Authority, submission, and chain of command

[Mark C]

This seems very relevant and instructive. It certainly fleshes things out a little bit. It seems any times the NT leaves us with questions the OT will frequently fill in the blanks.

That is, of course, precisely why I harp on the fact that one can NOT understand the 'new' without realizing it is built upon the Rock, line-by-line, precept-by-precept, of the 'old'. House built on 'sand' have problems. So - if there's a problem, it's not in what He Wrote, and didn't change.

 

[Mojo]

That is, of course, precisely why I harp on the fact that one can NOT understand the 'new' without realizing it is built upon the Rock, line-by-line, precept-by-precept, of the 'old'. House built on 'sand' have problems. So - if there's a problem, it's not in what He Wrote, and didn't change.

Which always gets us back to polygyny!

 

[andrew]

So how much control do they have then? How far does their rule extend?

And how are they appointed and are there checks and balances or are they rulers for life? Suddenly I'm starting to get an inkling of how the Catholics ended up with a pope.

Zec, have you ever heard of "Godwin's Law"? There's a funny / not funny rule on the internet that says that if a discussion on the internet goes on long enough, the probability that someone will be compared to Hitler approaches 100%. And if you get on facebook much, you'll probably agree it's a pretty good rule of thumb.

We need a comparable rule for Christians, that says "if a conversation about authority in the church goes on long enough, the probability that someone is going to be compared to the pope approaches 100%".

Or we could just stick to the logical fallacy "false dichotomy". That's really all I have to say about this.

 

[Mark C]

Which always gets us back to polygyny!

Also why I harp...

 

[Mark C]

We need a comparable rule for Christians, that says "if a conversation about authority in the church goes on long enough, the probability that someone is going to be compared to the pope approaches 100%".

You mean Pope Molech? The one who just decreed that GMO'd FrankenWafers are now hunky-dory, for their "holy services", because the Vicar of MonSatan decrees that the kind of 'herbs' God made (which bear seed and reproduce according to kind) are nuthin' special?

Sorry, but that kind of rebellion to His Word was what I just connected to this week's parsha (Devarim), so it's still a 'hot button'. Kinda speaks volumes about the 'world' today, and the "Hell on Earth" they're workin' so hard to build, though...

 

[andrew]

I wonder if we're seeing some lawyerly tactics here where you're setting up your position and maybe your readers with pointed questions but not wanting to give up any rhetorical advantage yourself. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

You're forgiven, but you're definitely wrong. One of the reasons I got out of the law business is the constant manipulation of procedure for advantage at the expense of substantive truth. Not my game.

 

[andrew]

You mean Pope Molech? The one who just decreed that GMO'd FrankenWafers are now hunky-dory, for their "holy services", because the Vicar of MonSatan decrees that the kind of 'herbs' God made (which bear seed and reproduce according to kind) are nuthin' special?

That'd be the one, as far as I can tell. Ask the guys that keep making the comparison.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec, have you ever heard of "Godwin's Law"? There's a funny / not funny rule on the internet that says that if a discussion on the internet goes on long enough, the probability that someone will be compared to Hitler approaches 100%. And if you get on facebook much, you'll probably agree it's a pretty good rule of thumb.

We need a comparable rule for Christians, that says "if a conversation about authority in the church goes on long enough, the probability that someone is going to be compared to the pope approaches 100%".

Or we could just stick to the logical fallacy "false dichotomy". That's really all I have to say about this.

There was no false dichotomy in the question you didn't answer though. How far does this authority extend, how is it conferred and is it absolute inside its sphere?

The rest of us are kind of arguing against what we think you mean because you haven't told us what you're actually proposing. What are you actually proposing? It may be I actually agree with you if we can back it up with the OT. The NT doesn't seem to be giving me the ironclad clarity I would need to institute such an infrastructure.

