-
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 think the question is a little lost in this thread due to all the comments made (at least for me) so could you please restate the question as concisely as possible.
Thanks
@aineo, you are basically anticipating my thoughts on these questions, but I'll go on record with my answers and reasoning.
No. Even more no. Yes. No. Yes. Yes.
Boy, that clears everything up!
Well, it at least shows we are thinking the same on these questions.
You are right, I am processing. Sadly, this whole work thing has gotten in the way the last 48 hours or so. Hopefully more coming tonight.
One of the best reads I've ever had was: "Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity"
by Mark A. Noll
On the chapter about the Reformation there was an interesting quote by either a bishop or the Pope. I can't recall the exact quote, but the essence was that "now, each man will deem himself to be a prophet, with no accountability, to interpret as he sees fit in his own eyes". Does anyone know the quote I am trying to convey, or who it was?
@andrew I'm not really sure where you are going with your line of thinking or reasoning, and quite frankly, I've not had a chance to really sit down and study out each man's opinions here, as I have been very busy these last few days.
I just want to give my perspective on the whole matter using the above pseudo quote, and the following verse "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
I guess I view the whole matter in terms of submission. At some point, we, as men, need to humble ourselves and submit ourselves to accountability and yes, "rule" of other men (elders/bishops/ presbytery/ leaders, whatever you want to call it) even if it's for the sake of example of submitting to men we can see as a testimony that we can submit to God who we cannot see.
I willingly submit to my local assembly as a matter of conscience and accountability. I have done so for many years now. I follow the direction of the church, even when I feel that things could be done differently.
But...here's where it gets real. What would I do if I were to ever take a second wife? I almost certainly would not be welcome, and I'm sure all the elders, except me (of whom I am one) would make a judgment on me using scripture that they interpret as against my decision. I would probably get to give my apologeia, but I doubt it would get me far.
So, do I become a prophet unto myself and leave? Would I go against leadership?
I guess I would.
That gets us back to "what is the threshold? What hill am I willing to die on when not submitting to authority and leadership? At what point is God true and every elder a liar? If not polygyny, then what?
In the end, I only end up with more questions.
Sorry Andrew, help us by showing us what's on your mind in all this.
by Mark A. Noll
On the chapter about the Reformation there was an interesting quote by either a bishop or the Pope. I can't recall the exact quote, but the essence was that "now, each man will deem himself to be a prophet, with no accountability, to interpret as he sees fit in his own eyes". Does anyone know the quote I am trying to convey, or who it was?
@andrew I'm not really sure where you are going with your line of thinking or reasoning, and quite frankly, I've not had a chance to really sit down and study out each man's opinions here, as I have been very busy these last few days.
I just want to give my perspective on the whole matter using the above pseudo quote, and the following verse "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
I guess I view the whole matter in terms of submission. At some point, we, as men, need to humble ourselves and submit ourselves to accountability and yes, "rule" of other men (elders/bishops/ presbytery/ leaders, whatever you want to call it) even if it's for the sake of example of submitting to men we can see as a testimony that we can submit to God who we cannot see.
I willingly submit to my local assembly as a matter of conscience and accountability. I have done so for many years now. I follow the direction of the church, even when I feel that things could be done differently.
But...here's where it gets real. What would I do if I were to ever take a second wife? I almost certainly would not be welcome, and I'm sure all the elders, except me (of whom I am one) would make a judgment on me using scripture that they interpret as against my decision. I would probably get to give my apologeia, but I doubt it would get me far.
So, do I become a prophet unto myself and leave? Would I go against leadership?
I guess I would.
That gets us back to "what is the threshold? What hill am I willing to die on when not submitting to authority and leadership? At what point is God true and every elder a liar? If not polygyny, then what?
In the end, I only end up with more questions.
Sorry Andrew, help us by showing us what's on your mind in all this.
While I await a response from Andrew.
