Authority, submission, and chain of command

[andrew]

It's always going to require 'consent of the governed', at least until the politicians run the planet into a new Dark Ages, because in the modern world no one is dependent on the tribe for survival. Excommunication and shunning are only as meaningful as the emotions of the people being shut out, and if there's been a showdown or conflict of some sort leading up to the sanction, those emotions have probably already gone cold, and the sanction is not likely to accomplish anything or be any kind of deterrent.

And I'm cool with that. We've all gotta do what we've gotta do. But if we're going to do it together, there's going to be leadership and followership, and we'll need to sort all that out.

Random thought: Keep the great 'circle of life' in mind. We're all elders eventually. Aspire to be a good one when it's your turn.

New thought:

Just curious, not trying to argue, but what if the congregation you leave is spot on in all areas of doctrine that you adhere to, but is wrong on polygyny? Do you leave it to find an assembly that believes in polygyny, but is deficient in other doctrines? Do you form your own assembly? Are you an assembly unto yourself? What are your qualifications for fellowship and assembly?

Quick review: Assembly is my favorite English translation of ekklesia for reasons I can unpack later maybe. More literally, ekklesia refers to the "called out" ones—a gathering called together for a purpose. It's usage is not limited to what we have been conditioned to call "church", but covers "secular" meetings as well (see Acts 19: 32, 39, 41 for bible examples).

A biblical Christian ekklesia should be a group of men called by God to function together for His purposes. In modern practice we shop for church fellowship like the good consumers we are, comparing preacher, worship music, youth program, Sunday school, or whatever else is on our list (how's their VBS? how far is the drive? how long does the service last? do these people conform to my doctrinal shibboleths?), to find the 'best' church for our families. Then we stay put until someone pisses us off or we get some new revelation or a job transfer or something and the process starts over.

Shouldn't be like that. Where is God calling you to serve? Not "receive", not "plug in", but "serve". Why meet with other Christians at all? (topic for another thread...) But if you're going to meet with other Christians, meet with others who are answering the same call that you are.

If your showing up at your fellowship has a bit of a "reporting for duty" edge to it, and the men you serve with are your Band of Brothers, then you're probably in the right place. Most of that stuff I mentioned earlier making fun of consumer Christians doesn't even matter if you're answering God's call. All that's in His hands, right? The mission comes first.

And in that context, most of this leadership stuff is going to fall into place pretty naturally. If the basic idea of leadership is not making sense to you in the context of Christian assembly (and I mean real leadership, not 'our pastor has a dynamic speaking presence and the worship band is smoking hot' leadership, nor do I mean 'our pastor has spent more time than me in book study and knows more Hebrew and Greek words than I do' leadership), then maybe it's time to revisit what Christian assembly is all about.

Here at Biblical Families, our mission is to share our understanding of what the bible says about marriage and family and to support families that are in the throes of transition from cultural marriage to biblical marriage. In Nathan and Ron, I have found two men to whom I am willing to 'pledge my Life, my Fortune, and my sacred Honor' in furtherance of the common mission to which God has called each of us. And that's after five years during which God kept me out of Biblical Families! God has a weird sense of humor. Or maybe His ways are not our ways, and His timing is not our timing.

Anyway, my response to all of Mojo's questions above is: Serve where you're called until you're called somewhere else (which could include a call to be the leader and start something from scratch, and could also include some 'alone time' à la Abraham). Just look for the guys that are answering the same call you are.

 

[Aussies]

Sometimes you look the other way if it's not gross heresy.

if there is sin committed at the approval of the council, is it accounted to us or them?

Thank you Mojo for your above questions. I had a friend that asked something similar, he asked "where else do we go?" He stayed, we left. Not seen much of him since as he now sees us as a bad influence as we left.
This is how we see it.
If we were in Israel in the time of Elijah. Baal worship was rampant within the nation due to the efforts of Ahab and Jezebel. When Elijah was down and was thinking he was alone in faithful worship (1 Kings 19:14) he was then told that there were 7000 still faithful (19:18) It is interesting that these had not bent the knee to Baal. Now if they had been in a group and if they were known to each other then both Jezebel and Elijah would have known of them. Thus they must have just continued faithful in either very small groups or total isolation. However each and every one was known by God! As for the rest of the nation they had given worship to Baal. It is also interesting that Jezebels father was a priest of Ashtoreth/ Astarte. So if we were there should we just go along with the crowd or should we stand with the 7000. I have had many say that if something is wrong then those who made the decision carry the responsibility. However if you go out to dinner and they serve blood sausage and say its ok to eat it, is it Ok or would we be held accountable for putting it into our mouth? And if we keep taking our kids to that same place for dinner, then what are we telling our kids?
If we understood that worship was being given to Ashtoreth and Baal, could we continue in that company?
Ashtoreth was also worshiped as the Queen of Heaven. Zeus/ Jupiter were Baal gods. Hera/ Juno were worshiped as the Queen of Heaven. For a Christian Church to now have their flock follow the teachings of the Queen of Heaven and a Baal god, at least to my mind that is "gross heresy".

