One of the anachronisms of the "Presbyterian" church is that the modern understanding of elder, whether one office, or two, is not consistent with the tradition of the church. I don't have a lot of scriptural opinions on church polity, other than to complain that youth and seminary training seem to do more harm than good.
The traditional view is rooted in the synagogue. The synagogue would be led by the priests and Levites who were God-ordained to prophesy and work among the people; however, there were also lay leaders, called elders, who governed the synagogue. Whether the practice of the synagogue is normative for us today is a good question, and perhaps the interpretation of e.g. the Westminster Assembly is not a correct understanding, but it was the view of the Reformed church at that time.
According to Peter Colin Campbell, in his book The Theory of the Ruling Eldership, Westminster specifically, and unanimously, denied that "ruling elder" was synonymous with the elder of the New Testament (p.33-34)
From the record of that Assembly left us by Lightfoot and Gillespie, we learn that the discussion on the point of lay elders in the Grand Committee, commenced on the 12th of November 1643, and lasted with some interruption till the 11th of December, a period sufficient to show how carefully and anxiously it must have been conducted. The subject was introduced for consideration by a proposition so framed as distinctly to bring under discussion, not merely the lawfulness and expediency of the institution but the special theory of Calvin: "That besides those presbyters that rule well and labour in the word and doctrine, there be other presbyters who especially apply themselves to ruling though they labour not in the word and doctrine." The discussion which follows is instructive, and the result remarkable. While the Grand Committee declare unanimously in favour of the institution of lay rulers in the Church, they carefully exclude from their conclusion not merely the term presbyter, in reference to lay rulers but even that of elder, as liable to be confounded with "presbyter," and refuse to quote 1 Tim. v. 17, in regard to the office. The conclusions of the Committee are recorded thus by Gillespie and Lightfoot:-
"1. That Christ hath instituted a government and governors ecclesiastical in the Church.
"2. That Christ hath furnished some in His Church with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto.
"3. That it is agreeable to and warranted by the Word of God that some others besides the ministers of the word be church governors, to join with the ministers in the government of the Church Rom. xii. 7, 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28."
... "there fell a debate about naming church governors, whether to call them 'ruling elders' or no; which held a very sad and long discussion: at last it was determined by vote thus, - such as in the Reformed Churches are commonly called 'elders.'" Gillespie made a last attempt to obtain the recognition of the theory, and, with obvious purpose moved that the Assembly itself should call them "ruling elders;" "but this," Lightfoot tells us, "prevailed not." The battle of the presbyter theory had been fought and lost
Campbell explains that Scotland (whether ignorantly or purposefully) did not remove the "ruling elder" language from their own ecclesiastical documents, which led to a resurgence of the idea of 'elder' as 'presbyter'.
The effect [of the lack of removal] was that which in all probability the Westminster Assembly had desired to prevent. The use of the designation "ruling elder" kept the popular mind unavoidably directed to "the elders that rule well" of 1 Tim. v. 17, and maintained a measure of life in the theory, quietly buried at Westminster with the formal assent of the Scottish Church, which regards the lay rulers as a portion of the presbyterate.
In the "Presbyterian" church (which is synonymous with those churches descended from the Scottish churches), this misunderstanding is perpetuated, and anachronistically considered the historical position of the 1st century church.
As I said, I (now) don't have a really strong opinion on who gets to be ordained and who gets to participate in various aspects of the life of the church, but I do think this warrants the following discussions:
Minimum pastoral age
Considering that "presbyter" literally means "old guy", like "presbyopia" is the inability of older people to focus on close objects, the status quo of seminary-trained 20-something pastors is likely a really bad idea. Proponents of "classical presbyterianism" will argue that it's okay for the ministers to be young because "the ruling elders are the old guys", but this is clearly not what Westminster unanimously decided. They stated that presbyter, overseer, minister and elder were all aspects of the same office. The Bible seems to distinguish knowledge from wisdom, with wisdom being closely coupled with life experience. A 26-year-old RPTS graduate likely has zero, or nearly zero, life experience, but lots of Seminary-derived knowledge and youthful vigor. This has become the culture of many churches, where knowledge and vigor have become proxies for Spiritual giftedness. Does a presbytery exam really determine wisdom, or can RPTS "teach to the test" to give their students what they need to appear wise? How can we determine if, for example, a candidate is a good father, if his children are still toddlers?