 

[andrew]

@aineo, that all makes perfect sense to me. The only thing remaining to lay a kind of foundation for further construction would be to realize that in the same way that a younger might leave the provision and protection of an elder, knowing the risks he's taking and weighing the costs and benefits, there are times when an elder has to boot a younger for the sake of the community, after weighing the risks, costs, and benefits. Does that make sense to you?

Some further thoughts:

A member has a 'right to leave'. Keeping someone against their will would be a form of involuntary servitude or at least exploitation.

An elder has a 'right to rule', as in, protect the integrity of the group, as in, make and enforce the 'rules' of the group. Anything else, and you don't really have a "group" at all, you're just a mob pretending to be a group, which is also a form of exploitation. It's a way for members to take benefits from the group (and typically from what would have constituted the leadership) without any expectation that they will be required to conform to any standards or reciprocity.

An elder is also a member, and as a member is free to leave when he comes to the conclusion that he should.

 

[andrew]

There was no false dichotomy in the question you didn't answer though.

The false dichotomy was the leap from your unbiblical (or at least "abiblical") assertion that "asssembly" is restricted to "corporate worship", to a bunch of questions about elder authority that seem to assume that we have no idea what we're talking about here and no idea where to start (the cherry-on-top of which was the pope remark), as if there were nothing in the middle, no other choices. So either we agree with you that the rule of elders is limited to picking the songs and figuring out who's going to speak when we get together for "corporate worship", or we're on our way to electing someone to be the next pope of Biblical Families. That's your false dichotomy.

I know you can do better, or else I wouldn't be hammering you on this.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The false dichotomy was the leap from your unbiblical (or at least "abiblical") assertion that "asssembly" is restricted to "corporate worship", to a bunch of questions about elder authority that seem to assume that we have no idea what we're talking about here and no idea where to start (the cherry-on-top of which was the pope remark), as if there were nothing in the middle, no other choices. So either we agree with you that the rule of elders is limited to picking the songs and figuring out who's going to speak when we get together for "corporate worship", or we're on our way to electing someone to be the next pope of Biblical Families. That's your false dichotomy.

I know you can do better, or else I wouldn't be hammering you on this.

I am editing this to say that I did make the claim that it seems like the elder's role is restricted to the assembly. I didn't claim, or at least didn't mean to claim that anything else is popery.

But brother I didn't make those claims. I just said that this idea is not very well fleshed out. I don't know what you're proposing. The definition of the limits and roles of these elders is huge. No one will deny there are elders and they have roles, if that is what you're wanting someone to say before we can move on to a point then I will say it.

According to scripture there can be no doubt that elder is a mandated office and those elders have some level of authority.

Now what level of authority are you claiming for them? Because you can call it a false dichotomy but that would be glossing over the fact that there have been a lot of abuses and foolishness done in the church by people in authority.

 

[andrew]

@Mark, your point about walled cities may tee up the first point with which to start a list of points we can all agree on. Or it may lead to a flame war that destroys Biblical Families, who knows? Let's try it and find out.

I submit that "deciding who should be in the group" is at least one of the most important things elders are supposed to judge, and possibly the most important. That has two components: Deciding who's allowed in to the group, and deciding when someone is kicked out of the group, even if they don't want to go.

In the walled city context, we can see the elders sitting in the gates, monitoring who's coming in and who's going out, and occasionally intervening as required in their judgment. An observation: They don't really need to "run" most of what goes on in the city; they just need to be available to settle disputes as they come up (and occasionally give someone the left foot of fellowship when necessary). And the protection of the walls and the ability to trade freely in an ordered and relatively civil community (where 'rules' are enforced by 'rulers') are tangible and intangible forms of capital that is the incentive for the residents (members) to cooperate with the rulers and follow the rules. Cooperators are welcome; exploiters and abusers are weeded out.

We don't live in walled cities anymore, and thanks to the material abundance provided by the industrial revolution and the information abundance provided by the recent IT revolution, elders don't typically have as much capital (at least not that people can see, like a wall) to work with. (That's the beginning of a whole 'nother thread....) But there's a lot of food for thought there still.