If those in Elijah's day simply said its ok, I just want to fit in and thus continued in the same form of worship that others were practicing, which group would God have placed them in, the 7000 or the rest.
When we are told get out of her my people (Rev 18:4) what is meant?
When Daniel was is Babylon did he not worship in his upper room. When David was hiding among the philistines did he join with them just because there was no where else?
Where else do we go? no idea! But if you try to give my family a glass of clean water with just a little cyanide in it, we will go thirsty.
Worship is not just about tambourines, and a good time in fellowship. First and foremost it's about which God we give worship to.
In the Garden of Eden Eve fell short by just one piece of fruit. Everyone I have spoken with always say that they would never eat that piece of fruit. How is following another god any different? Adam ate as Eve offered. Should he have been willing to be alone and trust God to provide or did he do right to eat? The answer is obvious.
Yes its lonely, but if that's all it takes to not bend the knee to false gods, then that's a price we are willing to pay.

The difference is now we consider all things and don't just reject others due to belonging to one group. If anyone sheds light on a truth, then we accept that truth. However if they offer worship to a false god in any aspect of worship then we don't accept that group.

After all if its not about which God we worship and we just want company then we can just go to the local club as nothing really matters.
Which was more more important, You must not murder, or, You must not worship or follow other gods? Or are they both requirements that we must live by.

We see this issue of the acceptance of monogamy and the rejection of polygamy being taught as a requirement of Jesus Christ thus a matter of worship, as the most seductive deception that has ever been placed against the Christian Church. If we all just put up with it and continue to associate with those groups that preach it, then nothing will change. If Tyndale and others had not stood up in their day then where would we be now.

 

[FollowingHim]

I have been far too busy to ponder this deeply enough to make any in-depth contribution, hence my comments so far mainly focussing on answering the peripheral matters in the hope of clearing these up and keeping the main discussion on-track. Two brief thoughts for now, one on- and one off-topic. Off-topic first:

@Aussies, I completely agree that we should be striving to understand YHWH's instructions and aiming for purity, casting aside all that is not of Him. However, monogamy is not the only teaching with pagan origins. There's Christmas and Easter for a start on the Gentile church side. But from the Messianic side, there are also pagan origins to various Jewish traditions also (e.g. the egg in the Passover meal). If you choose not to fellowship with the Gentile church over pagan influences, and not to fellowship with the Jewish church over pagan influences, who is left? A tiny selection of people who are also trying to figure out Christianity for themselves - most of whom will have come to different conclusions to you on other matters and you'll disagree with even more strongly than the church you just left, over different matters. Nobody has a perfect understanding, and that includes ourselves. We might even be wrong about what constitutes paganism. Yet we are commanded to not neglect meeting together. We have brothers and sisters all around us, we should not abandon them too hastily, as we are a body formed of many imperfect parts - and we need interaction with others to keep us on track, and to allow others to learn from us. Certainly there are bottom lines, but if we make too many of them we'll end up isolated and limited in our ability to work as a part of the Body. We do need to be careful who we submit ourselves to, I agree, but I'm trying to balance this with other matters we need to keep in mind also.

Back on topic, I agree with @andrew that elders certainly have real authority over the men under them, you can't really read this any other way. The question in my mind is not whether they have authority, but what parts of life do they have authority over?

If you are in the military, your superiors have real authority over you, more authority than in any other human situation. But there authority is still limited basically to military matters - you must obey on the battlefield, and also off in areas directly related to preparing for battle, such as training and matters of personal life that will affect your ability to function as a soldier. However your superiors have no authority over your religious beliefs, or who you marry, and their authority ceases when you leave the military. Their authority may seem complete in some areas, but it is non-existent in others.

So having authority over somebody does not necessarily mean being able to command them in every aspect of life. Authority is given within bounds, not unlimited.