Plurality and geography
Part of the Presbyterian system is a plurality of elders. If there is only one "elder" in a church, there is hardly any accountability. The RPCNA tries to create that accountability by elevating the lay leaders to equal in rule and judgment, and making the pastor a member of the congregation, subject to the Session, but if "lay leaders" do not rule in that sense, there is a vacuum of leadership and accountability. I think this is evident in the RPCNA because the pastors in the Presbyteries are not holding each other accountable, unless there is clear heresy rising to that level. When we picture a "church at Ephesus", Timothy might be a senior pastor, but there would be a plurality of pastors within the city who would have much closer oversight, not just a quarterly get-together of forty guys serving a geography of maybe 1/3rd the United States.
Seminary
Maybe this follows from the other two, but if you have a plurality of pastors in a geographical area and there are people in the congregations who have demonstrated a lifetime of wisdom, they have also gained a lifetime of knowledge. So, perhaps the knowledge gap of a 40-50 year old who feels called to minister is much less dramatic than someone whose brain still hasn't completely formed. Even then, seminaries cannot fix the problem of 18-year-old know-it-alls who have been fawned over by their congregations and presbyteries. Their hubris just becomes calcified and now they are an ordained know-it-all minister with zero life experience, but an M.Div and an ordination who holds all the authority in the congregation.
Also consider that someone who has been pastored, discipled and mentored for decades has much more of a base to draw on than someone who has a high school diploma and three years of seminary. So, seminary could bring much more depth.
I also have very little interest in the argument about understanding original languages. I'm sure it's helpful, but is it a necessity? Maybe a pastor who knows Greek understands more than that same pastor not knowing Greek, but does a pastor know more than a Greek scholar after two or three semesters of Greek? Doubtful. Does a generic Greek scholar know more about a passage than someone who has spent decades studying the context of a passage? Doubtful. So, I can, most likely, know more about a passage by reading commentaries and books by Greek scholars than I can by knowing enough Greek to be dangerous and cowboying it. This also feeds into pastoral hubris.
Ordination and office
The RPCNA struggles with this. Pastors are ordained by the Presbytery, while ruling elders are ordained by the local Session. The inherent unfairness of considering Ruling Elders "equal" to Teaching Elders is obvious here, and highlighted by, e.g. the "ordination" of Kent Butterfield. Kent was already an RE when he decided to become a pastor. The GLG Presbytery could not re-ordain Kent when he was called to a church, but it was (apparently) insufficient given the gravity of the situation to do nothing, so they fake-ordained him. In other words, they had him kneel, they laid hands on him, but they did not pray the prayer of ordination.
In the same way, the RPCNA calls the ministry of the word a "distinction":
The responsibility of the elders is in teaching and ruling. Although all elders are to be able to teach, the Scripture recognizes a distinction in these functions. (RPT 25:9)
yet prohibits or restricts ruling elders from many ministerial functions, except in "special circumstances"
The Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper agree, in that the author of both is God; the spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits; both are seals of the same covenant, are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel and by none other; and to be continued in the Church of Christ until his second coming. (WLC A176)
The sacraments of the New Covenant ordained by Christ are two: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are to be administered according to Christ’s appointment, by pastors or by ruling elders authorized by the presbytery to meet special circumstances. (DFW 3:2)
Ordinarily, a teaching elder is the moderator of the session. Extraordinary circumstances may arise where it is advisable for the session to elect as moderator an elder other than the teaching elder, or for the moderator to be appointed by presbytery. (DCG 4:2)
Even in discipline, they are considered different. Ruling Elders can be deposed by their Session, but not Teaching Elders.
