Continuing with the line of reasoning presented in the last post, we need to make a list of the possibilities. This what I find in the comments and commentaries, but others may have other possibilities to add.
* The passages about giftedness aren’t relevant, as they deal with a time when the Spirit gave gifts, which is no longer true. Thus, the qualification lists in Titus and 1 Timothy are the only considerations in choosing elders and they are absolutely mandatory.
* The qualification lists in Titus and 1 Timothy define who the Spirit gifts to be an elder. That is, anyone who meets these tests should be ordained as an elder.
* The qualification lists in Titus and 1 Timothy are examples of essential characteristics of someone gifted by the Spirit to be an elder but not the only tests. That is, we should also look at other characteristics that might show him to be or not be gifted as a shepherd, overseer, and elder.
* The qualification lists in Titus and 1 Timothy are examples of typical but not essential characteristics of someone gifted by the Spirit to be an elder but not the only tests. That is, someone might not meet all the tests but be qualified due to being the sort of person the tests point us to. Thus, DeMeco Ryans is too small to be a top flight NFL linebacker, not meeting the traditional tests for such things, but managed to be NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year and make the Pro Bowl two out of four years — as a linebacker. (Paul being an apostle might be a better example, but this is football season.) The stated rules deal with the ordinary case but there may be extraordinary people who qualify despite not meeting the ordinary tests.
* The qualifications lists are designed for an immature church with little history of appointing elders and no longer applies. Rather, the permanent rule is that the man must be gifted to the task by God’s Holy Spirit.
* The qualifications lists are culturally conditioned, just like the widows list in 1 Timothy 5. That is, the lists are how eternal principles were applied by Paul in First Century culture for young churches. The same principles might produce different results today. [Suggested by reader ao.]
Commentaries
Most authors and commentaries do not address the question of the childless elder. I can find nothing from Calvin, for example, and Calvin seems to have had an opinion on just about every topic. The church fathers rarely addressed the question because the church quickly began to insist on celibacy for its officials.
Donald Guthrie, in the Tyndale commentary series, argues,
It is surprising that the required standards, particularly the negative ones (e.g. not given to wine, not a brawler, etc.), do not lead us to suppose that the usual aspirant for office was of a particularly high quality, since no exceptional virtues are demanded. Yet this in itself accurately reflects the earliest state of the Christian Church, when the majority of converts probably came from a background of law moral ideals. [emphasis in original.]
Lenski, in considering 1 Timothy 3:1, says that “must” (DEI in the Greek) refers to what is necessary due to the nature of the office. The idea is that the office requires this sort of person.
Lenski also states regarding 1 Tim 3:4 —
The requirement is not that an “overseer” must have children, that a childless man could not be chosen, but that, when he has a family as most men have, any children, whatever their age (TEKNA is thus anarthous), be in “subjection with all dignity,” “subjection” as in 2:11. … The sense is: “in subjection to the father, with dignity on his part.” “Subjection” has the passive sense and implies that the father as the subject. We may translate: “holding such children as he has (anarthous) in subjection (imposed by him) with all dignity.” He acts in a dignified way when he secures due obedience.
Burton Coffman, longtime minister of the Manhattan Church of Christ and author of the commentary series that bears his name, quotes Lenski and declares,
Even if such a viewpoint [that an elder may be childless], which this author doubts, it would be far better to choose able family men with children; and something else should be done, if at all, with the greatest reluctance and with the absolute necessity of doing so if any elders at all were to be appointed.
In other words, Coffman doubts that Lenski is right, and even if he is, a childless elder should be appointed only when there are no other qualified men.
The Early Church Fathers
Chrysostom, Homily on First Timothy
And if he speaks of a Bishop “being the husband of one wife,” and “having his children in subjection” (1 Tim. iii. 2, 4.), this is not said, as if it were necessary he should have a wife and children; but that if any should happen from a secular life to be advanced to that office, they might be such as knew how to preside over their household and children, and all others committed to them. For if a man were both secular and deficient in these points, how should he be intrusted with the care of the Church?
The other fathers, in dealing with 1 Timothy 3, either ignore the reference to children or else allegorize the members of the church to children because at the time of writing, the church required bishops to be celibate. Chrysostom thus concludes the passage only applies to bishops who had children before becoming bishops and, quite naturally, concludes that children aren’t essential.
Drawing a conclusion or two
To me, the most challenging question presented by the possibilities listed above is whether the qualification lists were intended to be peculiar to the early church or were intended to be forever sorts of lists.
