patriarchal structure?

[steve]

the post quoted below brings a focus into the discussion of patriarchy that has been discussed at other times, but i have a question that i have not considered before;

The reason that the authors place a heavy emphasis too on church authority leaders is because history has indeed shown that patriarchs left alone to rule alone will often lead to anarchy or ungodly and damaging rule if no other checks are in place. It is the ole saying of: "absolute power absolutely corrupts." The historical way in God's design to keep male rulers from going astray is for those patriarches to be under accountability by more mature men, older men in the Lord, who oversee them (in the Bible they were called elders).

The fear that many women have over being under a patriarchal rule system is the fear of what to do if there is no one to go to to plead a case to when things are going very bad and self attempts to correct have failed. It is true a woman should entrust herself to God. But God uses a means unto the end as well. God saves people by his grace but he uses people and the gospel message as the means.

Likewise, in a truly and thoroughly consistent patriarchal system there has to be a system in place where if a woman or man has trouble in their relationship and they confront one another in that sin that if one does not see it another person is called in to bring aid to the home and relationship and if still one does not listen then others are brought in to help.

Patriarchy is a system of rule within the body of Christ, not every man to himself as he so pleases (anarchic rule). If that system is in place then it can help to calm the fears of women, especially those that have seen men at their worst. Men need to be tough enough and men enough to be able to swallow their pride and be willing to have other men they look to in their life as their leaders and mentors. It is a form of protection for their women and that is indeed one role of the man, to protect his family.

first, let me say that a patriarch under no other authority would be anarchy.
however, we embrace the authority structure found in 1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

but on to my question:
when you recomend that a man be under authority, are you recomending a multi-level (or hierarchical) style with men subject to men who are subject to other men on up the line toward the ones with the most authority?
or are you recomending that it be to a committee of men who are only under each others authority?

lets not go into all of the reasoning at this point, but just keep it as a simple discussion with short questions and short answers.

 

[Taller on my knees]

I think he's just saying that God is our head, but we must be wise enough and man enough to be held accountable to others of the same beliefs, that God may use them for our direct council. Too often, we seek God's guidance but only choose to hear the parts that we like. It's too easy to fool ourselves into believing that we didn't hear the harder part when He spoke. Therefore, He tends to use a physical mouth to say those things. The structure of elders in the church is set up to ensure that the instruction given is through those who are wise enough to not fall into self deceit (provided that the church body chose their elders according to the standards set forth in His Word).

 

[Scarecrow]

Perhaps these will help:

Pro 15:22 Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed.

Pro 24:5-6 A wise man is full of strength, and a man of knowledge enhances his might, for by wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory.

"counselors" often can give us a view from the outside looking in. It is the counsel of the wise that in turn builds a wise man.

Acts 5:34-40 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" So they took his advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

 

[Oreslag]

The only problem I have with submitting myself to the authority of the church is that I cannot find a church that submits itself - exclusively - to the Word of my God. Indeed, I cannot find a church that does not subscribe to at least one false doctrine. It was not always this way, however. When I was a babe and drinking the milk of scripture it was easy to subordinate myself to those that were clearly able to point me to the answers to my questions in scripture. Unfortunately, as my Lord grew me, I was able to see the cracks, blemishes, and outright lies that men hold whilst professing to be godly leaders. At some point, all those around me were found to believe 'truths' that were nowhere expressed in scripture.

What is a man to do at this point? I've opted to look for other men who are devoted to the Word of our God and not devoted to confessional and doctrinal statements of belief or keeping the tithing coffers filled to meet the latest church expansion mortgage debt.

I apologize if this sounds a bit cynical, but I've been personally harmed by my former church, so I deem it no small matter. In particular, I was a deacon and youth leader, and was devoted to both roles passionately. In particular, I had approximately thirty youth of high school age to whom I was devoted. After going on a mission trip with them to Mississippi to rebuild homes for Katrina victims, my Lord inspired me to find a place to participate more regularly in His merciful works. He led me to a fledgling rescue mission in the largest nearby city, and I took as many kids with me as wanted to come every Saturday. The location was an old bar, so we began by ripping and reconstructing. I found it wildly successful, because it seems the good works prepared in advance for us to do are much more relevant for kids when you're doing something instead of talking about it. Participation grew. We began a clothing, food, and household items ministry; securing things the poor in that community needed through the wealth of our church. By the end of a year, it was not uncommon for me to have a dozen kids each Saturday working there from 10:00am to 6:00pm.