Meanwhile, other lessons come together from the Body of Christ and the role of the immune system (marking things as 'of the body' or 'not of the body'), or old lessons from the paintball exercises that have to do with knowing who's on your side and who's not. Some other time, maybe. Just bookmarking for later.

 

[andrew]

Because you can call it a false dichotomy but that would be glossing over the fact that there have been a lot of abuses and foolishness done in the church by people in authority.

I'm not glossing over anything, I'm just tired of hearing about it without any relevance to what's actually being talked about.

Zec, what I'm doing here is facilitating a group discussion, not laying out a specific proposal. There is a sweet irony in the idea that you want me to lay out my plan in detail while dropping dark hints about popes and unbridled authority. This is an exercise in building consensus through discussion. I've said as much as I'm going to say until we get some consensus, and so far aineo's doing most of the heavy lifting on that front (although there have been other contributions, including especially this recent thing by Mark).

An interesting side effect of all this is that we're all learning a lot about each other, eh? Not really my original intent, more like a happy bonus. (My original intent was accommodating your request for a separate thread.... Still glad you asked? )

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm not glossing over anything, I'm just tired of hearing about it without any relevance to what's actually being talked about.

Zec, what I'm doing here is facilitating a group discussion, not laying out a specific proposal. There is a sweet irony in the idea that you want me to lay out my plan in detail while dropping dark hints about popes and unbridled authority. This is an exercise in building consensus through discussion. I've said as much as I'm going to say until we get some consensus, and so far aineo's doing most of the heavy lifting on that front (although there have been other contributions, including especially this recent thing by Mark).

An interesting side effect of all this is that we're all learning a lot about each other, eh? Not really my original intent, more like a happy bonus. (My original intent was accommodating your request for a separate thread.... Still glad you asked? )

And I told you what I thought. The verses you cited didn't point to a role outside of the assembly. You didn't like that answer. You haven't said why yet, unless it got lost in all crosstalk. And my request was for a side thread on whether anyone could interfere in a man's home. This has very little to do with what I wanted.

If you're just moderating a group discussion that's fine and even useful and helpful but that's not what I'm picking up on. It feels like you have a set place you want us to go. If not then maybe it isn't helpful to shoot down the ideas that are presented.

Surely you have an opinion on this yourself. Everyone else has attempted an answer. You're the only one involved who hasn't revealed his position. Where are you on this? What does your role as an elder entail?

 

[Aussies]

So how much control do they have then? How far does their rule extend?

Ruler, leader, adviser, counselor, brother?
When the Israelite's wanted to be like the other nations to have a king (ruler) over them (rather than remain with no king and have God continue as their only king) they were told of the problems that would come 1 Sam 8. Any ruler other than Christ is prone to problems (1 Sam 8:3).
Were not Joshua and Caleb both leaders of God's people and yet they were not always followed.
Was not Nathan an adviser to David (2 Sam 7:3) and what about Ahithophel (2 Sam 16:23). Yet even Ahithophel was not always in harmony with God's will.
When David sinned in relation to Uriah (Bathsheba) did not Nathan counsel David (2 Sam 12) but he did not rule him.
When it came to the Christian congregation, did not leadership create issues as some said they followed different men (1 Cor 1:12)
All men in Christ are brothers.
There is a major difference between a "Ruler" and a leader, adviser, counselor, brother
Only one of those seeks power.
For a man or even a group of men to claim the right to " rule" as opposed to, lead, advise, counsel, is dangerous. Is not Christ our "Ruler" ? Do not all others need to come under Christ in every matter?
Acts 20: 28-30 makes it clear that the responsibility is to "shepherd" the flock for those who would "rule" are better described in verses 29-30.
A "ruler" sets laws that must be obeyed. A shepherd however guides and leads.
A "ruler" sets the standard by what he thinks is right, a shepherd leads the sheep to consider the word of God and thus it is still God that rules as the standard is not that of any man.
In the gates of a city what was the role of the older men? They all had the law and the standards of God, thus those older men did not "rule" but rather simply had to be sure that the people in dispute were adhering to what was already written.