What are the bounds within which an elder has authority? Elders clearly have authority over matters directly relating to the function of the assembly - what doctrine is taught as valid, who can preach, how to use money donated to the assembly, when and where to meet, whether to buy a building or rent, collective evangelism... Men within the assembly must clearly submit to the elders in such matters. Is it possible that the verses talking about the authority of elders relate solely to such matters? Is there any clear scripture indicating that the authority of elders extends to the personal lives of the men in the assembly?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

We'll put Samuel. I think my thoughts run roughly in the same vein. Thanks

 

[Mark C]

Just curious, not trying to argue, but what if the congregation you leave is spot on in all areas of doctrine that you adhere to, but is wrong on polygyny?

Did you cede authority to that entity? "By agreement?"

Or do you, as head of your own house, maintain the authority YHVH gave us over wives and children?

[PS> Any and every assembly/cahal with which I have been associated or led will NOT attempt to 'take authority' over a head of house! Counsel or advice, when solicited, is another matter entirely.]

The problem lies where men cede authority to any other entity (almighty church or almighty state, or some unholy combination of both) as "another master" that they NEVER SHOULD HAVE. (I speak as one who's "been there, done that, have the T-shirt." And the scars.)

THE singular lesson of "private law" (which now so obviously supersedes the Constitution and Bill of Rights, having long ago replaced Scripture) in AmeriKa-with-a-K is 'bondage by agreement'. The Bible gave us the story of Yakov and Esau, who "sold his birthright for a cup of pottage". (thus, he "despised" it!) In our more recent history, Ben Franklin put it this way, "those who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither." Numbers 30:2 says bluntly and ominously*: that a man, "shall do all according to all [kol] that proceeds out of his mouth".

I cannot emphasize this too strongly. We as a people, and as families, are in bondage to "another master" by AGREEMENT. Whether most know it or not.


And Shaul/Paul's midrash on that if far too often overlooked, although I've already referenced it here:
(Ironically, it's in that oft-twisted section where he debunks the 'grace doctrine' of so many usurpers)

"Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves servants to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin unto death or of [torah - instruction] obedience unto righteousness?"


-------------------------------
* This was the subject of this week's Torah portion:
Parsha Matot 2017

http://www.waytozion.org/teachings/mark_call/2017/WT-CooH-7-22-17-Matot-Masei.mp3

 

[Mark C]

If you choose not to fellowship with the Gentile church over pagan influences, and not to fellowship with the Jewish church over pagan influences, who is left?

This is precisely, I contend, why BOTH "whoring houses" were put away [again, 'shalach' is the Hebrew root word] for cause, and are STILL in exile. It is also why I contend the Scriptural response is (Rev. 18:4, et al, from Isaiah to Malachi) "come out of her, My people..." Do not partake of "her sins," nor the plagues that are now evidently so clearly at hand. (That includes the economic disaster when a world-wide fiat system of dishonest weights and measures breaks down, and this next one is of "Biblical proportions," by every measure of debt and magnitude. The "Beast System" is entered "by agreement". But it's a Roach Motel.)

Come out first, then look around, and see who else is out, too (among those 7000 that even Elijah didn't recognize!)

"If YHVH be Elohim, then serve Him." Too many there were choosing Baal, and the history (see "golden calf" ) says they even tried to call what they did by His Name YHVH.

"As for me and my house, we will serve YHVH." (Joshua 24:15) And Him alone.

That is why -- in no uncertain terms -- "me and my house" will reject EVERY 'fellowship' that has taken a corporate license to serve the prince of this world. There are clearly other criteria as well, but that is an iron-clad Scriptural "necessary but not sufficient condition".

Yes, I know this is "controversial" and no doubt unpopular. So be it, because the various baals are popular taskmasters. A "501c(3) exemption" is in fact a contract (yes, READ* the corporate regs!!! - note who is the 'creator') to serve as a "faith-based church of another master."

You cannot serve both YHVH and 'mammon' (by any title).

--------------------------------
* It AMAZES me how many licensed pastors, priests, rabbis, etc, will prattle about the speech restrictions imposed by their Corporate God and then claim, "I'll preach what I want!" in spite of their explicit agreement to the contrary. It's obvious they haven't read what EITHER the god they claim to serve or the one they really do wrote in the rules.

 

[Mark C]

We see this issue of the acceptance of monogamy and the rejection of polygamy being taught as a requirement of Jesus Christ thus a matter of worship, as the most seductive deception that has ever been placed against the Christian Church. If we all just put up with it and continue to associate with those groups that preach it, then nothing will change...

