2 church questions

[Guest]

Mort,

I mind! The church has typically been made up of about 70% women. Marginalizing 70% of the body (who are oftentimes the more thoughtful and mature part of the body) is one of the greatest ripoffs perpetuated upon the church. The historical cause, in my humble opinion, is bad exegesis brought about by cultural bias and men's desire for control.

You are a functioning member of the body of Christ. Your gifts are needed to build up the church!

I've done a fair amount of study on this topic. I think when I get some time I'll start a post on this...

I am looking forward to hearing from you on this. What are we going to do to rehab that Jesus fellow? What was He thinking, appointing 12 men to fill all the top positions in His Church! And no record of any women even receiving an interview. What kind of example is He? And then these leaders were named in a list and ran around in his absence giving commands as though they were in charge, without even asking for input. What a bunch of chauvinistic authoritarians, obviously a male desire for control; no other reason for it.

Seems there was a serious need for some diversity training and also training regarding employee involvement in decision making.

[Guest]

Getting back to the initial question, I actually tend to believe that the overseer (episkopos) was more like a position (of some sort) in the early church congregations.

Paul said “if anyone desires the position of an overseer (episkopos)...” (1Tim 3:1)

That implies to me that there was some position or appointment for someone to desire.

Also, the bible indicates that these men were “appointed” for some purpose. (Tit 1:5, Acts 14:23)

I would agree with the general sentiment of this thread that the position of elder/overseer is described more as a servant role than the “authority over” thing it has become. But I still think it was specific to the congregational activities and not necessarily applicable to life outside that.

There were some specific needs in the church at that time that I think these men were supposed to fill. As far as I can tell, it came down to:

1. Teaching the word of God (1Tim 3:2, 2Tim 2:2,24)
2. Warning the unruly and refuting those who contradict the truth (Tit 1:9, 1Thes 5:14)
3. Leading by example (1Pet 5:3)


As far as life outside the congregational meetings, I tend to think an elder is an overseer or shepherd insofar as he has won the respect and trust of people who know him.

The men in my life I count as my “overseers” do not officially hold that title. I believe this is biblical based on various exhortations written by the apostles to seek out and submit to godly men who exhibit the mind of Christ (1 Cor 16:15-16, 3 John 11-12, etc.)

[Guest]

Getting back to the initial question, I actually tend to believe that the overseer (episkopos) was more like a position (of some sort) in the early church congregations.

Paul said “if anyone desires the position of an overseer (episkopos)...” (1Tim 3:1)

That implies to me that there was some position or appointment for someone to desire.

If you read 1 Tim 3:1 in the Greek, the word position isn’t there. Perhaps this is an example of translators inadvertently imposing their presuppositions onto the text. A more accurate translation might be, “if anyone desires to be an overseer”.

Also, the bible indicates that these men were “appointed” for some purpose. (Tit 1:5, Acts 14:23)

Titus was instructed to appoint/ordain elders (presbuteros), aka overseers (Tit. 1:5, 7) . There has been much discussion about what appointment/ordination (kathistemi) actually meant. I tend to believe it was primarily public recognition of those who were already functioning as elders/overseers. Essentially it was a public validation. In other words, someone did not become an elder/overseer because they were appointed to the position. They were appointed because they were already functioning as elders/overseers. This is why Paul gives instructions (similar to those given to Timothy) on how to recognize elders/overseers (Tit. 1:7-9).

Leadership is important. The question, it seems to me, if whether leadership is positional or functional.

As far as life outside the congregational meetings, I tend to think an elder is an overseer or shepherd insofar as he has won the respect and trust of people who know him.

Why should it be different inside the congregational meeting, unless by “congregational meeting” we’re talking about an organized church service where most of the people are a passive audience while only a few perform ministerial functions? That was not how the early church met, however. Nor is it how the Jewish synagogue functioned, which was the model for the early church. The early church gatherings were much more participatory. Elders/overseers functioned in the gathering, but not to the exclusion of everyone else.

Regarding the issue of women in leadership, I’ll hold off on responding so as not to bifurcate this thread. I apologize for being overly provocative on that topic when it was not germane to the subject at hand.