I personally don't see the title of elder as that big an issue, as a man who loves others and can use his bible can direct others to consider the correct scriptures and principles related to what ever the problem is. You don't need a badge (Elder) to assist others. It is far better for people to come to their own decisions as then it is their determination to move or act in harmony with scripture as they then own it rather than just submit to it because someone else required it. The problem is that many use the badge as a stick and thus require others to yield to their "authority". That's why I am a little pedantic about who qualifies. Many have come and professed the right to lead others such as "Jones town south Africa" "Waco Texas", this group that is currently in the spotlight or even the nut job that lives just a few kms up the road, that has convinced others that he is the returned Messiah. With authority comes problems, however with a caring and loving heart comes healing for the weary soul. Only if one truly qualifies according to scripture can he hold such an office and most who claim the office do not qualify (2 Cor 11; 13)
But your above expressions are appreciated and I will consider each of them.
I personally don't see the title of elder as that big an issue, as a man who loves others and can use his bible can direct others to consider the correct scriptures and principles related to what ever the problem is. You don't need a badge (Elder) to assist others. It is far better for people to come to their own decisions as then it is their determination to move or act in harmony with scripture as they then own it rather than just submit to it because someone else required it. The problem is that many use the badge as a stick and thus require others to yield to their "authority". That's why I am a little pedantic about who qualifies. Many have come and professed the right to lead others such as "Jones town south Africa" "Waco Texas", this group that is currently in the spotlight or even the nut job that lives just a few kms up the road, that has convinced others that he is the returned Messiah. With authority comes problems, however with a caring and loving heart comes healing for the weary soul. Only if one truly qualifies according to scripture can he hold such an office and most who claim the office do not qualify (2 Cor 11; 13)
But your above expressions are appreciated and I will consider each of them.
I agree, I personally have left the group I was with for one basic reason Deut 13; 1-18. As monogamy was required by the gods of Greece and Rome Zeus/Jupiter and Hera/Juno (the gods of marriage) and polygamy was totally rejected under their worship, then, at least to my mind, any that require monogamy and reject polygamy lead other to follow false gods. Adherence to the counsel at Deut 13 thus requires that I not follow any such ones even if they claim Eldership or to be the true church. Such ones cannot lead others to follow the teachings of false gods and still be of God, not according to Deut 13. The way I see it is if I continue to be apart of such a group then I would be required to share the outcomes that will come upon them. This one point of worship is now that hill.
Fair enough. For simplicity's sake I'm going to start by reposting my original post (post #2 in this thread):
You asked for the question, so there's that. Since then, in support of my assertions listed above, I went on to submit a handful of verses from Paul that (a) address the authority of the man in the home and the authority of elders in the church using the exact same Greek word (with different endings as per Greek conjugation), and (b) expose the "Christ is the head of the man" trope as being not exactly the whole story on "chain of command" or "chain of headship" in the body of Christ, because it's not the whole story on the headship of Christ as mentioned in the bible (he is also referred to as the "head of the church" and "head of the body". If that's not ringing any bells, you might want to re-read those posts, because there are some nuances discussed there that I'm not reproducing here.
There's also been a bit of discussion around that cultural bias mentioned above. And some other verses re rulers giving account and saints judging matters within the church, etc. Otherwise for my purposes that brings us current.
Gaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh......
You guys are posting faster than I can keep up with. And I have got to go get some other work done and grab dinner with the fam. Prolly back later tonight; tomo morn at latest.
Mojo, I think my recap for Aussies above is the starting place (or re-starting place, if you will) for "what's on my mind". And there's a context for my interest in all this that I want to go ahead and share:
Most of the failures I see in plural marriage are guys doing it wrong, and most of those guys think they're doing it right, or at least they think that it's up to them to figure out on their own how to do it, and they aren't exactly super-open to advice, let alone constructive criticism. And the misguided idea that they're accountable only to God is not helping them in that situation. Typically, the idea that the woman has no recourse, no right of appeal, nobody to be her advocate, nobody to confront the husband on her behalf, nothing to do but submit or leave, is not helpful to the situation, because it reinforces in the husband a certain arrogance and deafness toward the woman and a certain "I'm the boss, and asking for help makes me look weak" feeling toward other men. And all of that's before you get to the sheer offensiveness of the idea that some man would 'interfere' in another man's marriage. And it also reinforces a certain despair and hopelessness in the woman, and that's before you pile on the idea that "submit or leave" means "submit or leave and be single for the rest of your life".