Unfortunately, when I came into this church a few years prior - indeed, was convicted, quickened, and called - my former marriage (secular and perverse as they often are) became a serious problem for my new-found submission to my God. Particularly, my ex-wife had no intention of permitting me to lead our family, and similarly no interest in me being a godly man. Thus, after counseling from my pastor I finally accepted that divorce was the only solution because to remain in that relationship was itself a sin. To my surprise, when my Lord (most stunningly) gave me the godly wife I now enjoy about four months after I left my ex, there were some in the church that suspected something sinister and lobbied for my removal from my ordained status as a deacon and youth leadership. When I reminded the pastor that such things were not done 'anonymously' according to scripture he agreed. Nevertheless, I was never afforded the opportunity to address my accuser(s) or to even hear what evidence they might think they possessed. Indeed, they remain anonymous to this day. I can only assume that it was more important to pay the church's newly acquired mortgage than to exercise biblical church discipline in my particular case.

In case you haven't noticed, I tend to be verbose In any case, my confidence in the authority of the church was severely shaken by this. Not only was it personally embarrassing, but it was very hurtful to my new wife and her son to not be accepted and to know that there were some anonymous people within the congregation that despised them. I do fully realize that the church comprises faulty men. However, I cannot subject my family to the arbitrary rule of a body that claims to know God but demonstrates by their action that they do not.

 

[CecilW]

I cannot subject my family to the arbitrary rule of a body that claims to know God but demonstrates by their action that they do not.

And therein lies the rub.

It is one thing to ask for and carefully ponder the advice of a multitude of counselors. That indeed does seem to be scriptural.

It seems equally sensible to agree that if you worship with a specific body of believers, you will not try to create disharmony and dissension among them. Maybe.

But when it comes to actual authority, the chain of command is clear. Father, Son, Man, Wife. Much as it distresses certain members of this board, there is no sidetracking loop for a pastor or elder or board of elders.

Oddly enough, those of us who share this simplistic view do seem to get along with each other quite well here. Turn to each other for advice and support of various sorts, and fancy that we are doing an OK or at least growing job with our families. Sometimes, our wives even agree! :lol:

 

[sola scriptura]

There are three spheres of authority according to scripture: Civil, Familial and the Church. The man is the head of his family. He is directly under God's authority as pointed out in earlier. However, when that man enters another sphere, be it civil or the church, he is required to put himself and his family under that authority. If a man goes to a church, he must submit to the authority of that church.

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. Heb. 10:25

As we can see in the above verse, it is a necessity for believers to assemble together. As we see in I Timothy and Titus, there is a very clear role of elders and deacons in the assembly of believers. Therefore, a man must follow the command to assemble together, and when they do assemble together, they will be required to put themselves under the God-ordained authority of the elders in the church.

Oreslag, I know that almost all churches in our country today are overflowing with wrong doctrine. No church can have perfect doctrine, because the church is made up of imperfect, fallen humans! It is our duty as believers to continue to reform the Church by bringing false doctrines to the attention of other believers. This is the only way the Church will ever improve.

I know from personal experience the pain of doing this. We were excommunicated from a church that was very doctrinally sound, except when we told them about our belief of plural marriage. That was (unfortunately) the breaking point for this church, and they wouldn't move away from the monogamy only doctrine. However, they heard the truth from us, and we pray that God's truth will reign supreme and His light will shine on their hearts.

 

[CecilW]

I certainly agree, Sola Scriptura, that WHEN we are functioning in the church sphere, we must work within that church's boundaries and structure and authority.

The problem is that the church considers itself to have the authority to intrude and issue authoritative orders for and in the Family.

We strive to separate church and state. And strive to keep the state out of our families, where they normally have no business being. Somehow, a balance has to be struck with the church, as it, too, has only limited authority over the family. It is NOT the basic building block of God-society. The family is, long pre-dating churches.

Churches allow multiple families to work together to accomplish a mission beyond the financial capacity of any one family, for fellowship, etc. They're good. But have a limited place and authority, IMO. Not sure they always understand this.

