Elders and the Husband of One Wife

[steve]

Singalphile,

I think you are right in observing that, in most respects, an overseer is to be no different from any other Christian who is living up to his calling. That is, the character traits of the elder are the same as those recommended to all Christians. The point is, not all Christians live up to their obligations. An elder must be chosen from among the ones who do so.

Of course, aptitude to teach and family status would be the two things on the list that would not apply even to every good Christian (Paul, for instance). These both seem to have direct relevance to the teaching and role-modeling duties associated with the position.

I have no problem admitting that my own circumstances disqualify me for eldership. I do not think myself to have been the cause of the circumstances that disqualify me (just as a man who cannot teach, or a woman, have not caused the circumstances that disqualify them). I take it that these disqualifications are one way of God's steering such people into alternative forms of ministry, other than eldership. God knows what He is doing.

kaufmannphillips,

Paul was well-suited for an apostolic work, but, apparently, not for the work of local eldership. This is because he was called to a very abnormal way of life (of which his singleness was but one feature), and could, thus, not model to the average church member the necessary duties of home management. This does not mean that Paul was inferior to an elder. The opposite would be the case. He simply had a different role, for which his lifestyle was ideally suited.

Paul, I think, is underrated, not overrated. He was selected by Jesus Christ, and called on the road to Damascas, to a position of immense responsibility. He said that Jesus had apparently counted him to be faithful (and qualified) for such responsibility (1 Tim.1:12)—and the fruit of his life would seem to have vindicated that choice. Do you know of any other rabbis in history who have changed the world anything near the extent that Paul did? I don't think that Jesus made mistakes, and His choice of Paul does not seem to be an exception.

[john6809]

Kaufmannphillips wrote, "...both the Hebrew and Christian bibles are studded with persons who would have appeared ill-suited to their roles, yet nevertheless become heroes of faith. Fitness for ministry is not contingent upon one's resume or upon one's having a conventional skill-set.

Now, Paul is very often overrated in the church. But even those who hold him in high esteem should be able to see how aspects of his personal history and performance might not have recommended him for a prominent ministerial role."

If a person who would have appeared ill-suited to their role could become a hero of the faith, why not Paul? It seems as though you show your bias against Paul if you allow for some questionable characters to be heroes of the faith and yet Paul is not given that same generous allowance.

One other question: How do you account for the dramatic change in Saul/Paul's life, beliefs, and convictions? It seems to me that Paul changes overnight from a murderous Jesus hater into one of Jesus' most ardent believers.

Thanks, John

[BrotherAlan]

Steve wrote:

Paul, I think, is underrated, not overrated.

Amen!

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
Paul was well-suited for an apostolic work, but, apparently, not for the work of local eldership. ... He simply had a different role, for which his lifestyle was ideally suited.

Other apostles had the ability to pursue their activities as married men (I Corinthians 9:5). This would afford its own special potential for ministry, just as singleness would afford its own. After all, an apostle's wife could defuse social situations that might be problematic for a single male, and could facilitate social situations that might not be open to a single male. Paul's lifestyle was not "ideally suited" for every apostolic opportunity (how could it be?!) though it offered certain advantages.

steve wrote:
Paul, I think, is underrated, not overrated.

I will not dispute that Paul is underrated by some. Yet he is overrated by many. In some circles, he rather eclipses Jesus himself - as one can see by how much time is spent studying the epistles, as compared to time spent studying the gospels.

steve wrote:
He was selected by Jesus Christ, and called on the road to Damascas, to a position of immense responsibility. He said that Jesus had apparently counted him to be faithful (and qualified) for such responsibility (1 Tim.1:12)

Paul sez.

steve wrote:
—and the fruit of his life would seem to have vindicated that choice. Do you know of any other rabbis in history who have changed the world anything near the extent that Paul did?

Changing the world does not necessarily establish vindication. Muhammad changed the world.

If Paul had borne better fruit, we might not have had the emergence of a worldwide church that is almost entirely devoid of Jewish constituency. And if Paul had borne better fruit, the subsequent theology of the church might not have been consumed so often with philosophies and phantasies at the expense of divine life and spirit.

steve wrote:
I don't think that Jesus made mistakes, and His choice of Paul does not seem to be an exception.

I think that Jesus did make mistakes.

[kaufmannphillips]

john6809 wrote:
If a person who would have appeared ill-suited to their role could become a hero of the faith, why not Paul? It seems as though you show your bias against Paul if you allow for some questionable characters to be heroes of the faith and yet Paul is not given that same generous allowance.