I'm curious what others' thoughts are. My current feeling is more of a one-office view where the leaders of a local church are all ministers of the word in some sense with equal authority. There may be a hierarchy in the sense of having a senior pastor who is more respected and trained, but many of the issues go away when the ministerial staff isn't one more seasoned pastor surrounded by puffed-up knowledgeable bundles of vigor driving the sheep. I also think that much of the ministry of the church can be done by all members, or even non-ordained members in lay office, like a treasurer, or, dare I say, deacon.
20 comments:
regarding Hebrews 13:17>>
""This verse at first glance, seems to be loaded in favor of those who like to rule over God’s people, which is probably why it is perhaps the most favorite of “church leaders.” What is troubling is that it is often the verse cited in a supposed attempt to bolster "the Church", but even a reading of any English translation Bible shows that this is about authority of Leaders, at least at first glance in terms of how most leaders choose to use it. Poor leaders drive the spotlight right back to themselves. It incorporates all of their 3 favorite words together in one breath- Obey, Rule and Submit. It is not the verse that is wrong it is the misinterpretation and hence manipulation of it.
NAPARC leaders have a consistent habit of being guilty of a text without a context is a pre-text Take a look at each word, in proper context, it will become apparent not only as to what the true meanings are from the primary source scriptures, but also as to the reason behind the translators misguided substitution of an entirely different word to further their hierarchical/institutional agenda.
Here is Hebrews 13:17: Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
First off, notice this. The word “over,” is not in any way, shape, or form in the old manuscripts. This word was inserted in the text of Scripture by the translators. We will therefore dismiss it altogether and all that it implies.
Next, let’s examine the word “Obey” or “Obey them.” Anyone can check this out simply by using a Bible software program. When we go to the Strong's number for the word translated “obey,” we find the Greek word "peitho"- Strong's number 3982. It appears about 60 times. By far the most common translation for this Greek word in the King James Version is “persuade,” “persuaded,” “persuadeth,” etc.
Here is the first place this word appears in the New Testament:
Matthew 27:20 "But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus."
The chief priests and elders had no authority to command the people to ask for Barabbas or to destroy Jesus. But they were able to persuade the multitude to "ask" Pilate to do so. And so it is in Hebrews 13:17.
The Greek word “hupakouo” is never used in that way. Rather the Greek word“peitho” meaning “persuaded” is used instead.
Let’s look at some more verses with the word “peitho.”
“Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded (peitho) them to continue in the grace of God.” Acts 13:43
“And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing (dialegomai: discuss, to reason) and persuading (peitho) the things concerning the kingdom of God.” Acts 19:8
Here the apostle is “reasoning,” he’s having a discussion with the people in the synagogue. He is not commanding them; he is not beckoning them to look at his credentials and thereby render obedience. No. He reasoned with them, and they were persuaded. (peitho)
The apostle was not there to “magnify his office.” He was not there to build his church. He was not there to make a name for himself. He was there for one purpose only, and that was to hold up Christ to the people.
Do you want to see a picture of true leadership? Why was Paul so “persuasive?” Because Paul himself was absolutely and thoroughly persuaded. He knew altogether of what he spoke.
This Paul hath persuaded (peitho) and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands.” Acts 19:26
When standing before King Agrippa, the King said to Paul, “Almost thou persuadest (peitho) me to be a Christian.” Acts 26:28
“…To whom he (Paul) expounded the matter, testifying the kingdom of God, and persuading (peitho) them concerning Jesus, both from the law of Moses and from the prophets…” Acts 28:23
Here are some more Scriptures with the Greek word “peitho” meaning persuade or persuaded. Remember, we are still discussing Hebrews 13:17 where the word “obey” was substituted for the Greek word “peitho.”
“Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade (peitho) men…" 2 Corinthians 5:11
“For do I now persuade (peitho) men, or God; or do I seek to please men?” Galatians 1:10
“When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded (peitho) that in thee also.” 2 Timothy 1:5
“…For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded (peitho) that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” 2 Timothy 1:12
“These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded (peitho) of them, and embraced them.” Hebrews 11:13
Groups individuals or even organizations claiming to be a church who primarily uplift institutional identity and institutional fidelity as a chief value for all its members, instead of primarily uplifting Christ, are engaged in Churchianity more than they are Christianity.
“”Whether or not the western institutional church as we know it survives is of no ultimate consequence. What God has accomplished and will accomplish in Jesus Christ will always stand. His church, in whatever form it takes, will stand with Him”
This is insightful, thanks!
My take on this is that the culture has infiltrated the church. Jesus warned against the leadership of the church taking on worldly characteristics, but that is exactly what we see. Church leaders want to see themselves as Generals in God's Army, and they expect the honor and instant obedience inherent in the positional authority that the Armed services enjoy.
This is counter to the example that Jesus showed, and counter to his teaching. Jesus only raged when he was protecting the sheep from wolves. Modern church leaders rage to protect the wolves from scrutiny from the sheep. Jesus did not bully his disciples, even Judas whom he knew was a thief and betrayer.
As I've said many times, I was brought up in an RPCNA model that I had zero value. I was just cannon fodder in a spiritual battle waged between the ministers and enemies of God. The only way I could "count" was to pursue a position of authority in the church. I'm sure many in the church are aspiring for leadership, not because of gifting or burden, but simply because they want to be valued. When they become leaders, the only way they are assured of their "value" is by bullying members, protecting fellow leaders at all costs and demanding positional authority. This is precisely what Jesus said was ungodly leadership.
In contrast, Jesus's spiritual authority was entirely voluntary. Disciples came and disciples left. Jesus ministered to those who sat under him. He did not bully, he did not circle the wagons around his fellow rabbis when they abused members and he did not demand unquestioned obedience, even though he had the right to do so.
This also speaks to how most (all to some degree) of our Bibles sitting in our homes or electronic versions thereof have been in fact mistranslated over the centuries by scribes, elders, church leaders, pastors, theologians, church councils, etc etc. to shape and in many cases flat out change words/ translations in the Bible in order to create a narrative about the Church and it’s leadership’s level of authority.
Fact of the matter is, we have all been lied to by the (c)hurch on this particular (many other issues too) issue.
Over the centuries lay people, elders and pastors have just assume the institutional churches position on this (and so many other)
, but when we dig deeper on the actual texts of scripture, in their actual proper context it is clear this is all the traditions of men, not good biblical exegesis. Shameful that over the centuries church leaders changed words on the original scripture translations to bolster institutional church authoritarianism. It’s all right there to plainly see, if God’s people but dig even a little bit. The Real Church is spiritual, the false (c)hurch is Churchianity not even really Christian.
This is a tough pill to swallow, one which most people who give sympathy for even sites like this would be hard pressed to admit to.
The tribalism which is encroached upon all of us is hard for even the best of us to escape . A hard truth, but a truth nonetheless.
Thanks, yes!
I have definitely tried to broaden my horizons on alternative interpretations of some of the passages used to bludgeon members. My first inkling of this was when I realized that the Westminster standards had almost nothing to say about abusive and domineering leadership. The conclusion seemed obvious to me. If you get a bunch of pastors and elders together, you're unlikely to get a lot of discussion about how pastors and elders can sin and how they should be held accountable should they sin.
Just like you don't expect a roomful of Generals to talk about the sociological reasons for terrorism and how to stop the cycle through justice, economics and grassroots organization.
As such, we know that our Bible translations will have the following characteristics:
- Bias towards spiritual leaders
- Bias against the laity
- Bias towards Western culture, patriarchy and the wealthy
- Bias against social justice or the poor/needy
- Strong, active language pertaining to laity accountability and discipline
- Weak, passive language pertaining to ministerial accountability and discipline
- Expansive language for ministerial responsibilities
- Restrictive language for lay responsibilities
Just to say a little bit more about Hebrews 13:17, I'm not so sure it's as much of a mistranslation as Anonymous suggests.