Arguments pro
* As Donald Guthrie wrote, the lists provide extremely low thresholds for who qualifies. “Not a drunkard” and “not a brawler” and such like should be true of any Christian. Can any male who is married and fertile be an elder if he’s “apt to teach” and among the 99% of the church who meet these standards?
* The emphases in the two lists are heavily weighted toward teaching and administration, with little consideration to being qualified as a shepherd.
* Experience shows that heavy reliance on these lists without considering the broader concept of giftedness for the task has led many a church to appoint poorly qualified men. In short, the qualification lists, read alone, often produce unqualified elders. This could be remedied by reading these passages together with the passages on giftedness, but why should the lists in the Pastorals require supplementation if they were intended to last forever? Maybe their inadequacy is explained by the immaturity of the church — or because Paul expected Timothy and Titus to only appoint men who were gifted as shepherds, overseers, and elders and who also met these standards.
* The lists aren’t the same. The following chart compares the two qualification lists:
|
Titus |
1 Timothy |
|
blameless |
above reproach |
|
husband of one wife |
husband of one wife |
|
temperate |
|
|
self-controlled |
self-controlled |
|
upright |
respectable |
|
hospitable |
hospitable |
|
hold firmly to sound doctrine |
able to teach |
|
not given to much wine |
not given to drunkenness |
|
not violent |
|
|
gentle |
|
|
not quick-tempered |
not quarrelsome |
|
not pursuing dishonest gain |
not a lover of money |
|
manage own family well |
|
|
children not wild and disobedient |
children obey with proper respect |
|
not a recent convert |
|
|
good reputation with outsiders |
|
|
children believe |
|
|
not overbearing |
|
|
loves what is good |
|
|
holy |
|
|
disciplined |
As the table demonstrates, the two lists are very similar, but different. For example, we in the Churches of Christ have customarily held that an elder must have at least one (some say two) Christian children. That limitation is from Titus. But Paul told Timothy that it is enough if an elder has children who obey with proper respect, a very different thing indeed. A child may be obedient and yet be too young to be a Christian. And Paul told Timothy to ordain no recent converts, and yet Titus was given no such instruction. One can hold firmly to sound doctrine (Titus) and yet have no aptitude for teaching (1 Timothy).
Do these inconsistencies threaten the inspiration of the passages? Not at all, but they tell us much about their nature.
And where is the requirement to be a capable overseer? to have the judgment an elder must have? to have the heart of a shepherd?
* 1 Timothy 5 contains a very parallel, similarly worded list of qualifications for widows, which we ignore in good conscience because, well, times have changed.
(1Ti 5:9-10 ESV) 9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, 10 and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.
This appears to be instructions for a list of widows to be supported by the church, but could also refer to women who are to serve in a special office (opinions vary, and it could be both). Early church writers often refer to the “widows” as an office. (See, e.g., Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, chapter 22).
* Which of our congregations enrolls widows 60 years old and older only if she has “brought up children”? Who would deny support or the right to volunteer to a widow just because she was infertile?
Arguments con
* Contemporary evangelicalism is moving back toward having elders. Denominations that once gave exclusive spiritual leadership to a single pastor are now appointing boards of elders.
* If we don’t use these lists to decide who is qualified by the Spirit to be an elder, how do we do so?
* The lists are expressed in mandatory terms: “must” is used throughout.
* Many of the objections noted above can be resolved by reading the lists in conjunction with the rest of Scripture, that is, in light of the Spirit’s gifts. The understanding of the Spirit that would have been second nature to Timothy and Titus would fill in the gaps and reconcile many of the difficulties.
And so, dear readers, what do you think? Are the lists intended to be exhaustive or must they be supplemented? And if they must be supplemented, is that because they aren’t intended to be universal and forever or because Paul assumed Timothy and Titus knew his other teachings on the Spirit and would read those teachings into the text?
Great summary, Jay! Is it possible to add another interpretation option to the ones you listed at the beginning? It would combine various elements from the other options plus: these were culturally sensitive qualifications for Elders in places like 1st century Ephesus and Crete. Every leader I know argues that the qualifications for Widows are culturally conditioned.
Given that the Elder qualification lists are in the very same cultural context and have the same linguistic parallels, I asked these leaders how we can treat the Elder qualification lists as eternal but the Widow qualification list as culturally bound. Their response is:
“Well, the office of Elder is so important that I could not imagine God leaving it up to our discretion to figure out who should be an Elder or not.” The answer is not based on anything in the text or anything in good hermeneutics. It’s based on an a priori assumption that the Elder qualification lists MUST be eternal because God wouldn’t leave something so important up to chance! But the Widow qualifications, not so important.