This [in the more general sense] is, in fact, why when I teach to a very specific audience who CHOOSES to listen to a ministry explicitly dedicated to the concept of Revelation 18:4 ('come out of Her"). I also often point out Shaul's warning (he saw it EVEN THEN!) that when people preach "another jesus, whom we have NOT preached," he knew THEY WOULD PUT UP WITH IT. Matthew 24:5 can be read no less than two ways, at least one of which says precisely the same thing.

It's why I distinguish between "another jesus" and the One True Elohim, YHVH, Who is 'echad', and came as Meshiach and "Torah Made Flesh".

 

[andrew]

@Aussies, I completely agree that we should be striving to understand YHWH's instructions and aiming for purity, casting aside all that is not of Him. However, monogamy is not the only teaching with pagan origins. There's Christmas and Easter for a start on the Gentile church side. But from the Messianic side, there are also pagan origins to various Jewish traditions also (e.g. the egg in the Passover meal). If you choose not to fellowship with the Gentile church over pagan influences, and not to fellowship with the Jewish church over pagan influences, who is left? A tiny selection of people who are also trying to figure out Christianity for themselves - most of whom will have come to different conclusions to you on other matters and you'll disagree with even more strongly than the church you just left, over different matters. Nobody has a perfect understanding, and that includes ourselves. We might even be wrong about what constitutes paganism. Yet we are commanded to not neglect meeting together. We have brothers and sisters all around us, we should not abandon them too hastily, as we are a body formed of many imperfect parts - and we need interaction with others to keep us on track, and to allow others to learn from us. Certainly there are bottom lines, but if we make too many of them we'll end up isolated and limited in our ability to work as a part of the Body. We do need to be careful who we submit ourselves to, I agree, but I'm trying to balance this with other matters we need to keep in mind also.

Yes, yes, yes. Well said.

Back on topic, I agree with @andrew that elders certainly have real authority over the men under them, you can't really read this any other way. The question in my mind is not whether they have authority, but what parts of life do they have authority over?

We may move forward on this thread yet! But there's an omission above: I think everybody would agree that "elders" have some kind of "authority", and we can all opine about that endlessly, but my specific point has to do with the parallel usage of Paul in describing the work of an elder and the work of a husband.

[Note: I'm going to use the word "manage" as a placeholder for proistemi going forward. "Rule" sounds archaic or scary, depending on one's pov. "Have charge of" sounds clunky. To my ear, "manage" has a Goldilocks, "this one is just right" fit to it. I'm not trying to water down Paul's teaching, but if someone has a problem with "manage", please let me know.]

So as we take up the question "what parts of life do they have authority over?"—or following Paul, what parts of life are they supposed to manage—we need to keep one eye on how we square that with the work of the husband, or we're losing the whole point of this thread. At least my whole point....

If you are in the military, your superiors have real authority over you, more authority than in any other human situation. But there authority is still limited basically to military matters - you must obey on the battlefield, and also off in areas directly related to preparing for battle, such as training and matters of personal life that will affect your ability to function as a soldier. However your superiors have no authority over your religious beliefs, or who you marry, and their authority ceases when you leave the military. Their authority may seem complete in some areas, but it is non-existent in others.

So having authority over somebody does not necessarily mean being able to command them in every aspect of life. Authority is given within bounds, not unlimited.

This is a "yes and no" situation. In fact, I know a family (some of you may also) that saw the husband and one wife discharged from the Navy specifically because of their plural family. Whether we agree with it or not, clearly the Navy thinks it has some say in how our private lives affect the way we represent the Navy.

And of course I could go on. Someone that has a drug problem, or is chronically getting into fights in bars (in uniform or out of uniform), or is being charged with domestic abuse, etc, etc, could find himself or herself on the wrong end of a military disciplinary action. Anything that is deemed to affect one's performance and some things that affect one's reputation and standing in the community are fair game.

So I understand the point you're making and I substantially agree with the direction you're headed (more in a minute), but I have to call out that the situation with the military is not quite so black-and-white as you have described.

As for direction, I'm with you 100%. We can't really limit the type of management (comparing husbands with elders) without having to explain away Paul's fairly plain teaching, but the correct understanding might have to do with the scope of that management.

NOTE: My hypothesis at this point is that if we can reconcile these two domains of authority biblically we can improve our households and our fellowships.

NOTE2: To sharpen the point on that, my gut says that the reconciliation will include stepping up our game a bit on the fellowship/elder side and perhaps . . . wait for it . . . taking a fresh look at the plenary authority some guys claim to have over their wives. We'll see, won't we....