Peitho (to persuade) is passive, so it means "be persuaded" not "persuade." It's also a command, so it is indeed "be persuaded" not just "think about what they say."
Hegeomai (to consider) is middle, so it means literally something like "being considered" or "someone who is considered," or metaphorically "someone who is listened to and followed." It's not a big stretch to see how it's related to the English word "hegemon." It's also not a big stretch to see why it would be translated, as it pretty much always is in this form (Matthew 2:6, Luke 22:26, Acts 7:10, Acts 14:12, Acts 15:22), as "leader" or "leading."
Hupeiko (to submit) is active and means "give way" or "yield," literally in a fight but metaphorically in a broader range of circumstances.
"Be persuaded by your leaders and give way" or "Be persuaded by those you listen to, and yield" isn't all that different from "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves" (KJV) or "Obey your leaders and submit to them" (ESV).
There's a shade of difference, sure, but I can't see how it rises to the level of this description: "flat out change words/ translations in the Bible in order to create a narrative about the Church and it’s leadership’s level of authority."
Just to correct my previous comment about hegeomai and its use in the middle: the literal translation actually has both meanings of "to consider" and "to lead," NOT (as in the passive) "to be considered." When used as an action, it's typically translated in the sense of "to consider." When clearly marked as a noun (3 times here in Hebrews, but also in Matthew 2:6, Luke 22:26, and Acts 14:12), it's always translated in the sense of "one who leads."
The meaning of the translation doesn't change based on this, but passive vs. middle is a pretty basic error, and that part of the explanation was clearly wrong.
This is an interesting analysis. https://libertyforcaptives.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/hebrews_13_17_in_the_greek.pdf
Found here: https://libertyforcaptives.com/2012/08/24/hebrews-1317-spiritual-authoritys-most-abused-verse/
I think the general disagreement is whether church leadership is a militaristic obedience of orders from superiors (i.e. positional authority) or people who are followed because they speak truth in line with the urging of the Holy Spirit. Jesus modeled that authority for us. Mostly, he urged with truth. Occasionally he took strong action, and that strong action was when the sheep were being actively harmed by abusive spiritual leadership.
That's been my point of view. The church is not a business and it is not the military, so obedience to positional authority is somewhat irrelevant. What IS relevant is that members are not harmed. So, for the most part, elders demanding obedience is spiritually abusive. However, elders actively protecting sheep may demand anger and decisive action.
What we see is typical of abusive authority is what we saw at IRPC. Members harmed with no action, then the leaders are barking orders and getting angry, not about the lack of protection for the sheep, but the fact that anyone dares hold positional authority accountable.
"it's always translated"... I think part of Anonymous's point is that the translator brings their own bias to the table.
I'll give you an example. The RPCNA ridicules the Jewish scholars for translating "YHWH" as "LORD", refusing to say "the name of God", and the general superstition around that Hebrew word.
However, the current RPCNA Psalter has replaced nearly all uses of "YHWH" with "LORD". The obvious problem here is that "YHWH" means nothing of the sort. In Exodus, it's rightly translated "I am that I am" - carrying the concept of God's unchanging, eternal nature. There are other words that convey God's lordship.
So, I could likewise argue that YHWH is 'always translated' LORD, but we all know that this is due to the sinful (IMO) bias of the translators, who want to make God in their own image, and not treat God's self-descriptive name with appropriate reverence. It's not surprising, therefore that the same church leaders who want to make God into the ultimate dictator want to translate other passages through a similarly dictatorial lens.
Speckled Sheep is largely making a distinction without a difference in the hair splitting of the passive. The core word is still persuade. Not submit, obey, rule, bow down, toe the line, etc. No getting around that fact.