And how are they appointed and are there checks and balances or are they rulers for life? Suddenly I'm starting to get an inkling of how the Catholics ended up with a pope.

When it comes to the criteria for those that would shepherd the flock, the very first thing would need to be that they are no part of the world (John 17:16-17). If we still mix in the teachings and beliefs of Christendom that have pagan roots, then can we truly claim to be no part of the world?
Should not the attitude be like Paul (Eph 3:8) and see ourselves as the least among our brothers.
If the flock is loved and Lead to follow Christ then it does not need to be "ruled".

 

[The Revolting Man]

Ruler, leader, adviser, counselor, brother?
When the Israelite's wanted to be like the other nations to have a king (ruler) over them (rather than remain with no king and have God continue as their only king) they were told of the problems that would come 1 Sam 8. Any ruler other than Christ is prone to problems (1 Sam 8:3).
Were not Joshua and Caleb both leaders of God's people and yet they were not always followed.
Was not Nathan an adviser to David (2 Sam 7:3) and what about Ahithophel (2 Sam 16:23). Yet even Ahithophel was not always in harmony with God's will.
When David sinned in relation to Uriah (Bathsheba) did not Nathan counsel David (2 Sam 12) but he did not rule him.
When it came to the Christian congregation, did not leadership create issues as some said they followed different men (1 Cor 1:12)
All men in Christ are brothers.
There is a major difference between a "Ruler" and a leader, adviser, counselor, brother
Only one of those seeks power.
For a man or even a group of men to claim the right to " rule" as opposed to, lead, advise, counsel, is dangerous. Is not Christ our "Ruler" ? Do not all others need to come under Christ in every matter?
Acts 20: 28-30 makes it clear that the responsibility is to "shepherd" the flock for those who would "rule" are better described in verses 29-30.
A "ruler" sets laws that must be obeyed. A shepherd however guides and leads.
A "ruler" sets the standard by what he thinks is right, a shepherd leads the sheep to consider the word of God and thus it is still God that rules as the standard is not that of any man.
In the gates of a city what was the role of the older men? They all had the law and the standards of God, thus those older men did not "rule" but rather simply had to be sure that the people in dispute were adhering to what was already written.



When it comes to the criteria for those that would shepherd the flock, the very first thing would need to be that they are no part of the world (John 17:16-17). If we still mix in the teachings and beliefs of Christendom that have pagan roots, then can we truly claim to be no part of the world?
Should not the attitude be like Paul (Eph 3:8) and see ourselves as the least among our brothers.
If the flock is loved and Lead to follow Christ then it does not need to be "ruled".

So this is a helpful comment that takes a scriptural approach. I think the shepherd analogy is excellent and should be explored.

 

[Aussies]

An "Elder" is nothing more than a living index of scripture that has the wisdom to know and understand which verse and principle is best applied to the issue at hand.
He holds no authority in his own wright, only under Christ, due to the fact that as soon as it is his expression, then it is only his expression and he is only another flawed imperfect man, just as we all are.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

So, like.... in my view the elders are meant to primarily function as a group. They all sat at the same gate, I imagine, and bore witness to the same controversies and rendered judgment. So, properly arranged, I don't need to fear a rogue elder rendering self-serving or draconian judgments; and if one was doing so, I could sure take my case to the whole council and have the matter properly weighed.