So my concern here is not for my authority, or any other elder-wannabe's authority. (Mojo, when you and I have been on the phone, did I sound like the kind of guy that wants to micromanage your life, or have you bow down to some idol of myself I have constructed?) My concern here is for all the young guys that are going to actually try to do this crazy life because they got validation for their nutcase idea at Biblical Families, and all the women they're going to damage.
Keep that in mind as we continue this discussion.
So if I have this right. Should a husband submit to the authority of Christ as given to the Church or overseers or Elders. If that is the Question then my answer is YES.
However if those that claim that authority do not adhere to scripture and lead others to follow false gods even if just in this matter of monogamy over polygamy, then NO.
The scriptures they use may be of benefit and as such we should submit to what the scriptures say and thus accept the counsel regardless of who gives it, but to yield to the authority of those that would lead us to submit ourselves to the teachings of false gods would be to join in their idolatry. I have no problem with authority over me and my house, but I will not submit to those involved in false worship regardless of how pious they present.
I suppose that I find it interesting that many here are still attached to their old churches when at least in this one matter of marriage those same churches attempt to lead them into the worship of false gods even if unknowingly. Did not Jesus say that we cannot serve two masters. If those churches are right stick with them however if they are wrong then maybe its time to get out for fear that Deut 13; 14-16 may be applied to us. That's how I personally see the matter, what others choose to do is up to them.
Andrew , I absolutely agree with your last comments. At last I understand what your on about.
However if those that claim that authority do not adhere to scripture and lead others to follow false gods even if just in this matter of monogamy over polygamy, then NO.
The scriptures they use may be of benefit and as such we should submit to what the scriptures say and thus accept the counsel regardless of who gives it, but to yield to the authority of those that would lead us to submit ourselves to the teachings of false gods would be to join in their idolatry. I have no problem with authority over me and my house, but I will not submit to those involved in false worship regardless of how pious they present.
I suppose that I find it interesting that many here are still attached to their old churches when at least in this one matter of marriage those same churches attempt to lead them into the worship of false gods even if unknowingly. Did not Jesus say that we cannot serve two masters. If those churches are right stick with them however if they are wrong then maybe its time to get out for fear that Deut 13; 14-16 may be applied to us. That's how I personally see the matter, what others choose to do is up to them.
Andrew , I absolutely agree with your last comments. At last I understand what your on about.
But I have always lived by the admonition "when you find the perfect church (assembly), please leave, because you'll mess it up."
Moral? No perfect congregations exist because there are no perfect humans. Sometimes you look the other way if it's not gross heresy.
I only bow down to the idol others have constructed of you
Ask, seek, and knock.
That could be an elder, not just Christ himself.
One more context thought: When I was in my 40s I used to play a lot of paintball out in the woods. We'd host youth groups (and one time a missionary group) or just go out on our own (a small intentional community) and teach and learn lessons about leadership, followership, teamwork, how to recognize who's on your team and who's not, decisive action, and so forth. I often took a newbie under my wing and gave the following spiel: "If you stay by my side and do everything I tell you to do, you'll get through this. If I have time to explain what we're doing to you, I will, but if I don't, I'll expect you to move anyway. First time you do something other than what I tell you to do, you're on your own, and good luck with that." I still think that way, whether I'm the one with the experience or without the experience.
You are killing me.I only bow down to the idol others have constructed of you
But you didn't really answer my question. You don't have to if you don't want to. Just pointing that out.That's good....
I thought that was implied in the humorYou are killing me.
That's good....
No, your counsel has been authoritative, because you are experienced, but not authoritarian. Does that describe the difference well enough?
I've tried to type out my thoughts already, but the wordiness defeated the point. Here's an attempt at short and sweet:
It seems apparent that there is some "leadership" that elders have over others. This is congruent with much of scripture, especially Proverbs (Proverbs 12:15, Proverbs 11:14, Proverbs 19:20-21, and plenty more). Proverbs 12:15 also tells us that "a fool is right in his own eyes.", and then there is Proverbs 18:1 that says, "whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire, he breaks out against all sound judgment".