No doubt well meaning, but I bet this is coming from a perspective which primarily uplifts the visible institutional church with all it’s a traditions of men, accoutrements and hierarchy. Otherwise wouldn’t be defending it so. In this system institutional identity and institutional fidelity must be defended at all costs. Funny isn’t it, in many ways identity politics is alive and well in the church. Just wish it was identity and rest in Christ. It’s not, it’s finding identity in the church itself. Baffling is how total depravity- the sinfulness of humans is insisted upon, but we think that human traditional idea of the church is somehow not impacted by that. Oh sure we fain humility by saying “God uses imperfect sinful leaders”, but practically for all intents and practical purposes the church is pretty much regarded as infallible in this system. Even among most Protestants. Speckled I would guess is in church leadership at least to some degree or at least has unduly uplifted the offices created there. I would think Speckled acknowledges the glaring issues with RPCNA type churches but is still holding on to the hope that a new form of the same type of traditional church or new denom or maybe an “independent” one will be the trick. Of course that opens up the whole can of worms regarding the authority you are leaving or left and the one left before that one and the fact that to leave one authority and create another will have some considerable likelihood of that one splitting soon too……and which authorities gave you blessing to leave the former, and if you didn’t get blessing to leave from the last Presbytery/ Authority are you now a legitimate body…….oh it’s a mess isn’t it.
Much better to rest in Christ and be not bogged down with traditions of men. Much better to rest in the fact that there is no mediator between God and humans accept Christ. See I’m not constantly bringing it around to Sacerdotalism. In point of fact the institutional church does that. It is always and forever what the institutional church does, sooner or later brings it back to itself, its traditions, its precious offices. The church has mainly become an idol where the banality of evil flourishes in an environment of cognitive dissonance. A place where it is most dedicated to spend untold amounts of time defending itself (visible church), holding on too tight and advancing itself.
This is not the Church Jesus was speaking of.
Don’t doubt motives here one bit, but I do think you are fundamentally still stuck there.
When we are not clinging to traditions, we are free to grow, discover and rest in the Lord.
Actually, I was just pointing out that I don't see much practical difference between the usual translations and the alternative "be persuaded by your leaders/guides, and give way." Both of them are commands, and in both cases, the commanded obedience/persuasion/giving way/submitting is limited by the rest of Scripture, and the rest of this verse, to leaders who are seeking your profit and who are watching over your souls as those who recognize that they owe God an explanation for how well and how faithfully they lead. Essentially, to those who feed the sheep in love and lead as servants, as Battered Sheep pointed out. Mutual benefit is explicitly the goal of the verse as a whole. Regardless of the translational choices in the first part of the verse, calling out and pushing back against a leader/guide who is not leading/guiding in this way is entirely in keeping with the verse taken as a whole.
I also think that both the usual and alternative translations are equally open to being abused by tyrants who don't care about owing God an explanation or by leaders who are just seeking their own profit and don't care an iota about mutuality. Indeed, a particularly nasty twist on peitho and hegeomai could interpret the alternative "be persuaded by your guides" as "give up your own understanding and agree with those who know more than you." You would never find that interpretation proper, and neither would I, but if someone wants to wrest this verse into a blank check for absolute power and complete submission, the alternative translation still lets them do it, and with no any additional effort needed. Or so it seems to me, anyway.
^This last comment was Speckled Sheep, by the way.
For Battered Sheep: I agree that "it's always translated" is not a strong argument if it's just thrown up as a stand-alone point, without context. But in the case of hegeomai, where the 2 realistic choices for a translation of are something like "one who considers" or something like "one who leads," I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that 1) translators would take the form of the word (noun vs. action) and the full scope of its usage across the New Testament (and/or other Greek writings), as opposed to primarily their own biases, into account when trying to determine which meaning is the one the Holy Spirit intended, and 2) they would then aim to remain consistent in the English wording.