NOTE3: In case anybody's bristling already, relax. You be you and explain your choices to God when he requires it. I'm working on the future of Biblical Families and our role in the lives of the people that turn to us for help; I have seen too much carnage and am ready to step up the game. We can help each other reach a clearer understanding of what the biblical issues are by kicking these issues around together in public discourse, even if at the end of the thread we still have some lingering disagreements about how to apply those understandings on the ground. Peace.

What are the bounds within which an elder has authority? Elders clearly have authority over matters directly relating to the function of the assembly - what doctrine is taught as valid, who can preach, how to use money donated to the assembly, when and where to meet, whether to buy a building or rent, collective evangelism... Men within the assembly must clearly submit to the elders in such matters. Is it possible that the verses talking about the authority of elders relate solely to such matters? Is there any clear scripture indicating that the authority of elders extends to the personal lives of the men in the assembly?

And is there any clear scripture that indicates that it doesn't, right? I mean we should be balanced and open-minded in our approach to scripture, right?...

If I can pick on you the way I was picking on aineo or Zec earlier, to me the fact that you're approaching this from the perspective of looking only for limitations on the authority of elders is telling, and basically in the same category as aineo's referring to the "leadership" of elders and Zec's offhand speculation that maybe eldership is just an administrative role.

I am of course not really 'picking on' anybody individually—this is not an individual problem. This is a cultural issue; I'm just using individual cases to illustrate the point. We are all coming from a pov, and sometimes we reveal more of that in our word choices. As I've stated before, one of my assertions is that we often carry an anti-authority bias without realizing it. (I'm just trying to help everyone realize it!...)

I have run out of time, but want to say this much: I have maintained for three years (first noticed and expressed at the summer 2014 Tennessee retreat) that if we men ever truly get a handle on what God really wants and expects for the body of Christ, we are likely to find it just as overwhelming and different from what we expected it to be as our wives have found what God really wants and expects for the family to be. If that turns out not to be true, then that's okay, too—I have no ego investment in being "right" about a speculation. But I'll bet you $100....

 

[Mark C]

Is there any clear scripture indicating that the authority of elders extends to the personal lives of the men in the assembly?

And is there any clear scripture that indicates that it doesn't, right? I mean we should be balanced and open-minded in our approach to scripture, right?...

Since this has evidently been overlooked, but certainly answers the question via multiple witnesses from Scripture (Num. 30, Rom. 6, Josh. 24, I Kings 18:21, etc -- including the whole point of Exodus, and those who CHOSE to 'come out' with Moshe) -- it evidently bears repetition. YHVH certainly saw the need to repeat important concepts.

What did you AGREE* to???

Any fellowship I would associate with will NOT:

a) Serve another master, as a 501c(3) or incorporated 'church' does, admitted or not. Their incorporation papers outline the 'agreement', and some, but hardly all, of the strings attached.

b) Claim authority over a head of house, or for that matter anything not explicitly enumerated. In fact, unless the claim is explicitly DISAVOWED, avoid even the presumption. There is then no dispute over the above questions, or issue of 'interpretation' of Scripture.

"Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves servants to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey...?" -- Romans 6:16

--------------------------------
*PS> There's a well-known "gotcha" in AmJur and it has been used for years now to subject the ignorant "to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and laws" -- "presumption".

The claim goes like this: "Failure to object in a timely fashion...constitutes acceptance [of whatever you're being held to].

Object! Or acquiesce.

 

[andrew]

Since this has evidently been overlooked, but certainly answers the question via multiple witnesses from Scripture (Num. 30, Rom. 6, Josh. 24, I Kings 18:21, etc -- including the whole point of Exodus, and those who CHOSE to 'come out' with Moshe) -- it evidently bears repetition. YHVH certainly saw the need to repeat important concepts.

What did you AGREE* to???

Not overlooked as much as assumed. Of course the issue at the individual level is what the agreement is among the parties.

Any fellowship I would associate with will NOT:

a) Serve another master, as a 501c(3) or incorporated 'church' does, admitted or not. Their incorporation papers outline the 'agreement', and some, but hardly all, of the strings attached.

b) Claim authority over a head of house, or for that matter anything not explicitly enumerated. In fact, unless the claim is explicitly DISAVOWED, avoid even the presumption. There is then no dispute over the above questions, or issue of 'interpretation' of Scripture.

As a statement of your personal choices, this is obviously absolutely your right to decide for yourself and your household, and not something anyone could properly "agree" or "disagree" with (that is, judge...).

