Being Subject To Our Leaders

[Guest]

Christopher,

1. In your opinion, how are these leaders "chosen" or "appointed"?

IMO the local church is independent of all other congregations, each of which has Jesus as head. Since there are no longer Apostles, the local Church must select their elders, deacons, and deaconesses. It would appear that this would be by electing them as appears to be the way the first deacons were chosen.


Acts 6:3 (New King James Version)

3. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;

Some scholars say the words are indicative of an election by raising of the hand.

2. What prevents those "appointed" leaders from being the very thing you are warning against? What guarantees that the selected leaders won't be the undesirable ones?

There is no guarantee that this will not happen but if those chosen are "full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom", it is far less likely than if assertive, ambitious, prideful people are self appointed or just "take over".

I was most impressed with a story told to me by a niece in California how their congregation chose their first elders. They took it very seriously and spent much time in prayer.

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

IMO the local church is independent of all other congregations, each of which has Jesus as head. Since there are no longer Apostles, the local Church must select their elders, deacons, and deaconesses. It would appear that this would be by electing them as appears to be the way the first deacons were chosen.

Great! So we're agreed then that people intuitively know who the true godly leaders are? Great point about the apostles no longer being available to appoint them.

So my question is...what is lacking if this same congregation chose not to elect them and give them a title? Would they be any less of a leader?

If people already know these leaders are full of wisdom and trustworthy for counsel and guidance, would a title really add to that? If not, then is it not a viable option for a community of believers not to have appointed leaders if they so choose?

There is no guarantee that this will not happen but if those chosen are "full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom", it is far less likely than if assertive, ambitious, prideful people are self appointed or just "take over".

But if there is no positions to "self-appoint" oneself to, what is there to take over? People are under no obligation to follow a self-appointed leader.

There is definitely value in some sort of order and organization within a community of believers, but I'm not sure it need always take the form of appointed elders and pastors.

Just my humble opinion.

[Guest]

Very interesting discussion.

I just wanted to relay a true story of how an appointed leader can affect ones judgment.

I was sitting in on a "discussion" between two parties. (All of us go or have gone to the same church and know the appointed leaders.) The two parties were family and one's concern was over finances and how much they were giving to the church. This person (in the context of a financial class) personally disclosed to a church leader how much money it cost them to "live on" and how they simply didn't have enough income to pay all the bills and still by gas and food, so they were using a credit card. (This person was not living beyond their means). The advice from the church leader was to continue to give to the church and maybe find a second job! The church did give them some money one month, but the amount given was no more than what this person was already giving per month anyway.

So as the discussion went on as to why the church leader was still requiring money when this amount was needed instead of using the credit card, the second party asked why they didn't question the Pastor over his directive to continue to give, even though it would lead to financial ruin. The answer was "I thought he was my spiritual head, that's why I disclosed this information to him. I thought this is what God wanted me to do, to continue to give to God first". (Realize that this was a new Christian and at first just believed what they were told)

Later, the same two parties were in discussion on another issue and the second party (the same party above who asked why the first party didn't question the Pastor about his directive to continue to give) suggested the first party seek counseling on an issue. The response was "Why would I seek counseling from someone you previously said I should question"? "If neither you nor I trust their previous advice, why would I seek it again".

I thought that was a good response. However, the second party continued to state that one should seek counseling from their pastor.

I think this speaks to the very heart of this issue. Party "A" understood (after getting unbiblical advice) that you don't submit to someone just because they are called "Pastor". Yet party "B" wanted to give the Pastor a "pass" for seemingly no other reason than he's the Pastor and should be submitted to.

Sometimes giving someone a title makes them (in many peoples minds) the one to be followed, even if they give poor or unbiblical advice.

I can see how it can go bad either way, because many who are in the churches are carnal. Maybe the only thing that can help is discipleship. If people were actually taught what the bible says on the subject (as we have seen many examples of in this thread) then they (the congregation and the leadership) wouldn't be so carnal about the issue.

[Guest]

Christopher, Sean, et al,

IMO the office of elder is the desired norm in a congregation of more than a few people. It seems to me that there is an "approved precedent" of the Apostles in establishing this office.

It seems very odd to me that elders would have been appointed in all the churches if this was not the intended norm:


Acts 14:23 (New King James Version)

23. So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.


Surely some of the churches could have gotten by without them.