Now, I would argue that, just like in 1st century Ephesus and Crete, it still stands in 21st century American culture that an extremely good indicator of someone’s pastoring skills is the way they raised their children. But to make it eternally and legally binding seems like we’re doing something with the text that Paul never wanted us to do.
I disagree with the premise that Titus sets a low bar:
How many men do you know who are above reproach or blameless? How many whose life holds firm to the teachings of scripture? How many are self controlled, upright, and holy? Seriously, is that a low standard?
I further disagree that the differences between Titus and Timothy have any sort of subtractive effect from the requirement. Titus was specifically instructed to appoint elders. Timothy was instructed about what to teach those who aspired to become elders.
Titus was going to churches that had no elders, but Timothy was in a church that already had elders, and Paul was planning to come soon. So it is highly unlikely that Paul expected Timothy to appoint elders before Paul returned to Ephesus… especially since he didn’t instruct Timothy to do so.
Jay,
I would suggest looking at these “lists,” not as atomized lists of specific “qualifications” (a word that is not used in the text), but as descriptive of the kind of man who will be capable of doing the work. This must be in the broader context of the epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus, as well as against the context of all of the “shepherd” teachings in the Scriptures (e.g., Psalm 23; Ezekiel 34; John 10; 1 Peter 3:1-7, et.al.)
If we do not look at the work before trying to determine what sort of man is needed for the work, we will get the cart in front of the horse.
Paul’s first instruction to Timothy (1 Tim 1:3-5) is to command certain ones not to teach false doctrines nor to be devoted to myths and endless genealogies (which may be a reference to a proto-gnosticism). He explained in v. 4 & 5 “These promote controversies rather than God’s work – which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (NIV).
The connection of this to the selection of elders is evident in Titus 1:7. “Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless – not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuit dishonest gain.”
The negative qualities all tend toward promoting controversies rather than the love, which is the goal of Paul’s initial instruction to Timothy. In 1 Timothy, immediately after talking about the appointment of elders, deacons, and (maybe) deaconesses, he wrote, “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:14-15, NIV).
The objective of all of this is to teach us how to have leadership that, like Timothy, will promote love that comes from purity of heart, a good conscience, and sincerity of faith. Without looking at what we want these men to be able to do, we cannot know what sort of men they want to be. Paul gives us insight into their task – being entrusted with God’s work – and into the kind of men they should be. When we separate the description of the men from the task to which they are to be appointed, we will find ourselves in the sort of questions that have been raised in this series.
Jerry
Jerry wrote:
Jerry, maybe you didn’t mean to suggest that we can overlook some of the “requirements” in Titus 1 because it is allegedly just a descriptive list. But I know some people have made that argument. I’m not inclined to agree with that kind of reasoning.
Here’s another list:
Is this list an “atomized list” or is it merely descriptive of the kind of man who will not inherit the kingdom of God? So, for example, can we say that fits of rage can be overlooked, as long as someone avoids most of the rest of these? On what grounds would we treat this list differently from the one in Titus 1?
And then there is this list:
Interestingly, there are differences between the Galatians list and the Corinthians list. Can we assume that only the items included in both lists are real “requirements”? Or rather, to make a list of sins, wouldn’t we need to take all the things listed in both lists together?
How about this answer: I think the service of Widows, which was an important full-time ministry in the pre-nicene church is something that still waits for its restoration. Have you ever studied on this subject? And have you ever evaluated what we miss by not having it?
I object to the idea that anything in the NT ordinances should be viewed as “culturally bound”. Especially in letters that generally describe our behavior in the house of God, which does not change according to earthly fashions because it is heavenly. We could easily argue that the Lord’s Supper or Baptism are cultural – yet we still practice both. We had footwashing in our house-church yesterday; and I think it is still a very dear object-lesson in the eyes of our Lord.
But whenever we speak of NT-teachings as being “cultural” don’t we imply that we in the 21st century are more advanced than the Apostles were? That we have a “better” or “more suitable” way of doing things? This again implies that the Spirit of God had little foresight of what the cultures of the world would be like a few centuries after the Apostles.