As to (a), I concur 100%. I will never again bind myself and my household to a department of the secular governing apparatus, and apparently for the same reasons you have made that decision. (You and I are on a roll....)

Regarding (b), I want to drill down on the language a bit. I'm not sure what "claim authority over a head of house" means; it's very broad, a little ambiguous, and somewhat off-putting. I am specifically interested in an elder's duty to manage the household of faith (and manage it well): what that entails, and what the significance is of Paul's describing the managing work of an elder and the managing work of a husband using the same verb with different objects. That's all, at least for now.

 

[Mark C]

Regarding (b), I want to drill down on the language a bit. I'm not sure what "claim authority over a head of house" means; it's very broad...

...by intent. The point is in fact the converse.

It beats AGREEING to anything that is 'very broad'. As many 'constitutional scholars' have pointed out, the powers delegated to the central government were SUPPOSED to be "few and limited," while those reserved (the forgotten 9th and 10th Amendments) to the States and People were broad and unlimited, and by default SHOULD have included anything not enumerated.

Yet look what happened there.

The idea is simply that if you don't like the language, for any reason, then don't agree to be bound by it. But if there are claims that are not clear, or are left to 'interpretation', bind yourself to that master at your peril. (There's only One I trust on that score, and His Word is clear, His burden is light.)

Yes, let your "yes be yes," and your "no be no", but make sure you understand the question, too.


PS> And someday I'll tell the much longer story of my own "come out of her" experience with the elders of a Torah-observant fellowship myself and my wives helped found. They openly even taught "Scripture as Written," including the obvious fact that a man having more than one isha was nowhere prohibited. We were leaders, "servants," and part of the backbone of the organization. Up front, before forming the fellowship, I made it clear to the other leaders (before there even WERE elders selected) that I have two wives, and would not deny or hide that fact, but I was asked, and agreed, not to explicitly "lobby" (or similar) for polygyny. Turns out that while EVERY single elder personally expressed their "support" and love for our family - all of us - several years later, ultimately they ruled that my second wife would not be "openly acknowledged" as such. Adios.

In the final meeting I had with all the elders and 'pastors', I was told they didn't want to be known as 'the polygamy church'.

They were in fact proponents of "Scripture as Written", until it came to practice.

 

[andrew]

Ah, much clearer. And I feel ya on the backstory (which I'd like to hear more of someday!), and as restated above, I agree with your point (b) 100% as well. (What's happening here?...)

Okay, I'm going to quit making parenthetical comments about our relationship now.

And I'll get back here as soon as I can, because your story illustrates almost perfectly one aspect of the problem I'm trying to solve, maybe even the whole problem. I've just got some urgent business to take care of, but I'll be back....

 

[The Revolting Man]

Yeah, I can't see elders having any authority outside of the assembly. Certainly they could administer church discipline but that's limited to disfellowship. They would administer the charity and presumably act in establishing temporary judges to hear individual disputes between believers, make sure everything is done in order. They probably have pretty unfettered control any time the body is gathered but I don't see anything that gives them further authority.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Perhaps a better way to determine authority is to define their responsibility first. What are they accountable for? Responsibility follows accountability and authority is derived from how one fulfills responsibility.

 

[Aussies]

I completely agree that we should be striving to understand YHWH's instructions and aiming for purity, casting aside all that is not of Him. However, monogamy is not the only teaching with pagan origins. There's Christmas and Easter for a start on the Gentile church side. But from the Messianic side, there are also pagan origins to various Jewish traditions also (e.g. the egg in the Passover meal). If you choose not to fellowship with the Gentile church over pagan influences, and not to fellowship with the Jewish church over pagan influences, who is left? A tiny selection of people who are also trying to figure out Christianity for themselves

Very true. In answer to "Who is left?" In the first century they were called the way, the fledgling christian congregation. Many at the end of the 1st century followed your line of thought and allowed a blend of just a little bit of pagan and a little bit of Jewish all under the banner of Christian, stirred it up a little to blur the lines and wouldn't you know it the Roman Universal Church was born. Did Jesus find it acceptable to blend doctrine or did he stand for truth? Did he tickle the ears of others? Or did he stand for truth so that others could clearly see how to come out and serve God as he requires?

A tiny selection of people who are also trying to figure out Christianity for themselves - most of whom will have come to different conclusions to you on other matters and you'll disagree with even more strongly than the church you just left, over different matters.

