Authority, submission, and chain of command

[andrew]

This is a fork of another thread, the split point of which can be viewed here. If I tee it up properly, this thread should stand on its own, but it might still make sense to look at the run up on the other thread for context.

 

[andrew]

The question presented is whether there is some level of authority and accountability between the individual man and Christ, not mentioned in the "man is the head of the woman, Christ is the head of the man, and God is the head of Christ" formula, to which a woman questioning her husband's leadership could make a biblical appeal.

My original assertion was that we men tend to argue we're not accountable to anyone but God due to the verse above, but that ignores or skirts around more than a few verses in the NT regarding elders and overseers in the church. I asserted further that our bias in this matter may be due to our virtually self-evident cultural trend to individualism and the atomization of all social structures apart from the almighty state (church, family, etc). I assert further here that we 'patriarchal' types have a whole 'nother force pushing us toward independence, self-reliance, and a certain uppity-ness that has its own set of strengths and weaknesses.

There's the tee up. More thoughts in a bit.

 

[andrew]

Here's another item that needs to be included:

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

I get that later on he says "brother goes to law against brother", and inevitably somebody's going to argue that women don't have any rights in court, but the simple fact is that if we as a community can't resolve our intra-family disputes, people end up in secular courts looking for justice.

 

[andrew]

This deserves its own thread, to what extent if any is there a temporal authority that can supersede a husband/father's role in his home?

I guess at first I missed the difference between the way I was framing this and the way Zec was, but my response to this specific question is that nobody actually supersedes a man's role in his home. I agree substantially with Zec's earlier comments (previous thread) re a woman's remedies (submit or leave), and cannot imagine, let alone support, a wife's recruiting other men to gang up on her husband and subvert his authority.

My interest in the community's having a role in settling disputes has more to do with the legitimacy of the woman's departure, if it comes to that, and her eligibility to be remarried, as opposed to separating for a season or indefinitely. It also touches on the man's obligation to maintain the woman financially if she departs. I'm not going to tell another man how to follow Christ individually or how to run his household, but for there to be order in a community that community will have leaders establishing standards that will affect the 'balance of power' in the home. Making sense so far?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

As I understand it, the husband is solely accountable for his own home, in all things. That being said, I understand that there are those who have been given a role of undershepherd for the assembly. This role plays a very important part within the body of Christ.
Who gives the elder(s) this authority? The husbands! When a family joins the assembly, each man still has autonomy within his own family unit and is still primarily accountable to God, but is secondarily accountable to his brothers in Christ that he has joined himself to. This is what laying on of hands is partially about, or in other places where the lifting up of the hand is a sign of acceptance or being "polled". It is where the husband places his confidence in another to act as a peripheral mentor, advocate, confidante, encourager, exhorter, teacher and sometimes judge. All for the purpose of having someone else to help watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief. It's all about being under authority with a three (or more) fold cord which will not be easily broken. It also follows the advice of a multitude of counselors.
This being said, the husband can withdraw his confidence and cooperation if the elders seem to be overstepping their boundaries. I'm certain that each of us has their own horror stories of pastor popes!
As I see it, the purpose of the brethren is to restore another brother who has fallen or has made grave mistakes and to reconcile the issue, by identifying it, encouraging repentance and facilitating restoration, not passing judgement or sentencing unless it is gross sin such as abominations etc.

 

[steve]

Interested in where this is going.

 

[aineo]

I think this reply now belongs here:

@aineo, how do you square 1 Peter 3 with that? I'm not asking you to try to "prove" anything to my or anyone else's satisfaction. I'm just asking how you see it. Tell me your story.

After I've read through what you've written, I'm not sure we are that far apart from one another. I'd also like to reiterate that I am not an expert on this, and even as I write this post I am still thinking through it all.

It seems to me that if a woman is encouraged to submit to her unbelieving, unsaved husband, on the ground that her submission to him will teach him something that may even bring him into the kingdom, how much more would that logic apply to a woman whose husband appears to be or claims to be a Christ follower?

I agree.

I will stipulate that if a man is telling his woman to do something that is beyond a reasonable doubt an egregious sin, then she needs to do whatever she thinks Holy Spirit is telling her to do. Submit or balk, I'm not her judge. I'm addressing the vast majority of real day-to-day cases, where there is simply a difference of opinion about what God wants the family to do, and the woman believes on the basis of her direct connection with God that she can second-guess her husband or join the executive committee as an equal with her husband.)