If a person who would have appeared ill-suited to their role could become a hero of the faith, and Paul himself would require some generous allowance, then how much need we obsess over Paul's biases when it comes to a person's suitability for eldership?

So far, nobody has tackled my query here: All things considered, why doesn't Paul advise Timothy to be satisfied with the confirmation of the holy spirit in selecting overseers for congregations?

john6809 wrote:
One other question: How do you account for the dramatic change in Saul/Paul's life, beliefs, and convictions? It seems to me that Paul changes overnight from a murderous Jesus hater into one of Jesus' most ardent believers.

It is not unheard of for an individual to flip and become diametrically opposed to their former way of life.

It appears that Paul has some manner of mystical and/or psychological episode on the way to Damascus. We do not have the advantage of being intimately familiar with his soul and/or psyche leading up to that episode. But if we trust Acts to a certain extent, then we may imagine that Paul had grown up as a student of Gamaliel I, and that Gamaliel opposed aggressive persecution of the fledgling Christian movement [q.v., Acts 5:34ff.; 22:3]. Perhaps Paul had some underlying misgivings about his pursuits, if they stood in tension with the stance of Gamaliel. Gamaliel I was a grandson of Hillel, a man of power and reputation; we may add to this the natural weight he might have carried within Paul's psyche as a teacher of his upbringing. Paul might have had emotional misgivings about diverging from the stance of Gamaliel, perhaps even dishonoring his teacher thereby. And perhaps these misgivings burst through in Paul's episode on the road.

[steve]

So far, nobody has tackled my query here: All things considered, why doesn't Paul advise Timothy to be satisfied with the confirmation of the holy spirit in selecting overseers for congregations?

This question seems to imagine that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is primarily experienced in the form of supernatural revelations. This is a very charismatic-type of interpretation of the Holy Spirit's work. Though I am a charismatic (in the sense that I believe in the genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit), I believe that the Holy Spirit guides in many ways, including common sense and following instructions from spiritual men (like Paul). For Timothy to follow Paul's recommendations would not be in contrast to Timothy's being led by the Holy Spirit. Embracing and obeying the prophetic writings and apostolic instructions represent the most reliable means of following the Holy Spirit's lead.

[john6809]

Kaufmannphillips wrote, "If a person who would have appeared ill-suited to their role could become a hero of the faith, and Paul himself would require some generous allowance, then how much need we obsess over Paul's biases when it comes to a person's suitability for eldership?

I personally don't believe that Paul appeared ill-suited to his apostolic role. Therefore, I don't feel he needs some generous allowance. You seem to think he does and would not extend him the same latitude as you would for other ill-suited biblical heroes. Would you please cite some examples of Paul's teachings/attitudes that suggest to you that Paul is such a poor character that he should be regarded as unfit for the ministry he was given?

Kaufmannphillips wrote, "It appears that Paul has some manner of mystical and/or psychological episode on the way to Damascus.”

You admit that something DID happen to Paul on the road to Damascus? So, on what basis do you not simply accept his account as being accurate? Are there trusted sources that were directly involved who have disputed Paul's account of what happened to him during that trip and the days following? I ask because I don't know. If there is no credible witness to say that it didn't happen the way that Paul described it, why subject his testimony to a more doubtful approach than other writers that may be more agreeable to your ideas?

Kaufmannphillips wrote, "It is not unheard of for an individual to flip and become diametrically opposed to their former way of life.

It appears that Paul has some manner of mystical and/or psychological episode on the way to Damascus. We do not have the advantage of being intimately familiar with his soul and/or psyche leading up to that episode. But if we trust Acts to a certain extent, then we may imagine that Paul had grown up as a student of Gamaliel I, and that Gamaliel opposed aggressive persecution of the fledgling Christian movement [q.v., Acts 5:34ff.; 22:3]. Perhaps Paul had some underlying misgivings about his pursuits, if they stood in tension with the stance of Gamaliel. Gamaliel I was a grandson of Hillel, a man of power and reputation; we may add to this the natural weight he might have carried within Paul's psyche as a teacher of his upbringing. Paul might have had emotional misgivings about diverging from the stance of Gamaliel, perhaps even dishonoring his teacher thereby. And perhaps these misgivings burst through in Paul's episode on the road.”

All I read is: it appears…, we may imagine…, perhaps Paul…, if…, we may add…, he might have…, Paul might have…, perhaps…, perhaps.
Or, maybe he was telling the truth. In the absence of factual data, anybody could surmise anything that they wanted about how Paul got to his current situation and prove, about him, anything that they would wish to believe. That proves less than nothing to me. No doubt there have been notable examples of transformations in peoples’ lives. My question to you is, why not believe Paul’s account?

