our neighborhood (the people whose houses we could walk to if we wanted to hang out).
We just assume that driving across town to meet with people who rally around the same creed as us is normal, and can't imagine starting a home fellowship by inviting the people that live on either side of us and across the street to get together. But I wonder what our first century brothers and sisters would make 20th century church and the assumptions we make about "how it's supposed to be". Lots to think about....
Soon (as bandwidth permits) I'm going to open a thread re "21st century church" and the impact of the internet on the body of Christ. There are some things we won't begin to understand for 100 years or more, but I think we have enough preliminary data collected over the past 20-25 years to start having a conversation and trying some experiments.
As a teaser, consider the impact modern transportation options have had our our ability to choose our fellowships. When people mostly walked to get around, or rode or horse or a mule if they could afford it, any Christian "fellowship" (or any other community of people) was limited to your village, or the section of town you could get around in within reasonable walking distance. Now, with cars, a 30' drive each way to church is nothing, and we can gather with people from all over a major metropolitan area that we only see a few hours a week, while remaining relatively ignorant of what's going on in the lives of the people in our neighborhood (the people whose houses we could walk to if we wanted to hang out).
We just assume that driving across town to meet with people who rally around the same creed as us is normal, and can't imagine starting a home fellowship by inviting the people that live on either side of us and across the street to get together. But I wonder what our first century brothers and sisters would make 20th century church and the assumptions we make about "how it's supposed to be". Lots to think about....
Been on this "is this really how it's supposed to be?"road for the last 10 years. I hear you. I've mostly been concentrating on working within the system of brick and mortar to help others see that "church" is not what we assume it is.
But, you operate within the "Bible Belt" where so much of what you see is cultural conditioning. Those of us outside the belt bubble mainly deal with folks who "go to church" because they really want to, not because they have to maintain their status within the church great grandpa built. It's actually easier to reorient them in many ways.
Interested to hear your thoughts and see your ideas.
Plus, we're livin the life, not just asking uncomfortable questions or having awkward conversations about it. That makes us pretty scary to a lot of folk....
We spent many years in the institutions after I came to the conclusion they were philosophically, legally, and spiritually flawed. Lots of good people in there need to hear what their alternatives are. Doesn't look like we're going back at this point, though—we're ready to do our bit in developing the next thing. More will be revealed....