Also, in response to your post itself, I agree with your point that too-small or too-compartmentalized a number of elders can take the "plurality" right out of "plurality of elders." I also pretty much agree with your entire last paragraph. The PCA is officially two-office (elder and deacon), but TEs are "ministers of word and sacrament," unlike REs, who can sometimes preach but not administer sacraments. Also, TEs without a pastorate have a broader right to vote in the Presbytery and GA than REs, who I believe have to be serving members of a local session. Depending on the congregation, REs can be elected to the session to serve for a time-limited term, whereas TEs continue to serve as long as they are in the congregation (although there is also the position, but not "office," of Associate Pastor, which comes with teaching responsibilities but not the privileges of session membership).
Anonymous, I don't think it's good practice to jump to conclusions about where people stand and assign moral value. We're debating a translation.
Speckled, I think that's fine, but writing comes within a context. Hebrews 13:17 is damaging because it gets turned into its own doctrinal system that is detached from Biblical principles. Essentially, authoritarians read this as "elders are responsible before God for the actions of the laity, therefore Paul is telling the laity to blindly obey the elders." This is a common theme in authoritarian/patriarchal circles. The husband is responsible before God for the behavior of wife/family, therefore the wife and children should obey unless the husband commands sin.
This falls on its face when taken in the broader context. Jeremiah 31 talks about sin in the new covenant. Instead of children bearing the consequences of the fathers' sins, God says that in the new covenant, each person bears the consequences of their own sin. Elsewhere, it says God writes the law on the hearts, so we do not need to blindly rely on the teachings of gifted prophets to know truth.
All this to say that we need to keep this in mind when reading Hebrews. Jesus said that authority in the church is not like authority in the world. Jesus modeled non-hierarchical authority. Yet, somehow, the authoritarian churches want to be hierarchical and domineering. RPCNA servant leadership" turns Jesus on his head. Somehow whipping and abusing people becomes "service" and not domineering.
In a sense, I don't care about the nitpicky translational precision that a lot of Reformed-types want to apply. Language is not that precise. Maybe the author wanted to make the point of strong deference and obedience was closer to his intent than consideration. Maybe, like all cultures, the phrasing or choice of words carried a different meaning than their literal value. All that said, I'm not going to say that one verse proves that God calls for "instant, unquestioned obedience" of my elders, just as one verse doesn't prove that I should go around kissing fellow saints or pulling out a wash basin for their feet. This is very much the same thing.
1st, I made a noticeable typo in my comment about the PCA: ASSISTANT pastors have teaching responsibilities but not session membership. ASSOCIATE pastors have both.
2nd, to BatteredSheep: I think I agree with all of this in principle and most of it in detail. The issue comes down to how you view exercise of authority. Not a new point, but what you said about who bears the consequences of whose sin brings up an application I don't remember thinking about before.
If authority is absolute (whether or not it comes with umbrellas), then it seems like the whole situation is just as bad for a leader as it would be for a follower. If you're a leader with absolute authority, then you have to give an account for how well you controlled everyone under you and their sins can become all your fault. So you beat them to keep them in line, and then you and they are all constantly in fear of each other.
If your authority is limited by God, then you have to give an account for how well you "stood in the gap" and tried to guide the sheep toward the green pastures and quiet waters. If they run off into the middle of the wolfpack, in spite of your best efforts, then it's going to hurt and grieve you, but it's between them and God.
I think only one of these viewpoints accords well with regeneration and sanctification being primarily the work of the Holy Spirit, doctrines that we supposedly embrace as Reformed believers. I also think that only one really fits with the first half of Ezekiel 33, which speaks pretty directly about the duty of preachers who "watch over" God's people.
Precisely, and when churches like the RPCNA want to give elders more control, they have to justify it from exactly that reasoning, more or less. So, on one hand, you have micromanaged and domineered sheep, and on the other hand you have burned out and overburdened elders who feel responsible for doing the work of the Holy Spirit.
I do feel like there is a responsibility for the shepherds to call out wolves. That's why I think it is disastrous when church leaders circle the wagons around abusive leaders or members.
It's similar to the emphasis on "stranger danger". Most of the criminal abuse happens within the circles of family or friends. So, churches want to gloss over and ignore sin within the camp and keep up the appearance of safety, when it is no such thing.
Post a Comment