[Guest]

Since I started this thread, I'd ask that you go ahead and bifurcate it. My study over the last year and a half started with the question of women and authority but I believe this is only a part of a very large question of who has authority in the church and why. For instance, I've been in churches that follow a rule that some activities, communion and baptism come to mind, can't be performed unless the preacher is present. So, I looked up the Greek for preacher, keryx, and found that the function of the preacher took place outside the formal gathering, consisted of a person giving the gospel of the Kingdom to unbelievers, and carried with it no inherent authority on the part of the preacher. The authority always was in the message of the gospel as opposed to being with the speaker. So, I began to think that the modern day teaching that Paul somehow excluded women from preaching in the congregation because it would violate man's authority must be utter nonsense because no preacher, man nor woman, preached inside the formal gathering nor had authority to start with. Thus, my earlier comment in this thread re: teaching being Paul's very narrow focus in 1Tim.2:12.

Mort and I discussed the synagogue a few months ago on another thread and also the relation to the early Christian gatherings. If you remember that, he said the gatherings often took place in a home or a room built onto a home. I'd like to toss this out to see what you think. As I look at Luke 10:38-42, (Mary and Martha), I see a picture of Jesus the teacher, accompanied by his disciples, in the earliest of Christian meeting houses, being asked a verbal question by a woman, during the most formal gathering that could take place. I say it is formal because the head of the church is present and, if you take the position that there is a chain of command type of leadership in the church, there could be no more formal situation. On the other hand, if you see a very informal, servant leadership model, you see the greatest servant teaching one of his students in a didactic form of instruction--question on the part of the student, Martha, and answer on the part of the teacher, Jesus. How can this be if women are to remain silent in the churches?

My focus here is not on women only but on this very broad question of authority. Take this thread wherever it leads or wherever the Holy Spirit leads it.

livingink

[Guest]

Hi Danny (Mort),

I hear what you’re saying brother and I agree with much of what you said. However, when I read the NT, I get the impression that there was a need for some appointed leaders in some cases, and Paul gave the qualifications here in this passage.

You wrote:

If you read 1 Tim 3:1 in the Greek, the word position isn’t there. Perhaps this is an example of translators inadvertently imposing their presuppositions onto the text. A more accurate translation might be, “if anyone desires to be an overseer”.

Yep, I thought of that too. And you may be right. But then I wondered “why is this not italicized in my bible?”. It’s a tough one for me to figure out since I know almost nothing about Greek grammer. However, I do notice that the word for “overseer” in vs. 1 (episkopees) is slightly different than the word for “overseer” in vs. 2 (episkopon). Same root, but different tense or something (I'm guessing). Strong even numbered them differently. The first is NT:1984, the second is NT:1985.

Doing a search for NT:1984 in an Englishman’s concordance yields 3 other places in the NT where the word is found. Twice it is translated “visitation”, referring to Jesus’ 1st and 2nd coming (Luke 19:44, and 1 Pet 2:12 respectively).

The other place is in Acts 1:20 quoting and OT prophetic psalm speaking of Judas:

Acts 1:20
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms:

'Let his dwelling place be desolate,
And let no one live in it';

and,

'Let another take his office (episkopees).'
NKJV


It appears that the Peter felt that Judas’ position as an apostle needed to be filled. We can argue whether or not he was acting under guidance of the Holy Spirit or just thinking for himself, but the point is, he seemed to be indicating that Judas needed to be replaced as an apostle (which is not to say that all apostles need to be replaced).

Furthermore, when Paul finishes the statement “If a man desires the position of a bishop….” with “….he desires a good work.” and then goes on to give qualifications, it sounds to me that in the context, he’s saying that there is some sort of assignment being discussed here, not just recognition that someone is a wise and godly dude.

You wrote:

In other words, someone did not become an elder/overseer because they were appointed to the position. They were appointed because they were already functioning as elders/overseers.

I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment but with one caveat. I don’t think everyone who qualified as an elder/overseer was appointed as one because I don’t think every church needed them. However, the churches that needed them had them appointed by the apostles (or their delegates).

You wrote:

Leadership is important. The question, it seems to me, if whether leadership is positional or functional.

I’d actually say it’s spiritual. Whoever has the gift of leading leads (if he’s obedient). Others who are spiritual recognize it and follow his example insofar as he speaks (and lives out) the word of God. If necessary, I think it becomes both positional and functional within the framework of a congregation. Which brings us to your next point.

You wrote:

Why should it be different inside the congregational meeting, unless by “congregational meeting” we’re talking about an organized church service where most of the people are a passive audience while only a few perform ministerial functions?