You may of course disagree, and I'll honor and admire you anyway! *grin*

 

[Oreslag]

I don't agree entirely regarding being under the authority of a church. In particular, Jesus' command on this is recorded in all the synoptic gospels http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 20:25-27&version=ESV; where He declares us all to be brothers and servants of one-another, and particularly not lording it over one-another. In addition, in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 23:8-10&version=ESV Jesus reiterates this with added detail. Both Paul and Peter acknowledge this truth in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Corinthians 4:5&version=ESV and http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter 5:1-3&version=ESV respectively.

Regarding the pastoral epistles, the offices of elder and deacon are devoted to teaching and service. I often hear of 'ruling' elders and sessions and such spoken of in various churches, but see no biblical support for a ruling elder or session, nor for any preference among the brothers to be given one over another. Indeed, Jesus set the framework in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 18:15-17&version=ESV; which the apostles acknowledge in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom16:17;1Cor5:9-13;2Thess3:6,14;2John10&version=ESV. Note that these passages of scripture bind all brothers to take the same action unilaterally if the evidence for repentance in previous sinful acts lacks. Thus, we are all called to do the same thing, but no one is called to compel us to do it. It is interesting (to me at least) that this also works recursively! If some agree, and some do not, then eventually those groups will divide among lines that leave only one group that is indeed devoted to the Words of our God; God through His Word is the only legitimate judgement against a man as far as I am aware.

In any case, I'm not disagreeing with what you said regarding a church, but merely pointing out that one needs be careful about what actually is a church. When a ruling body of elders willfully despise the clear teaching of scripture, it is very hard for me to see how, from a biblical perspective, such an organism can be called a church and I believe it is a sin to place oneself under the authority of those that preach a false gospel. What is so disturbing for me is how relatively few believers I find in each church I attend; though I certainly shouldn't be surprised in view of what Jesus says in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 7:13-14&version=ESV.

The only way I've found to deal with this situation is to be part of a small fellowship of believers. God has been most generous to our family in this. We've been sharing a meal every week or two for more than a year now with four other couples, and we often see one-another socially as well (guys go have beers, girls do craft nights, etc.). He also grew a prayer group at my workplace that commonly sees 6-12 believers show up for lunch on Thursday to share our lives and pray communally. Though it is true that most of these people have no real appreciation for my beliefs regarding the falsity of some church doctrines, the subjects either never come up or do not become confrontational when they do. I pray this continues, because I think my small groups are a church, and believe that we are more fully 'invested' in one-another - as a family would be. Whereas the churches I've attended always have people I barely know that will disagree vehemently with my position and with scripture, it is much easier for such a body to 'cut loose' the small part (my family) in preference for the larger part (that fill the coffers). Not so in my small groups - these people know me and (as far as I'm aware) like me, so it would be much more difficult for them to 'cut our family loose'.

 

[CecilW]

No disagreement, Oreslag. And in fact, there is strong evidence, or at least a highly viable theory, that in NT days the offices of Deacon or Elder were not soght after positions of rulership, but sometimes reluctant positions of service due to the sometimes unpleasant responsibilities involved.

Either way, I agree, you've got a coupla churches going!

 

[ylop]

Over the years I have noticed that most people LIKE having someone in charge of themselves, someone to tell them what to do, and relieve themselves of personal decision making and responsibility.

And there is a smaller group that likes being in charge.

Personally I do not fall into either group.

ylop

 

[steve]

Over the years I have noticed that most people LIKE having someone in charge of themselves, someone to tell them what to do, and relieve themselves of personal decision making and responsibility.

And there is a smaller group that likes being in charge.

truer words were never spoken.

 

[Doc]

And there is an even smaller group who are destined for leadership, yet shun the spotlight. These are the ones the emulate the servant-leader Jesus.

 

[steve]

And there is an even smaller group who are destined for leadership, yet shun the spotlight. These are the ones the emulate the servant-leader Jesus.

i very much agree, and the ones that i have had contact with avoid titles.

 

[CecilW]

Let's ME out! I've got some 10,000+ titles in my library! (Isn't deliberately misunderstanding FUN?)

 

[steve]

Let's ME out! I've got some 10,000+ titles in my library! (Isn't deliberately misunderstanding FUN?)

yabut,
if'n yer gonna get any work dun ya gotts ta aviod them

 

[Anonymous]

the ones that i have had contact with avoid titles.

Titles have their place but it's the heart of a person that really matters It's great when the two collide, though!

 

[steve]

the purpose of titles is to elevate.

sometimes needed but mostly abused, IMO