I also agree with this. In the vast majority of day-to-day cases, what I think we are talking about here is irrelevant. I am not referring to the wife having the right to usurp the husband's headship over differences of opinion that are not questions of egregious sin. The question of the husband's authority isn't even up for debate in most cases. The cases I am referring to are those beyond an unreasonable doubt egregious sins such as performing sex acts with other men, murder, lewd acts with minors against her will, etc.

Think about Request Mast in the Corps. The wife never has the authority to "declare" her husband in sin, but she may have a right of appeal to higher authority. And because our culture is so fragmented and atomized, we just immediate skip over any other human authority and go straight to God. But if we had any kind of intermediate authority, say, like the elders of a community, then there might be a place for a woman to make an appeal to those in authority over her husband.

but doesn't the NT clearly line out a system of authority within the churches, with men expected to submit to church leadership? Food for thought....

Whew, most of this I agree with, but I don't know that I agree that elders are in authority over the husband. Thinking. Thinking. Yes, there is 1 Peter 2:13-15, Romans 13:1-2, and others. So yes, there is some basis for this, though I need to think this part out.

Can an elder be a "judge" to help settle a disagreement? Yeah, I think I certainly agree with that, but I think the implications of this are potentially troublesome, especially since women are told to ask their husbands questions in 1 Corinthians 14:35, not the elders. Still pondering this.

I'm not claiming I know all the answers, and I'm thinking this out as I am writing. That said, this New Testament example comes to mind.

Acts 5:1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. 6 The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him.

7 Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” 10 And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things.

It seems to me that in this case, Sapphira was following the leade of her husband, Ananias, doing as he told, though it does say they agreed together. Even so, it seems to me that Sapphira telling Peter the truth would have been violating the agreement she had with her head, Ananias. By continuing with this agreement, harsh punishment was brought on her and she died. It seems Peter expected her to tell the truth, not follow her husband's lead.

I am suspecting that Peter might have counseled others that Sapphira should have known better than to "put the Spirit of the Lord to the test" and that she should have come clean.

What a woman cannot do is stay in the home, be a chronic adversary for the husband and bad example for the children, and stand on some theory that what she hears from God is more important than (or even as important as) what he hears from God.

Agreed.

The question becomes when does a wife get to declare her husband in sin and so no longer in charge? Can you she step out of authority if she thinks God gave her a personal Word that contradicts her husband?

As I said earlier, I think this is beyond shaky ground and is dangerous. I do not think a woman saying she heard a personal word from God that contradicts her husband is grounds for her to usurp his headship.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@aineo I guess I have viewed the part that talks about Ananias and Sapphira agreeing to indicate that perhaps she might have had something to do with the decision or at the least that she was a willingly active participant. Just my opinion.

 

[steve]

@aineo I guess I have viewed the part that talks about Ananias and Sapphira agreeing to indicate that perhaps she might have had something to do with the decision or at the least that she was a willingly active participant. Just my opinion.

My thoughts also.
More of a co-conspirator than a innocent dutiful wife.

 

[aineo]

@Verifyveritas76 and @steve I agree with that. As noted above, they agreed together, but would her having come clean to Peter been a choice to go against her husband and the commitment she made to him? I think so. So while I agree that they agreed together, I think disagreeing with the agreement she made with her husband when confronted by Peter would have been violating his headship.

If you and your wife or wives agree to something, and when confronted she (or they) takes an opposite stance, would you think she was rebellious?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

She could possibly remain neutral as the women did at Kadesh barnea. Only the men of war had to die before the Israelites could enter Canaan.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So it can be helpful at times to look at the extremes of a situation. We know that God commanded death for men who lay with their daughters. So obviously ah some point its acceptable for the church to remove a man from his home. Likewise a man could lose some of his authority if he falsely accused his wife of immorality.

So there is a place for intervention, but where is it. I submit its pretty high.

 

[Mojo]

So it can be helpful at times to look at the extremes of a situation. We know that God commanded death for men who lay with their daughters. So obviously ah some point its acceptable for the church to remove a man from his home. Likewise a man could lose some of his authority if he falsely accused his wife of immorality.