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
So far, nobody has tackled my query here: All things considered, why doesn't Paul advise Timothy to be satisfied with the confirmation of the holy spirit in selecting overseers for congregations?

steve wrote:
This question seems to imagine that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is primarily experienced in the form of supernatural revelations. This is a very charismatic-type of interpretation of the Holy Spirit's work. Though I am a charismatic (in the sense that I believe in the genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit), I believe that the Holy Spirit guides in many ways, including common sense and following instructions from spiritual men (like Paul). For Timothy to follow Paul's recommendations would not be in contrast to Timothy's being led by the Holy Spirit. Embracing and obeying the prophetic writings and apostolic instructions represent the most reliable means of following the Holy Spirit's lead.

I prefer to think of the guidance of the holy spirit as something natural, and not as something "supernatural." The whole notion of the "supernatural" is a conceptual error - one that serves to excise G-d from the "normal" economy of our world.

Our world is in the state that it's in (in part) because people follow after "common sense" and/or "spiritual men" rather than the guidance of the holy spirit.

From your statement above, shall one gather that the holy spirit is not trusting Timothy's discernment of its own lead, and thus it supplies a paradigm through Paul for Timothy to use in selecting leaders? If so, what does this imply about the advent of the holy spirit within the Christian body? When the holy spirit is poured out upon the church, what is the actual result of this - if eminent and faithful members of the church cannot be relied upon to discern the lead of the holy spirit, but must be given a second-hand paradigm that (you admit) may not always be applicable?

[kaufmannphillips]

john6809 wrote:
I personally don't believe that Paul appeared ill-suited to his apostolic role. Therefore, I don't feel he needs some generous allowance.

Why carp at me about this? At one point, Paul himself acknowledges that he is (Gk: present tense) inadequate to be called an apostle (I Corinthians 15:9). So he pleads grace (well, yeah, with a bit of self-aggrandizement thrown in).

kaufmannphillips wrote:
It appears that Paul has some manner of mystical and/or psychological episode on the way to Damascus.

john6809 wrote:
You admit that something DID happen to Paul on the road to Damascus? So, on what basis do you not simply accept his account as being accurate? Are there trusted sources that were directly involved who have disputed Paul's account of what happened to him during that trip and the days following? I ask because I don't know. If there is no credible witness to say that it didn't happen the way that Paul described it, why subject his testimony to a more doubtful approach than other writers that may be more agreeable to your ideas?

I am a longtime student of religion. I do not "simply accept" any person's account of their mystical and/or psychological episodes as accurate (including my own). It would seem naive to do so, given human capacities for imagination, interpretation, redactive memory, and error; and, given the potential for these to culminate in delusion. (Beyond this, of course, one must allow for well-meaning fabulation and base charlatanry.)

But as for your method, John - do you engage Sufi and/or Hindi mystics with the same credulousness that you afford Saul of Tarsus? If there are no credible witnesses to contradict the visions of Paramahansa Yogananda (shall we say), do you subject his testimony to a more doubtful approach than the testimony of Christian mystics who stand in greater alignment with your ideas?

john6809 wrote:
All I read is: it appears…, we may imagine…, perhaps Paul…, if…, we may add…, he might have…, Paul might have…, perhaps…, perhaps.
Or, maybe he was telling the truth. In the absence of factual data, anybody could surmise anything that they wanted about how Paul got to his current situation and prove, about him, anything that they would wish to believe. That proves less than nothing to me. No doubt there have been notable examples of transformations in peoples’ lives. My question to you is, why not believe Paul’s account?

You did not ask for proof, quite naturally. One may question "proof" about the mystical and/or psychological experience of a man held under close scrutiny, despite bloodwork and medical scans and thorough psychiatric evaluation - how much more so for a man some twenty centuries dead!

You asked how I "account for the dramatic change in Saul/Paul's life, beliefs, and convictions." I tendered a rational possibility.

As for believing Paul's account: I have discussed "simple acceptance" of these sorts of accounts above. Beyond "simple acceptance," what compelling reason is there to believe his account?

[john6809]

Kauffmannphillips wrote, “Why carp at me about this? At one point, Paul himself acknowledges that he is (Gk: present tense) inadequate to be called an apostle (I Corinthians 15:9). So he pleads grace (well, yeah, with a bit of self-aggrandizement thrown in).”

I didn’t realize that answering your question (see next quote regarding Paul’s biases) would be received as carping. It seems to me that Paul was being modest here. Apparently, when a person recognises the errors of their previous life and determines that they don’t always feel fit for a position or “job”, their feelings of inadequacy do not matter as much as God’s determination. A further example is found in Luke 3:16ff and it’s parallel in Matthew 3:11 – 17 where John the Baptist declared to the crowds that he was not worthy to loose Jesus’ sandal straps. In spite of this, Jesus insisted and apparently God approved.