To the original question:
Did it ever occur to us that the letters contain mainly short summaries of the far more complete oral teaching of the Apostles? This they are! And since this is so, we should never look at isolated passages but always read them in the light of all related texts on the subject. Thus we should read Titus and 1st Timothy as two ways of summing up Paul’s teachings on eldership, which means that both are equally important and binding. E.g. having obedient children and having believeing children then might be just two ways of making the same point.
Alexander
Five of the six possibilities listed begin with the words “The qualification lists.” If we remove those three words, what do we have?
It seems to me that to dismiss the specific nature of Paul’s instructions to Titus, one has to overlook some basics. Why did Paul leave Titus in Crete to appoint elders? We don’t read of such an apostolic appointment process in Jerusalem or Antioch or Rome. Could this relate to the relative immaturity of the Cretan church at that time? Or could it be that the believers had among them already-recognizable community leaders who would simply assume similar leadership among the believers, and that this was something Titus had to deal with? An arm’s-length reading of the letters to Timothy and Titus makes clear the specific voice of an older apostle advising younger ones, sometimes in very direct terms about very specific circumstances, just like in his letter to Philemon. We do well to read these letters for divine principles which apply beyond Ephesus or Crete. But we begin to badly stretch the context when we take these letters and read their specific contents as some sort of universal rules. Treating dysentery with wine, are we now? And do we really want to invoke Paul’s counsel about human slavery as rules for our modern society? And the widow rule? Are we REALLY observing that one? It’s high time we stopped reading this stuff as legal precedent and began seeing it on a spiritual level.
Charles McLean wrote:
Humble submission and strict obedience to the scriptures is spiritual.
Alexander objected “to the idea that anything in the NT ordinances should be viewed as “culturally bound”. Especially in letters that generally describe our behavior in the house of God, which does not change according to earthly fashions because it is heavenly.”
Now, which are the “NT ordinances” again? I lost my list.
As to how we behave “in the house of God”, believers ARE the house of God. If you are suggesting that the manner in which we hold our meetings is eternal, I would ask for a bit more detail of where that idea has its origins. The meetings of the congregations in which I grew up certainly did not feature prophecy or tongues or “everyone having a song ,or a tongue, or an interpretation”. In fact, it more resembled the Mass than it resembled a Sunday gathering in Corinth. Which of these meeting methods is eternal? The house of God is indeed a spiritual one. But that is because its members, and its Head, are spiritual beings. It’s a bit hard to get my mind around eternal Sunday church services, however. Does heaven operate on the Julian calendar?
“Strict obedience?”
When was the last time you greeted brother with a “holy kiss” as clearly commanded by the apostles? (More times than we are commanded to share communion by the way.)
If we require humble submission and strict obedience you had better not leave out anythjing.
Jay wrote:
Jay, did you mean to say “the church required bishops to be celibate“? If so, the statement makes sense. Otherwise, what does being monogamous have to do with a requirement of having children?
Jerry
Todd wrote:
If it can be properly shown that the passages on the holy kiss are intended to apply today, I’m willing to obey. Meanwhile, disobedience on one topic is not justification for disobedience on another. None of us would accept that kind of excuse from our kids…
Alan wrote:
Just how would one go about determining if those passages are intended to apply today, or not? I am curious about how you can make an objective judgment in a question of this sort – and do so while insisting that other passages, which some argue are culturally based, must be taken at face value.
Just wondering.
Jerry
My current thinking on this topic is explained in a blog post I wrote some time back. It’s a bit too much to post in a comment… Basically, the Greek grammar gives clues to whether it is a command, a request, or an invitation. In the case of the holy kiss, the grammar is in the aortist tense and the imperative mood – indicating a request or invitation.
Alan,
I should add to the above that I do not believe the “lists” in Timothy and Titus relative to elders, deacons, or widows are culturally based (though some may think so). But I remain curious as to how you would make your determination. So far in this discussion Alexander has shown himself consistent in his approach to passages such as this. Most of the rest of us, not so much so.
Jerry
Alan offered: “If it can be properly shown that the passages on the holy kiss are intended to apply today, I’m willing to obey. ”
Er, I thought the old default setting was, “if they did it in the NT, then we should be doing it today”. After all, that’s the whole basis for calling for weekly church services, and the idea behind examining these qualifications for elders. But in reference to the “holy kiss”, apparently the default setting has now changed so that “we don’t have to do it until you prove that people living today are commanded to do it”. If this is the standard to be consistently applied, no one has shown us that Paul’s advice to Titus is intended to apply today, so why are we discussing it?
Or maybe we now have TWO default settings, one for things we already do and the other for things we DON’T already do. I must admit that this would be quite convenient. Such a methodology would allow us to claim biblical authority for things we believe without the annoying need for hermeneutic consistency.