If we are wise, we will listen to the counsel of our elders, and we will be sure we are aligning ourselves with elders who are wise and having shown themselves to be seeking God.
As we expect our wives to listen to us, we should also be willing to listen to those charged in leadership roles over us. The difference is that there is a covenant relationship with our wives (let's not turn this into a marriage debate), and that isn't always true with churches. That said, our wives have an option to respectfully rebel, but that option comes with consequences. Even so, a wife should respectfully defer to her husband in all but the most egregious situations, and do so in a way that glorifies Christ.
In a similar way, we should also seek to glorify Christ in our respect for the wise leaders who have been placed in our lives, and even if we disagree, it is possible (and even probably) that they know things we don't yet know. However, we can rebel, but that comes with consequences too. Trusting the counsel of the wise is a good thing. It is unlikely they would remain respected in such a role if their wisdom wasn't evident.
Sometimes I see discussions like this like the men are sitting at the gates of the city, learning from one another, but especially learning from the wiser ones present. I've often said if my children would just learn from me and begin where I'm at now, their lives would be so much easier. If I could also learn to do the same, the same would be true.
I have a lot more I am mulling over regarding this topic, but my short night last night is getting to me.
It seems apparent that there is some "leadership" that elders have over others. This is congruent with much of scripture, especially Proverbs (Proverbs 12:15, Proverbs 11:14, Proverbs 19:20-21, and plenty more). Proverbs 12:15 also tells us that "a fool is right in his own eyes.", and then there is Proverbs 18:1 that says, "whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire, he breaks out against all sound judgment".
If we are wise, we will listen to the counsel of our elders, and we will be sure we are aligning ourselves with elders who are wise and having shown themselves to be seeking God.
As we expect our wives to listen to us, we should also be willing to listen to those charged in leadership roles over us. The difference is that there is a covenant relationship with our wives (let's not turn this into a marriage debate), and that isn't always true with churches. That said, our wives have an option to respectfully rebel, but that option comes with consequences. Even so, a wife should respectfully defer to her husband in all but the most egregious situations, and do so in a way that glorifies Christ.
In a similar way, we should also seek to glorify Christ in our respect for the wise leaders who have been placed in our lives, and even if we disagree, it is possible (and even probably) that they know things we don't yet know. However, we can rebel, but that comes with consequences too. Trusting the counsel of the wise is a good thing. It is unlikely they would remain respected in such a role if their wisdom wasn't evident.
Sometimes I see discussions like this like the men are sitting at the gates of the city, learning from one another, but especially learning from the wiser ones present. I've often said if my children would just learn from me and begin where I'm at now, their lives would be so much easier. If I could also learn to do the same, the same would be true.
I have a lot more I am mulling over regarding this topic, but my short night last night is getting to me.
Okay @andrew , are you speaking "rule" or "counsel"?
If a young guy wants to get into the polygyny world without counsel, we would call him silly because "Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellers there is safety."
But, in matters of the home and marriage, is he to follow the "rule" of the elders?
There is a difference.
If a young guy wants to get into the polygyny world without counsel, we would call him silly because "Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellers there is safety."
But, in matters of the home and marriage, is he to follow the "rule" of the elders?
There is a difference.
Yeah, it was, and I guess I didn't need to lean in on you like that. Thanks for being a good sport about it.I thought that was implied in the humor
I think that's a great way to put it. Thank you.
aineo, you and I are very close. I agree with everything you said, but for my purposes here it doesn't go quite far enough. I'll get to more of that below, but for now I wanted to briefly call attention to the scare quotes above. Ask yourself why you had to put quotes around leadership. Why couldn't you have simply said "It seems apparent that there is some leadership that elders have over others"?
I submit that this is another symptom of our cultural conditioning. It is just very difficult for us to think clearly about leadership issues, partly because the world's screwed up one way, the church is screwed up another, and as far the average patriarchal Christian male goes, the only authority we really want to talk about is our own God-ordained plenary authority over those unruly women (not you, aineo, you're a reasonable guy—just the APCM). So even when we try to talk about leadership, we can't just talk about leadership, we have to talk about "leadership".
