Paidion wrote:
Do you think then that these elders were appointed as a temporary necessity, and were not a permanent office in the Church? If so, that position seems to be contradicted by the fact that the the ministry of elders of the church was continued to be mentioned throughout the book of Acts. Also, Paul indicates to Timothy in 5:17 that elders should even be financially assisted, if the "honor" mentioned is financial support as it seems to be in the New Testament.
I read nowhere in the Bible of "second-generation" elders. By that, I do not mean to suggest that the second generation of the church had no elders, but rather that there is no mention of succession from one generation of elders to the next. In view of the fact that the Corinthian church, at the time of Paul's writing, clearly had no appointed elders, and that the church dominated by Demetrius apparently had none (nor does it seem that there were any in Thessalonica), it would appear that the appointment of elders was done on a "need to" basis, and was not done as an automatic part of planting a church. If the needs which called for the appointment of elders in a given church ceased to exist in the church, there is no reason to believe that the elders had to be replaced upon their death—nor even, necessarily, that they had to hold office for life. In my opinion, there was no "office" that needed to be filled, but there were individuals who arose to serve in the emergencies, and who were officially recognized in the church as reliable teachers and great examples.
The financial support of elders was also, I am sure, on a "need" basis. If a man served the church as a leader, but these duties did not take him away from his other profitable labors, there might be no need for the church to be burdened with his support. However, there were some, whose "labor" was "in preaching and teaching" (1 Tim.5:17), and whose ministry activities (like those of the Levites) precluded them from holding additional employment. These were especially supposed to be supported financially. Even so, this does not mean that they held official "political" office in the church. For example, I send financial support to preachers and teachers overseas, who hold no office in any church I attend, and there are those who send financial support to me, though I hold no office in any church. Supporting such men does not mean that they hold a "paid position" in the church. It is simply along the lines of the church's general duties to help the poor of the congregation (which such ministers would surely be, if no one supported them!).
I also notice that Paul gives to Timothy certain criteria for qualifying as an overseer in the Church. Overseers and elders seem to refer to the same ministry (or possibly "office").
Yes. I believe that both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 provide instances of Paul's seeing the need to appoint what we might call "official teaching staff" for the church of Ephesus and for the churches of Crete. It is evident, from the contexts, that there was a special concern in these churches because of the presence of heretical teachers. Since there were good teachers in the church, as well as bad ones, Paul told Timothy and Titus to give official recognition to those who could be trusted. It is evident that the major qualifications had to do with godly character and well-ordered family relationships, more than with theological issues. IN all likelihood, the damage being done by the heretics was principally in the area of undermining Christian morals and character.
By "worldly leaders", do you mean those who need to be "qualified" through certain prescribed education? If that is the case, I agree. But it is my thought that God Himself established overseers in His church in order to help preserve the teaching of Christ and the apostles, and that this ministry was meant to be permanent.
My reference to "worldly" leaders meant leadership roles that exist because of the worldly idea that a group of believers is a worldly organization (like the Kiwanis Club). You are right that God gives leadership to the church, but the leadership is not necessarily of an institutional type. What do I mean by "institutional type"? Take the military, for example. There are officers that must be obeyed. It makes no difference what kind of character is wearing the stripes; the authority resides in the office, not the individual holding the office. Any man—a George Patton or a Beetle Bailey—may hold the office and wear the stripes. The occupant is irrelevant. Underlings "salute the uniform"—not the character inside the uniform. This is institutional ("worldly") leadership.
Leadership in the Body of Christ is based upon virtue and upon the upholding of the truth. A virtuous man who upholds the truth will be followed by the church, whether he holds office or not. If he does hold office, this may be temporary, and may be entirely inconsequential. His authority does not reside in the office, but in spiritual qualifications. In the institutional churches, as in every worldly organization, the authority inheres in the office. Thus, the elected or appointed leaders must be obeyed (at least until they may be ejected from office), even if they are ungodly. This worldly idea is what lies behind the common phrase, "Do not touch God's anointed"—given as a rebuke to anyone who criticizes a pastor. The assumption seems to be that the mere fact that this scoundrel holds the "office" of pastor qualifies him to be seen as "the Lord's anointed." Any spiritually-minded Christian will see that this is nonsense, but they may not realize that the "nonsense" springs from this institutional model of church leadership.