Jerry wrote:
Jerry, I am not a fan of using modern culture as a filter for biblical commands. I look for evidence in the scriptures themselves to determine the intent.
I’m not sure whether you saw my comment about the aortist imperative mood before posting the above… but that’s the answer to how I would determine whether a statement is a command, a request, or an invitation.
Charles McLean wrote
The conversation would be more constructive if we could assume good motives and honest intent by the other party.
I answered how I make these determinations in my 11:07am post.
Paul insisted that an elder be monogamous. We seldom discuss the “why” of this, as we are too wrapped up in trying to give the divorced fellow his ex-wife back so he somehow has “two wives”. Paul’s call for monogamy here makes sense in light of I Cor 7. A man with one wife is challenged enough in sharing his dedication between her and the flock. Paul suggested that the celibate man is better off in this regard. It was not that long a step in our human foolishness to turn this principle into a rule requiring celibacy among clergy.
Just like it was not a long step from “every Sunday when you get together, kick in some money into the kitty, so you’ll have some money for me to take to the folks in the famine” to “every Sunday, we are commanded to put money in the church treasury”. Yes, we do things like that.
Even if you are sick and tired of hearing it:
a) Command
b) Approved Precedent (Example)
c) Necessary inference
(Which is best defined in Thomas Campbell’s “Declaration And Address” – if you haven’t read it yet, read it.)
By following this quideline you won’t miss the point. By throwing out this guideline the progressives lost any sense of direction. And your question seems to confirm this, or how else shall I understand it? If it were a cry of help, I’d be very willing to help you. If it is a way of saying: “I don’t like lists of what to do and not to do”, then we will never come to an agreement.
Among these ordinances is the way a church is set up and governed. Scriptural eldership is an ordinance, and the descriptions in His word are to be taken very seriously and literally.
And this applies also to 1Co 14:26-38 (to which you alluded) and to 1Co 11:2-16 (which must ne taken into cinsideration there, too). I agree that we are sometimes very inconsistent, but we should strive to grow toward more consistancy, don’t we?
Yesterday we had footwashing in our house-church – something I’d like to challenge you with 😉
Alexander
abasnar wrote:
Now things are getting interesting 😉
The immediate topic here is a command given toTitus. Is that a command for us too, or just an example? The distinction may not seem significant to you but it certainly does to me… and, I think, it was significant to Thomas Campbell. He wrote (emphasis added):
And he also wrote (emphasis added):
So according to T Campbell, examples and inferences must not be made terms of communion (ie, fellowship). Is that what you believe and practice?
So its only a command if our super secret Greek decoder ring says so? That is a working hermaneutic for you? So we must know the Greek to know God’s will?
No way!
It is obvious Paul is giving general Timothy and TItus a general description of the kind of man who should be an elder. Alan makes the point when he looks at the two passages in Gal. and 1 Cor. Those are not exhaustive lists of “the sinful nature” or the “wicked”. They are great descriptions of those things. It is so obvious, yet we still refuse to see. Peace
philip
Todd Colier wrote:
Common sense leads to pretty much the same conclusion. The Greek just gives an empirical way to prove it.
It is not necessary even to be able to read and write in your native language in order to be a Christian– much less to know Greek. God gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to communicate his word to the people. A lot more is expected of them, and they will be judged accordingly.
Charles…Charles….. Charles……..!
Why not simply ask a Greek all these questions as its his birth language? Should we today do and interpret as the Greeks do?
Men giving other men a “request or Invitation” for a kiss (holy or not) is considered homosexual activity and participating in such is without question a sin.
So social norms do trump scriptural commands, examples and necessary inferences?
Jerry,
You are quite right. I meant “celibate.” So many vocabulary words to remember … 😳
Alan,
I agree with your conclusion from your post —
Amen. The grammar is not determinative. For example, the aorist imperative is usually a request, but can be a request that is really a command (such as when I ask my secretary to please mail this letter today). And the request can be a request for something that is essential to salvation.
The highlighted verbs are in the imperative aorist middle —
Jay, my main point in the blog article is that the aorist imperative is often not a mandate, but instead a request or an invitation.
Lots of folks attempting exegesis from English translations interpret every grammatical commands as law. That’s not necessarily what was intended. The grammar doesn’t require it to be interpreted as a command when the verb is aorist middle. So some common sense needs to be applied.