As far as the self-aggrandizement of Paul, I noticed that Paul qualified his remarks with, “yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.”

Kauffmannphillips wrote, “If a person who would have appeared ill-suited to their role could become a hero of the faith, and Paul himself would require some generous allowance, then how much need we obsess over Paul's biases when it comes to a person's suitability for eldership?”

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Kauffmannphillips wrote, “I am a longtime student of religion. I do not "simply accept" any person's account of their mystical and/or psychological episodes as accurate (including my own). It would seem naive to do so, given human capacities for imagination, interpretation, redactive memory, and error; and, given the potential for these to culminate in delusion. (Beyond this, of course, one must allow for well-meaning fabulation and base charlatanry.)”

I am not inclined to go on a witch hunt in the absence of evidence to justify said witch hunt. Are we to also disregard the men who were apparently with him when a light shone on him from heaven? That they heard something significant is obvious, as they stood there, speechless. Are we to believe that there is a great possibility that they were all fooled or worse yet, conspired with Paul, to fabricate a story? To what end? The fact that Paul has such a dramatic turn-around, together with the fact that those with him never denied his account, the fact that the other apostles accepted his testimony, and the results of the ministry that he later performed, leads me to believe that there is no reason to subject his testimony to a more doubtful scrutiny than any other writer’s accounts. With this clarification, I guess you could say that I don’t “simply accept” Paul’s testimony without at least some critical thinking.

Kauffmannphillips wrote, “But as for your method, John - do you engage Sufi and/or Hindi mystics with the same credulousness that you afford Saul of Tarsus? If there are no credible witnesses to contradict the visions of Paramahansa Yogananda (shall we say), do you subject his testimony to a more doubtful approach than the testimony of Christian mystics who stand in greater alignment with your ideas?”

It seems to me that you are comparing apples to oranges here. We are not comparing Christianity with another religion, but rather, determining whether Paul’s testimony was believable or not based on evidence or lack thereof.
If I have a basket of Gala apples before me and that’s all that I want in the basket, and someone places another apple in the basket, I need to determine if it is a Gala apple or not. This is somewhat easier to do if the person who delivered the apple has proven themselves to be reliable, and it looks like a Gala apple, and it has a sticker on it that identifies it as a Gala apple. If, upon biting into this apple, I discovered that it’s taste, texture, smell, or colour suggested that it was not a Gala apple, I would then be forced to further analyse it. If I found the new piece of fruit to be an orange, I could just remove it from the basket of apples without being unreasonable for doubting that it is an apple.

Evidence for the Christian worldview has been sufficiently proven to me to the point that I have accepted the evidence as true and credible. If I must dismantle and re-examine my epistemology each time a Sufi or Hindi mystic claims to have had a vision, I would always be at the starting blocks. It would be akin to turning off the lights in a room and walking away only to later return and question if there really was a light bulb in the room.

If the visions of Paramahansa Yogananda were shown to not be contrary to the evidence I have already accepted, and if his life was dramatically proving his vision to be true, then I would accept his testimony with no more scepticism than any other unless it later proved to be inconsistent with the rest of the evidence before me. Of course, Paramahansa Yogananda doesn’t claim to have the same worldview as I have seen convincing evidence of. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to be sceptical. On the other hand, if someone were to show me that my original acceptance of evidence was misguided, then I would be forced to re-evaluate everything. I haven’t found this to be the case up to this point.

Kauffmannphillips wrote, “As for believing Paul's account: I have discussed "simple acceptance" of these sorts of accounts above. Beyond "simple acceptance," what compelling reason is there to believe his account?”

You’re sure getting the mileage from the term “simple acceptance”, aren’t you? This question is answered above. Many people see conspiracy theories in abundance. Some don’t believe man landed on the moon. Some believe that the 9/11 attacks were initiated by the people’s own government. Some believe that the cure for cancer already exists but the pharmaceutical companies don’t want to give up their research profits and are therefore suppressing the truth.

The trouble with these theories is that they rely on great numbers of people continuing to live a lie, sometimes for decades, without ever letting some small bit leak out. I don’t have much faith in people’s ability to pull this off. Cancer researchers also have loved ones dying of cancer and would surely step up to the plate if they knew they could help. The fact that the account given by Paul is not only unchallenged but also accepted by those nearest to him along with the apostles, tells me that there is no evidence against it and plenty of evidence for it.