(I mean, there is a difference between an elder ruling and an elder ruling well, but I take that to mean that some are hanging back being less involved or evidencing less wisdom and some are shouldering the responsibility with all due seriousness)

To narrow it down some more, the elders ruling from the gates suggests that while each elder may be more knowledgeable or influential in his specific district (realpolitik-like), he is not considered to be the authority over that district. Instead his knowledge and influence is to be added to the whole counsel for the purpose of informed consensus. Which is why I balk like mad against the idea of any given elder's authority being confined to "Those who worship at the building that the particular organization that Elder belongs to owns". I do not believe that God calls elders into a city to limit their authority to a building, or membership roster. I believe that every man that can meet the criteria set forth, and has an actual desire to serve in this capacity should be added to the number of Elders, and their authority should be recognized alongside the other elders. Which is to say I think the only way a man should be able to switch churches is to move to a different city.

And I really say all this because I want to pose a question about authority that only applies theoretically, since I've never seen anything like this anywhere but my bible. I hardly can apply this to a scattering of men who manage to be mealy-mouthed and autocratic at the same time...

But assuming Elders were arranged thus, and served thus: What authority would you NOT want them to have?

I might be tempted to say I don't want them ruling in my private sexual affairs, yeah? But I'm fairly sure that they should probably rule that a christian brother's homosexual activities should cease, and that if he will not repent, that no christian brother (yea even unto the whole city) should fellowship or even eat with him.

So I think what I really mean is that I would prefer to have them speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the bible is silent, yeah? But then I consider the Events of Acts 15 and the Holy Spirit was claimed to have given assent to this decree that many people in that assembly disagreed with as a matter of theological orthodoxy. As far as the idea of not preaching the law to gentiles (at least in it's entirety, or even if only for a season) the available scriptures were fairly silent I'd say. If anything, I'd say that most people reading it would come away with the opposite impression. My first read through of the bible, I started with genesis and quickly came to the conclusion that I should kill some animals...

Therefore, I cannot speak adequately of defining or limiting the powers of a truly biblical eldership. If they they are meant to keep watch over our souls, and our very sex lives are on the table, and I will probably thoroughly disagree with at least one of their rulings; well that is to be expected and it is no less legitimate for it. We do not greatly appreciate our women limiting our own God-given authority, or rather, I do not. If the elders in my city were to gather at the gates as one, I would have to hope that Jesus would be there with them and the Holy Spirit would lead them in their rulings.

Should they conspire against the Holy Spirit and turn my city into a Thyatira or Pergamos, that will be my misfortune. Still, my personal responsibility will not have evaporated. Just as I would not expect my wife to prostitute herself at my command (...right?) neither does Jesus expect that I should eat things sacrificed to idols or be sexually immoral myself (little extra acts 15 action there), not even at the behest of the Elders. Jesus clearly holds each believer accountable for their own actions. I note that He did not command the believers of Thyatira to depart the city, nor to fix their leadership, but to hold fast what they had until He comes. Jesus places no further burden upon them.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Someone once said that he who would be the greatest, must be servant of all. It will always be self evident in any organization who the elders are because they are usually the ones who do the most, for the least recognition, and yet when called upon to give advice or council, they are usually listened to very closely. An elder is one who has earned currency in the form of influence in whatever group or community they are a part of. You can tell who the elders are because their opinions are the ones requested. You can tell the ones who think they want to be an elder because they are usually the first to give an opinion, often unsolicited. An elder will also be an intercessor, usually without anyone really knowing about it, they have simply owned the responsibility of Advocate for another without needing to be recognized or applauded for it. They minister, and shepherd, and steward, and mentor, and encourage, and rebuke with all longsuffering, and serve!

 

[FollowingHim2]

If this is disrupting the flow or out of context then please disregard and keep discussing as you were, I don't want to butt my head in here when you guys are having such a great discussion.
Just two little points about what an elder should be.

Proverbs 31:23, Her husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land.

This is the Proverbs 31 wife. Does a man have a woman like this? One who can run the house while he is away? Has he led her to be a woman of great character and virtue?

Titus 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.

His children must be believers, so he needs to be leading them the right way. There's plenty more verses in 1 Timothy obviously, but at the end of the day a guy needs to be leading his household right first, and that is not an easy task in itself.