Hebrews defines a leader of a church as one who has spoken the word of God to you, and who has a faith worthy of imitation (Heb.13:7). Their leadership is defined, not by an office they hold, but by the service they perform (see also 1 Thess.5:12-13). From the time of Ignatius (115 AD) onward, we begin to see institutionalism creeping into the definition of "overseers" in the formerly-apostolic congregations.
Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN." Ephesians 4:8 NASB
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming... Ephesians 4:11-14 NASB
Since we have not yet attained to the unity of the faith, have not God's gifts to men, (the ministries of apostles, prophets, shepherds, and teachers) continued to this very day? Are not the "shepherds" the "overseers" or "elders"?
Yes, they are. But the best example we know of a "shepherd/overseer" in the early church was Jesus HImself. What organization appointed Him? He was definitely God's "gift" to the church (as have been all true subsequent leaders), but His appointment was by God, and no religious organization of His day recognized HIm. The sheep knew His voice. Paul also emphasized that no man or group of men appointed him to his ministry (see Gal.1). He said he got called by Christ Himself. I believe this principle holds true of God's flock throughout the ages. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the modern church only had such leaders as God had called and gifted, and in whom the sheep recognized the voice of their Shepherd?
I was also trying to understand your thinking in the following statement:
"Only the RCC and the Orthodox claim to have a good answer to the challenge—they both claim to possess authority from apostolic succession (but, since they can't both be correct, one is left to wonder which (if either) of them really possesses this authority. Interestingly, they both respect each other's authority as movements, though one of them must be regarded as a rebel split from the other."
In what sense did you mean "they can't both be correct"? Did you mean in beliefs? The beliefs of the Church gradually changed throughout the years (in spite of God's gift of the five ministries). The early catholic belief differed substantially from the later catholic belief. So it would seem that the difference in the present Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox beliefs is not crucial in the sense that either branch should be considered as a "rebel split" from the other.
I am not talking about which church has correct doctrines. I am discussing which church has the more valid claim to being a continuation of the true line of apostolic succession. They can't both make this claim, since they split from each other a millennium ago, and have had different leaders from each other. The Roman Catholics believe that the bishop of Rome stands in the direct line of succession from Peter, and that the bishops stand in the line of succession from the other apostles. The Orthodox church believes similar things about their historical line of leaders, but they reject the claims of the Pope's apostolic authority. The two groups split in the eleventh century and each has claimed to be the group with apostolic succession ever since. Roman Catholics see theirs as the original church, and they see the Orthodox as the splitters. The Orthodox believe that they are the original church, and that the RCC are the splitters. In recent centuries, both groups have spoken more kindly of each other, but the fact remains that they can't both be in possession of the direct line of apostolic succession.
I discovered by reading a pamphlet at the back of an Anglican (Episcopalian) Church, that they, too, consider themselves as being able to trace their episcopacy (overseership) directly to the original 12 Apostles. They do not regard themselves as Protestants.
Since the Episcopal church's independent status and modern-day polity originated with a split from Rome (1533-1540), and with the novel idea that the Crown of England is the supreme head of the English national church, I don't see how this group can claim perpetual succession of its leaders back to the apostles—unless they want to say that their kings and queens somehow hold offices like those of the apostles, going back 2000 years. However, the apostles never ruled England, and the English monarchy did not exist in apostolic times.
I ran into a group called "Missionary Baptists," who make the claim that they are the true church going back to the apostles! These wild claims only are made because people are thinking of the Church as an earthly organization, whose political roots must be accurately traced through a series of leaders throughout history. This is, I believe, a fools' errand. The true Church has always consisted of every member of Christ's body—whose status is based upon a relationship of submission to the Head, and the possession of the same Spirit that is in the Head. Such people have never belonged to one single organization, and no organization has ever been exclusively made up of such people.