So there is a place for intervention, but where is it. I submit its pretty high.

Extremely high.

 

[FollowingHim]

This is a risky area because of the tendency of some cults to go completely overboard on it, and give the church leadership complete authority over everything within the family. Obviously none of us are tending in that direction at all, our natural inclination is to swing in the other direction towards a husband being under as little external authority as necessary. But it's an important context to bear in mind, the last thing we need is yet another polygamous cult...

Who are the elders who are to be given this authority? Who decides who they are? In a tribal situation, the authority could rest in the elders of the tribe, ie the grandfathers of most of the members. I can see this arrangement being natural and working well (in general). But in a Christian community formed from many unrelated individuals, who are the elders?

I actually don't think this is very complicated. For instance, it wouldn't be difficult to name half a dozen men whom anyone who has attended Biblical Families retreats and met people in person would agree represented the respected "elders" of this community - each person may name a slightly different set, but the basic core would be fairly consistent. They don't need to have any formal election as an "elder", those who are trusted and respected just become obvious. Also, this group of people may change over time.

I am not suggesting it is the role of Biblical Families to provide such judgements. More likely it is the role of the elders in whatever in-person church fellowship a family is involved with - ideally we'd all be in some form of solid in-person fellowship, most likely a home-church network, and the elders of this local church would be called upon for such judgements. In practice, we may not have local fellowship with people who would be suitable or willing or see the need to act in such an eldership capacity.

If the authority of the elders is restricted to rare and serious cases, such as determining whether a divorce is legitimate or not, there does not need to be a formal eldership structure. When such a case arises, the men who are considered to be elders at the time will consider it and make a judgement. The next time such a situation arises, a slightly different set of men may consider it. If they are truly seeking the Holy Spirit's leading, the judgements reached should be consistent even if the people are different.

On the other hand, if the elders were to be called on regularly for many decisions, there would need to be a formal structure. I don't know that this is necessary, I can't see a sound scriptural precedent for it.

Such an informal structure is suggested in Galatians 2

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
...
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
...
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

There does not seem to have been a formal set of "elders" in the Jerusalem church. Rather, Paul talked to those men who appeared to have a good reputation and seemed to be key to the church. This sounds extremely informal.

In scripture there are also frequent references to the elders of a city sitting at the gates to give judgement. This too sounds very informal, for instance Boaz did not talk to a formal town council but rather seems to have called over ten older men who happened to be nearby to witness his arrangements regarding Ruth.

Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.
And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit ye down here. And they sat down.

 

[FollowingHim]

An obvious application of this is the question of "is this woman free to remarry?". A prospective husband who was unsure about whether a woman was marriageable due to a complex past, could take the matter to the eldership. They could pray, deliberate, come to a conclusion that they believed was the will of God, and communicate this to the couple involved. The couple could then act based on this judgement.

The eldership could also judge more secular matters, such as a property dispute, allowing such matters to be settled "out-of-court". The parties involved would obviously still have a legal right to take the matter to court if they were dissatisfied with the judgement.

If the eldership is informal, then any of us who are in a situation requiring a judgement could request a council of available elders to hear the dispute and come to a judgement. We don't need to set up an eldership to do this. We can access this today. Any one of us can take a difficult matter, put it before a set of men we consider trusted elders, and submit ourselves to their judgement in the matter. We don't have to set up a church structure - we ARE the church.

These examples are all voluntary. Whether the eldership can step in where they have not been invited, and when they can do this, is a more difficult matter.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Something else to keep in mind is the situation where there exists a quarrel between two brothers. I find it interesting where Paul says to let the least esteemed among you judge. 1 Cor 6:4

 

[andrew]

Yes, there is 1 Peter 2:13-15, Romans 13:1-2, and others.

I'm not as interested in those as in, say, 1 Th 5:12-13 (note the link between 'ruling' and peace among the brethren) and 1 Ti 5:17. What do you think Paul's talking about there? What are those elders doing?

Note also, while we're busy noting things, that whatever those elders are doing, it's the same thing (same word) a husband does with his family, so whatever this authority is that a husband is supposed to have over his household, there is some evidence that the 'elders' (whoever they are) are supposed to have the same relationship to the group of families that they eld.