Let me know if that makes sense to you or you think I'm reading too much into that.
For Mojo and in further response to aineo.
Where we are right now, what I'm speaking is not so much the issue, but Paul is speaking in terms of rule, not counsel. So that's why I say that I agree with aineo as far as he goes, but I don't think he goes far enough (yet) to address the issues raised by Paul's language. And I'm still mindful of the identicalness of Paul's instructions to men and to elders, so it's hard for me to consider rewriting the verses about elders and deacons to say counsel without then suggesting that we ought also to rewrite the verse concerning husbands.
I'm gonna hafta run—it's family time. I feel like I'm on the brink of a download; more will be revealed.
Meanwhile, here's a new wrinkle.
Let's revist "the head of every man is Christ". It occurred to me to wonder about what "every" meant in that context. Often, in English, you get the expression "each and every", which is supposed to connote "each of these things considered individually, and all of them considered together". You get the same thing in legal documents that impose "joint and several" liability—that means all of you together and every one of you individually.
See what I did there? I used "every one" for the individual case, and that happens too, so this each/every thing is not a hard and fast, "bright line" rule, just a general usage thing that you can usually figure out from context if it's not obvious.
Now get on your bible software and search for "every" and check out 1 Co 11 through say 14 or 15. Look at the usage. When every is used to refer to all of something, it's translating the Greek word pas. When every is used either by itself or with 'one', as in 'every one', to refer to things considered one at a time, it's translating the Greek word hekatos. And of course the usage in "the head of every man is Christ" is pas.
So we APCMs (I think I'm gonna keep that one) tend to quote that verse as if it says "my personal, individual head is Christ" (flashback to the '70s: "Jesus Christ, my personal Lord and Savior"...), when what it really appears to be saying when we dig a little deeper is that "the head of all men is Christ". This would be totally consistent with the other two passages that call Christ the head of the assembly and the head of the body, and would be totally consistent with the idea of intermediate leadership in groups of males.
BTW, the presbyterians (the rule-by-elders guys) I think have the right sense of this with their appellate court system, with councils of elders ("sessions") over local asssemblies, and intermediate council that I can't remember the name of over regions, and the supreme high council ("general assembly") over the entire denomination. My point is not to tout presbyterianism, but to call attention to the fact that wherever there are working groups of men there will be leadership, and the handful of elders over the individual local assembly aren't necessarily the 'buck stops here' guys, either. This is a principle that has wider application.
Be thinking about that "every" thing in Corinthians. I know I will be. Good night, y'all.
@andrew What you are speaking of still requires leadership at the consent of the governed in my mind. The RCC utilized its monopoly on the salvation of souls by threatening excommunication and damnation should the authority of the leadership be breached. To what consequence would the APCM be motivated to follow outside elder rulings in his house and home? It's still a voluntary system. We are told to obey those who have rule over us because they watch for our souls and give an account to God....but....just like the example of the wife whose husband asks her to do something contrary to scripture, if there is sin committed at the approval of the council, is it accounted to us or them?
If belonging to the group is paramount in your intents, then you stay and acquiesce to elder rule. If you could care less about the assembled community, then sayonara. Again ,that's a modern, evangelical cultural mindset, but it exists.
BTW- I once heard JV McGee say he was Baptist in doctrine, but Presbyterian in governance.
If belonging to the group is paramount in your intents, then you stay and acquiesce to elder rule. If you could care less about the assembled community, then sayonara. Again ,that's a modern, evangelical cultural mindset, but it exists.
BTW- I once heard JV McGee say he was Baptist in doctrine, but Presbyterian in governance.
Just curious, not trying to argue, but what if the congregation you leave is spot on in all areas of doctrine that you adhere to, but is wrong on polygyny? Do you leave it to find an assembly that believes in polygyny, but is deficient in other doctrines? Do you form your own assembly? Are you an assembly unto yourself? What are your qualifications for fellowship and assembly?