You miss the point! if there is a difference of opinion, that's fine, you and I disagree with who can serve as an elder, but that does not matter for both are within the bounds of truth, I rely on God's word as he has seen fit to preserve it and you rely on an interpretation that fits what you think is right and that's fine. But if someone was to then say that perhaps a man that clearly follows another god should be an elder then that is a totally different subject. If others differ in their personal understanding of a text or even the application of that text, then we should all be humble and understand that its not life and death, its just our understanding and yet both seek to please God. But to suggest that a man and his family should draw close to those who teach that we should follow other gods, even if that teaching is veiled is to fall foul of Deut 13. indeed to tell others to follow or draw close to those who teach others to follow other gods would make one the subject of Deut 13.

If you choose not to fellowship with the Gentile church over pagan influences, and not to fellowship with the Jewish church over pagan influences, who is left?

So are you suggesting that we should fellowship with those who clearly practice and teach pagan traditions and teachings? Don't remember Jesus or the apostles teaching such a thing. They preached to such ones to assist them to come out but they never went back and encouraged people to submit to false teachings, not even under the threat of death, as was the case with Stephen (Acts 6-7) and the apostles (Acts 4: 18-20)

Yet we are commanded to not neglect meeting together. We have brothers and sisters all around us, we should not abandon them too hastily, as we are a body formed of many imperfect parts - and we need interaction with others to keep us on track, and to allow others to learn from us.

We also need to remember that if a person came to a city and preached another god and if those of that city did not remove such a person but tolerated them then the entire city with every inhabitant including the animals was to be destroyed and burned with fire (Deut 13; 12-16). With what you have written above are you
striving to keep that city clean holy and pure before God or would you have been seen to be inducing them to sin before God. To tolerate pagan worship, doctrine, festivities and celebrations is to stand with the people in the days of Elijah and Jeremiah.

I completely agree that we should be striving to understand YHWH's instructions and aiming for purity, casting aside all that is not of Him. However

Well put and I totally agree with just one exception, there is no "however".

I am not wanting to alienate you but I find your reasoning's in this matter self serving. I will take a lot but when pushed on the matter of pure worship, and inducing others to follow those who follow other gods, then I draw the line!
As I said earlier in this thread this is the hill, stand with me and defend it and you will have a brother for life. But defend it I will.

1 Corinthians 5:6-8

 

[andrew]

Perhaps a better way to determine authority is to define their responsibility first. What are they accountable for? Responsibility follows accountability and authority is derived from how one fulfills responsibility.

It's always been about responsibility—"authority" and power grabs are a red herring (except maybe in the case of husbands...). What are elders responsible to God for, and what are husbands responsible to God for? How are they the same (given that the same word is used to describe both)? How are they different (given that the groups of souls 'managed' is different)?

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I could foresee the elders of a city, were they ruling jointly, having the spiritual authority to forbid polygamy among the brethren because after having sought the direction of the Holy Spirit, they determined that it is not the season for it.

Actually I would greatly desire to see that kind of unity and cohesion from Shepherds who oversee the souls of the flock. All I've seen are people concerned chiefly about their own assembly, who will by no means recognize another elder's authority over 'their' sheep.

I suppose what I'm saying is I would be willing to cede a great deal of authority to elders if they were Acts elders, even in deeply personal matters. I was going to say all I've seen so far are Matthew Elders, but I think that's going too far. I think however, it's appropriate to say that these days we have Judges elders, each one doing what is right in their own sight. How can I submit myself to the will of the elders if hardly two of them can agree? How can I call the Elders of the city to come to my sick bed when they would be irritated to have to show up and minister alongside their rivals?

Who gets authority over me when none of them would take responsibility for me anyways? Do I just choose an elder based on who I doctrinally agree with the most and follow his completely weenie brand of leadership?
Give me 12 or so men who meet the qualifications and take responsibility for every christian soul in their city and who pray, fast, minister, and rule jointly and biblically. They best resolve their differences by arguing it out and fasting and coming to a consensus based on the clear leading of the Spirit. Those guys can tell me to wear nikes and robes and to eat broccoli on tuesdays.

dhjutdfkiffyvfolugoylug o oyug oyug ou ou ou oguogokjigbdfjkjkl

 

[andrew]

Dang, Slumber, you nailed it. That's the heart God's looking for.

(I think you nailed it.... What do you mean by "Matthew Elder"? Someone more interested in the traditions of their religious practice than in the presence of Jesus?)

I could foresee the elders of a city, were they ruling jointly, having the spiritual authority to forbid polygamy among the brethren because after having sought the direction of the Holy Spirit, they determined that it is not the season for it.

Actually I would greatly desire to see that kind of unity and cohesion from Shepherds who oversee the souls of the flock.