 

[andrew]

So there is a place for intervention, but where is it. I submit its pretty high.

Extremely high.

Whether it's high or extremely high, we need to keep this point separate. I agree that it's useful to consider extremes to contextualize the conversation, but whatever constitutes grounds for 'intervention' in the life of the husband or the life of the family, I'm raising a different issue. We can explore both, but I don't want to lose sight of one for the other.

 

[andrew]

Re the whole issue of 'who are the elders?', at Biblical Families that's fairly straightforward--Nathan, Ron, and me. We tend to avoid that terminology mostly, for various reasons, but if you want to ask a generic question such as, "Who are the older, experienced guys who work together to define the direction of this group and the boundaries of what will be considered acceptable conduct?", then that's the answer. And why anyone's name should be on or off that list could be an interesting question, but it's not ripe until we have a working biblical definition of what elders are and what they do. So back to the other thing....

For the record, I've been involved in family counseling most of my adult life, and real life issues involving husband/wife disputes or parent/child disputes come up for me about once a week on average. (NB - A "dispute" is two different ways of thinking, and refers to a disagreement based on two different ways of looking at a situation. It is not the same as a "fight" or "conflict", although unresolved disputes often lead to conflict.) And in many of those situations, a husband/father is doing something idiotic while stubbornly maintaining his 'right to be wrong'. (NB - "Idiotic" doesn't mean "stupid" as much as "in a class by itself" (cf. "idiom"), but all good students of what the bible says about plural marriage should already know that. )

So this is not an academic question for me. This is real life, rubber-meets-the-road stuff. I see families fail regularly because the male was more interested in being 'right' than in being successful. And that's a damned shame.

Meanwhile, I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts (including especially @aineo's) on the verses I referred to. What does Paul have in mind there for elders, and why did Paul use the same word to describe a man's governance of his household?

 

[FollowingHim]

I find it interesting where Paul says to let the least esteemed among you judge. 1 Cor 6:4

This is an interesting verse as it seems to contrast 1 Th 5:12 etc. I think it may be saying something like "secular matters are so simple that anyone can find a decent answer, you don't need to use the court". It might also be suggesting that simple matters can be taken to anybody, leaving the elders to deal with the more difficult matters.

Re the whole issue of 'who are the elders?', at Biblical Families that's fairly straightforward--Nathan, Ron, and me.

Hold up, it's not quite that simple! Yes, the three of you are the elders of this ministry, I don't dispute that, you do a great job and are eminently qualified (I say that for the public audience so it is very clear that I am not challenging this at all - I used a BF retreat to illustrate how to see who the elders are in an informal home church rather than to suggest anyone can pick who the elders are of this ministry). However, this is first and foremost a marriage ministry, not a regular "church" assembly. Most of us will ideally be involved in more regular, local, in-person fellowship of some description (be that a conventional "church" fellowship or a home group or something even more informal). Those local groups will also have elders, either a list of formal appointed elders in the case of a church, or a selection of respected men who function as informal elders.

For a real example, here's my situation. I have my most regular in-person fellowship with a small church fellowship, that is a sub-chapter of a larger formal church which I have little to do with. I have a large extended family with many sound Christian older relatives. I am also heavily involved with Biblical Families. Who are the elders that I am under?

• The formal elected eldership of the larger formal church that oversees the fellowship I attend?
• The informal eldership of the smaller fellowship I attend? There is no formal list, but in practice there are around 4 older men who run the fellowship and are effective elders.
• The "tribal" eldership of my Christian grandfather, father, uncles etc?
• The Biblical Families formal eldership?
• None of the above?
• All of the above?

If we cannot serve two masters, then must we be under a single formal eldership?
Or, can we take all such people as "elders" and approach different sets with different issues - would my family take a marriage issue to the BF eldership but a property dispute to our local eldership, for instance?

What happens if the BF eldership thinks one thing, but our local eldership thinks another? If the elders can step in when they believe a husband is in sin, could our local elders step in if I took a second wife because they believed I was sinning? Or for an opposite illustration, could the BF eldership step in if I married a woman they believed was not properly divorced and attempt to get her back to her former husband, despite my local eldership believing she is available?

The issue of "who are the elders" in an individual man's life is therefore very important, and not as simple as just "Nathan, Andrew and Ron".