We find the elders established and respected in the church very early. In Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem we find the elders involved with the Apostles in the momentous decision regarding the Gentiles, and the opinion of an elder, James, appears to have carried the most weight.

Paul's detailed instructions of the qualifications and duties of elders also carries great weight in my mind.

Arguing against the need for elders based on anecdotes of incompentance is not a good argument. One could as easily argue there was no need for apostles because Peter made an error in judgement regarding the Gentiles.

When elders are in error, we can "go over their heads". They have a superior. They must be held accountable just as the Bereans checked the scriptures to verify whether what the Apostles said was true.

[Guest]

Does anyone see anything unbiblical about the following?....


What if everyone who desired to be an elder and met all of the qualifications could be an elder? (And by "elder" I mean "pastors" or "teaching pastors" or "leading pastors" or whatever a congregation would want to call them).

This would mean that if there was a house church with ten families, then there could potentially be ten elders. If there was a larger congregation of 200 families then there could potentially be 200 elders (not that there would be).

The goal would be to have everyone qualified to be an elder (whether they would want to be or not is up to them)... since the attributes of an elder are attributes that every Christian should be working to attain. If they are qualified in the moral realm, but cannot or do not wish to teach, then they can be a deacon.

The elder role would essentially be unlimited in number. And since they all would have to be able to teach, then it would help the other newer believers in the congregation not just look to one or two men as the final authority on everything (which is one of the main reasons I don't like the "lead pastor" concept -- not necessarily because of the pride that can be built up in the pastor [even though that's an issue as well], but mainly because of what it does to the people that view themselves as "under" this one person).


Would this solve things or just create more problems? What do you guys think?

[Guest]

Christopher, Sean, et al,

IMO the office of elder is the desired norm in a congregation of more than a few people. It seems to me that there is an "approved precedent" of the Apostles in establishing this office.

It seems very odd to me that elders would have been appointed in all the churches if this was not the intended norm:


Acts 14:23 (New King James Version)

23. So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

I wouldn't say I believe that it's against the norm. I would say that the passage you quote from Acts is part of the problem. (They) The Apostles appointed elders. Since it's debatable if there are living apostles today, should we just self appoint leaders in their absence? Or should we first appoint apostles to appoint our elders (which just pushes the debate back one step)? In other words, should a congregation just appoint an elder (which is not what Acts 14:23 says) or an elder appoint himself and lay hands on himself if he feels qualified?

I'm not personally against leadership, I just don't know how to determine by what authority they have been put in place. This was and is a sticking point with the Roman Catholic Church. If they are not our authority then by what means are they not our authority? If it's because we don't agree with them on a particular point, then anytime the elder of my local congregation says something I don't agree with then they are not my elder (at least on that point). The problem is perpetual. It was much easier when an apostle who saw the resurrected Christ laid hands on an someone to be an elder. Today, we just kind of wonder "is that guy up there because God wanted him there, or because he wants everyone to obey him"?

[Guest]

Good points Sean.

This is one of the main reasons why I believe that the real authority is in the Word of God, and not an office.

One of the closest matches to this idea in Jesus' own statement about the appointed scribes and Pharisees:

Matt 23:1-4
23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
NKJV

It seems to me that we should observe whatever is spoken from the Word of God, and then discern all extra-biblical counsel in light of what we know from the Word.

IMO, this gives legitimacy to rejecting the counsel of the Pastor in the example you gave as well as countless others.

This also agrees with what Homer said:

When elders are in error, we can "go over their heads". They have a superior. They must be held accountable just as the Bereans checked the scriptures to verify whether what the Apostles said was true.

[Guest]

Hi Rae,

200 elders?

That could get interesting.

You make a very good point in what you said. Isn't the main goal of discipleship to help everyone become the type of person that would qualify for leadership?

[Guest]

Rae wrote,

This would mean that if there was a house church with ten families, then there could potentially be ten elders. If there was a larger congregation of 200 families then there could potentially be 200 elders (not that there would be).

The goal would be to have everyone qualified to be an elder (whether they would want to be or not is up to them)... since the attributes of an elder are attributes that every Christian should be working to attain.

If they work hard enough, can they all become males? That doesn't seem very desirable to me. (Sorry, had to say that.) (Ducking)

[Guest]

Christopher said:

200 elders? Laughing

That could get interesting.

At that point, maybe it would be time to multiply. And since the fellowship wouldn't be built around one personality, it would be much easier to do so!



Homer,

Erg!!