So could I, and so would I! A true shepherd is more concerned with what's best for his flock than some abstract standard re what's supposed to be best for all flocks. Just as individuals are always a 'work in progress', so are assemblies. Just as the women in my house all have obviously different needs, considered as individuals, so do Christ's brides.

Think about it: We treat the scriptures as some monolithic book of instruction for everybody, but it's a collection of different people's stories taken from different times. Paul's letters alone show that he had some themes that were common, of universal importance, and he had some instruction that was specifically tailored for the hearers, different for different fellowships. Anybody that has more than one child or more than one wife or more than one employee ought to be able to get this.

Meanwhile, I hope that someday soon you find the leaders you're looking for--men who take responsibility for their flocks, seek God constantly, and value unity (and the strength that comes from it) over position.

 

[MrB]

I've been writing this for a few days as this thread has developed. I'm loving the discussion, it feels like an online interactive bible study.
It seems clear that the elders have some authority
The first thing that I thought when this started was to define the difference between power and authority.
For me The Centurion in Mathew 8 comes to mind first

Mat 8:9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, 'Go' and he goes, and to another 'Come' and he comes, and to my slave 'Do this' and he does it."
Then another bit in James 4? where we should "resist the devil and he will flee".
This is where most forget the bit where we are to first "submit to God."
The only reason the devil will flee is because you have authority, without submitting to God you got none.

Which leads me to conclude In order to have authority you must first submit.
But wait there's more
What of a well qualified man submitted within the system ? Still no authority within system
There needs approval from within the system to act. A Promotion maybe?
Of course this is within a frame of influence
For the centurion it was the army's frame
He followed the rules , submitted to the chain of command , and subsequently had authority within the system. He knew how authority worked.
If he chose not to submit to the rules of the system he could soon find his authority revoked or no longer valid or himself demoted.
I could try to be the centurion by using all the power I have but I'm not in the system so I would have no authority to act, I could act but I'd be on my own.

So then I see the difference between power and authority is that authority is submitted to and sanctioned within the frame of influence.
If I've got this wrong I'm open to correction, this is just how I see it
As a contrast
Power is the capacity of an individual to influence the will or conduct of others.
There are no restrictions that I can see
We all have power but not all have authority? Many of us think that these two terms are one and the same thing, but there exists a fine line of difference between power and authority. While the former is exercised in a personal capacity, the latter is used in an organisational capacity.

The issue is finding those under the influence of God. I've come across plenty that appear to qualified and have good intentions but when it comes to rubber meets road something was missing...Authority. They're acting on there own.

Of course just because some have authority doesn't make them right in all things.
They just have the systems approval to act
This says nothing of the legitimacy of any system , fellowship, church, organisation.

(However it is difficult to take their authority seriously when they (elders )should act,but do not. Then when they shouldn't act ,but do.)
In the bigger picture It is my belief that the authority of elders should never supersede the authority of the man within his own home under any circumstance.
Because
if a man in his own home is righteous ,loving God ,fearing him ,is there any need to be under the authority of other men?
For a violent man determined to be under his own power would it make any difference if he had to answer to elders or someone in authority?
Maybe
Those that need to be under authority wouldn't accept it
Those that would receive being under authority don't need it

A wife can appeal to whom ever she thinks will help when there is strife with her man. It's not about appealing to those with the authority or not, it's about weather or not the man will listen to anyone then submit to God on any level.

Hope this makes sense

 

[aineo]

aineo, you and I are very close. I agree with everything you said, but for my purposes here it doesn't go quite far enough. I'll get to more of that below, but for now I wanted to briefly call attention to the scare quotes above. Ask yourself why you had to put quotes around leadership. Why couldn't you have simply said "It seems apparent that there is some leadership that elders have over others"?

I submit that this is another symptom of our cultural conditioning. It is just very difficult for us to think clearly about leadership issues, partly because the world's screwed up one way, the church is screwed up another, and as far the average patriarchal Christian male goes, the only authority we really want to talk about is our own God-ordained plenary authority over those unruly women (not you, aineo, you're a reasonable guy—just the APCM). So even when we try to talk about leadership, we can't just talk about leadership, we have to talk about "leadership".

Let me know if that makes sense to you or you think I'm reading too much into that.

To be honest, I don't recall why I used the quotes. I suspect it was because in my head I was saying, "leadership, however that ends up being defined here." I'm sure I have more to say, but I need to read the rest of the comments more closely first to be sure I don't repeat things that have already been said.