I don’t mean it in that sense at all. Wherever “two or three are gathered (or congregating)” in Jesus’ name, you have a congregational meeting IMO. Whether it’s passive or participatory makes no difference. Wherever two or three hundred are gathered in His name, you also have a congregational meeting, but with a different dynamic altogether.

With the former, there’s likely no need to assign anyone to “lead”. But with the latter, there’s likely to be the need for some kind of organization lest you become as the Corinthians.

I think there were some reasons in the early church to “appoint” godly and wise men to “shepherd” the flock so to speak. There was apparently heresy, legalism, power grabs, greed, and carnality. And those baby Christians who wished to follow Jesus needed some recognized examples to look to. We have to remember that people didn’t have bibles back then and the older Christian men probably had more time to hang out at the synagogue and read the scriptures. That being so, they could then impart that wisdom to others in “congregational meetings” through teaching (a specified qualification of elding/overseeing).

When Steve comes to town, there is usually an informal participatory gathering hosted by Don and Kelly in Camas Washington. Although not officially “appointed”, I consider Don and Kelly to be the leaders (overseers) of that meeting since they secure the church building, notify people, and make other arrangements that help that meeting have order and be an edifying experience for all. Again, this is more of a service to the body of Christ on their part and not an authoritative position they hold. At the meeting, I gladly do what they say so as to maintain order. That said, I don’t consider Don to be my “shepherd” or “overseer” outside the meeting. He’s a very wise and godly man from what I’ve seen, but I hardly know him.

If someone proves himself godly, wise, and trustworthy, and has spiritual wisdom to give me, then I want it. That’s spiritual authority in my opinion and it has nothing to do with a position.

But as far as 1Tim 3 goes, I do think Paul is talking about positional overseers for some specific purpose in a church. That’s just the way it reads to me. What I’m not saying (nor do I think Paul is saying), is that every Christian community needs them. And again, I don't think he was setting up the authoritarian style leadership we see so prominent in churches today. That would be contrary to Jesus' commands (Matt 20:25-28 )

[Guest]

Hi Christopher,

I asked another question re: when the gathering becomes formal but got no answers. You've touched on that here. Would you say it becomes "formal" (maybe a bad term) when the attendance hits a particular level?

livingink

[Guest]

Hi Livingink,

I don't think I'd define "formal" meetings by attendance level. I think, rather, I'd say a meeting is formal when there is a specific agenda for the meeting. In which case, I think it's very useful to have someone leading the meeting and keeping it on track. But, I think formality is probably a relative term.

I personally prefer more informal meetings for regular gatherings. But I do enjoy and benefit from some formal meetings as well (teachings, worship, etc.).

I don't know if I answered your question. Where did you want to take that?

[Guest]

Hello Christopher,

I was considering your earlier point about the Corinthians. They obviously needed teaching. In the list of characteristics of an overseer teaching is listed as a must. Paul later says that their work may include preaching also but in the 1 Tim. 3 list, whether it is a job description or simply a list of characteristics, teaching seems to be the one function that would be realized in a didactic assembly. That assembly may exist on a street corner or on Solomon's porch but it requires a leader who seeks to change the will of the unlearned student. Thus, my question about Jesus and Martha earlier.

If a guy starts a little Bible study in his home and it grows in attendance and, say, his agenda is to teach the scripture as accurately as possible with the intent that some of the students learn enough to go start their own gatherings, is he an overseer? As I remember, Steve said he didn't consider himself to be an overseer but rather a disseminator of information. If I've misquoted him, I apologize in advance. He may have said he didn't consider himself to be a teacher though most of us would need to think about that.

At some point, I'm going to have to lead a lesson on this topic and I'd like to be prepared far in advance.

livingink

[Guest]

Hi livinkink,

Paul often made lists about certain things (spiritual gifts, armor, etc) like that which we see in 1Tim 3 regarding overseers/elders. Just like the other lists, I'm not sure his intent in this case was to give an exhaustive list of qualifications (like a job description) for a certain office called elder, bishop, overseer, pastor or whatever, but I think maybe he was just giving a few specific examples of what a mature, godly man looks like and the types of things to look for when appointing people to such an important role as "shepherding the flock" of Christ. I think Paul was simply saying, "in choosing people to disciple others, pick those who have a heart for it and are already walking the walk and have been for some time".

It's kind of like choosing a spouse or a business partner. It's one of those things you don't want to take too lightly because once it's done, it's kind of hard to undo. I think that's why Paul later said in this letter not to do it too hastily (1 Tim 5:22).

In your question about Jesus and Martha earlier, you wrote:

As I look at Luke 10:38-42, (Mary and Martha), I see a picture of Jesus the teacher, accompanied by his disciples, in the earliest of Christian meeting houses, being asked a verbal question by a woman, during the most formal gathering that could take place. I say it is formal because the head of the church is present and, if you take the position that there is a chain of command type of leadership in the church, there could be no more formal situation.

I actually see this as a very informal setting. I don't know that Jesus was there as a teacher or the head of the church so much as He was as a friend. I get the impression that Jesus rather enjoyed just hanging out with His friends and spontaneously talking about the things of God, whether at their home, in an upper room washing their feet, cooking them a meal over a campfire, etc. And I'm a firm believer that the majority of real life changing ministry happens in those spontaneous, informal settings as well. Jesus said:

John 15:15-16
15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.
NKJV

That turns the whole "authority" thing we're discussing on it's head. How much easier it is, and willing we are, to follow someone who has the wisdom of God AND loves us as friend rather than just someone we hardly know who has been given some kind of authority we think we ought to obey. I think that's the model Jesus gave us. Winning over others through a demonstration of godly wisdom and authority in love and nothing less.

In your last post you wrote:

If a guy starts a little Bible study in his home and it grows in attendance and, say, his agenda is to teach the scripture as accurately as possible with the intent that some of the students learn enough to go start their own gatherings, is he an overseer?

I tend to think what makes someone on "overseer" is being recognized as one by those he oversees. Whether that's by formal appointment, or just plain recognition of the fact that he is a wise, trustworthy, and mature godly man, if people acknowledge him as their "overseer", than that's what he is to them.

You also wrote:

That assembly may exist on a street corner or on Solomon's porch but it requires a leader who seeks to change the will of the unlearned student.

I think the "will" of a true disciple (student, Christian, etc) has already been changed by the Holy Spirit. A leader merely passes on to them what they know about the mind and the will of God they already want to follow.

You wrote:

As I remember, Steve said he didn't consider himself to be an overseer but rather a disseminator of information. If I've misquoted him, I apologize in advance. He may have said he didn't consider himself to be a teacher though most of us would need to think about that.

I'll let Steve speak for himself if he's reading. But I have heard him say that he doesn't believe he qualifies to be an overseer because of his family situation. I think I would disagree with that based on what I know of him. I can't say I know him well, but I do know him and I can't think of too many more wise and godly men IMO. I don't think that circumstances beyond someone's control disqualify someone from being recognized as a gifted leader. But that probably goes back to what I said earlier about that laudry list being more of a guideline than a rigid checklist of qualifications IMO. I think the only thing that disqualifies Steve from any kind of formal leadership is that he doesn't desire it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Paul listed it as the very first qualification.

Informally, Steve is a leader with spiritual authority, and a good one at that. I count him as one of mine because he sets a great example to follow. Although he never gives me a direct exhortation, much of what he teaches inherently holds authority for me because as I weigh it against scripture, I want to obey the parts I'm convinced are the mind and heart of God.

That's where I believe the true authority lies. Not in the office, but in the word, heart, and mind of God.

Those are the types of people I think Paul was telling Timothy to appoint as elders/overseers.

[Guest]

Hi Christopher,

You said:

Paul often made lists about certain things (spiritual gifts, armor, etc) like that which we see in 1Tim 3 regarding overseers/elders. Just like the other lists, I'm not sure his intent in this case was to give an exhaustive list of qualifications (like a job description) for a certain office called elder, bishop, overseer, pastor or whatever, but I think maybe he was just giving a few specific examples of what a mature, godly man looks like and the types of things to look for when appointing people to such an important role as "shepherding the flock" of Christ. I think Paul was simply saying, "in choosing people to disciple others, pick those who have a heart for it and are already walking the walk and have been for some time".

In 1 Tim. 3 Paul prefaces his list of qualifications for elders with "must" (Greek dei) and again inserts "must" in v. 7. The Greek word dei, #1163, means "one must, one should, it is necessary" (Wigram). Thayer says that dei, in comparison to its synonym chre, #5534, "seems to be more suggestive of moral obligation, denoting especially that constraint that arises from divine appointment. Chre signifies necessity regarding time and circumstance."

Isn't Paul giving a list of things that are, at least in some degree, mandatory?