For example, it does not make sense to say “Greet one another with a holy kiss, or face the consequences!” But it might make sense to say “Put away anger, wrath, malice… or face the consequences.”
So you are correct in saying the use of aorist imperative is not decisive. More to the point, when aorist imperative is used, the grammar does not automatically determine that it expresses a mandate. So for example, the “holy kiss” passages are not explicit mandates.
@ Charles
We see a command to Titus by Paul to set in order in the churches what is lacking there.
We see a letter to Timothy that is describing “how to behave” in the house of God.
Both letters are very general in their application therefore, they apply to all churches, because the house of God is the same here and there, now and then.
Campbell’s advices concerning inferences are very balanced and healthy, but we are not talking about inferences here. We are talking about clear words of God. An inference is where we draw conclusion concerning specifics where the scriptures are silent.
That’s by the way the reason I pointed to Thoams Campbell, because I hold to CENI in the sense he described it, which means: Be slow and humble with your inferences, but hold firm to commands and (approved !) precedents (examples).
The qualifications in Timothy and Titus are on the level of a command: This is how an elder should look like. And that’s the issue here. If we start negotiating these terms, where will we end up?
Alexander
Yes, Especially in ENI.
I like everyone else decide for me which ones to adopt and will be judged accordingly..
In worship and honor of God, many I know have far more ENI from their culture they follow than the Angle Saxon does from the Bible.
ENI is limitless, even with a simple statement like “God loves a cheerful giver”.
abasnar wrote:
Well stated. I agree.
Weekly communion is only hinted at in scripture (inference; not really a “necessary” inference). So Campbell would say it should not be a fellowship issue.
At best, a cappella music is only hinted at in scripture. Those who see that principle in scripture are making an inference. So, again, Campbell would say it should not be a fellowship issue.
OTOH, women being silent in the assembly is a direct command. The scriptures make it plain that it was not just for a particular church. Also, women wearing head coverings was a direct command, and there was “no other practice.” People who discard that command are making a cultural distinction, not an exegetical one.
Silent means make no sound.
Do women singing in the assembly disobey?
You see, if the Bible was a book of plans and specs requiring exact obedience like an architect gives me to build something, it would be easy to follow. 50 builders with the same plans and specs would all agree on what is to be done and all would look the same when finished.
If that is, what the Bible is, a book of plans and specs, There is no doubt I could of written it much better and clearer than God.
Me do something better than God?
Of course that cannot be so, so it must mean we who are interpreting are misreading something or reading something into it not meant to be so.. We can be wrong, God can’t.
Individual interpretation must be allowed according to our situation and culture or God would of made all required specifically clear.
We differ so in interpreting the same book. In short time you can usually tell which CofC school of preaching a person went to, or, from their emphasis on certain points as LAW, which part of the USA they were brought up in.
By making the Bible such a book of law, we miss what Jesus did for us. WE want to do it ourselves without His help.
Try reading the Bible as a book of joy and wonderment and the assurance God loves you and how we’ll all be together one day in Heaven instead of we hope we’ve been good enough. This is especially hard for those of us brought up in the CofC.
It’ll change your life I promise!!!!!
I am absolutely with you on this, Alan; except that weekly Lord’s Supper is an example that can be approved by church history, as well as a-cappella. But I do agree that this is going beyond express commands and clear examples and therefore is more on the level of an inference. Inferences – as I see it – are only binding on the congregational level.
Alexander
I followed an unwritten rule when I was actively supervising people… If I absolutely needed a job done, I went to a person who was already very busy doing a good job on a full work load. It might seem unfair to put more load on someone who already had a full work load but I found that I usually got the job accomplished better putting extra load on someone already busy than asking someone that I thought had the time to pick up the job.
Maybe the solution for Elders is similar. Find someone already doing the work of an Elder and give them the title. As far as Children, one wife and all the other doctrinal legalities, I say let the local congregation decide. I have my preferences but if One congregation allows Elders without Children and another doesn’t? That’s no reason for the two to disolve fellowship.
I came from a tradition where the congregation selected Elders and Deacons every year by a vote. Those up for election were nominated by the Elders and congregation (with the approval of the Elders) but if the congregation voted against a person, he wasn’t allowed to serve. Quite frankly, I’m not sure how Elders and Deacons are selected at my CofC. I think they are selected by the Elders, announced to the congregation, and after a period of time where people can make their objections known to the Elders, they take office. None of this is written down because the congregation is unincorperated and has no bylaws. Also, in the 7 years I’ve been associated with this particular congreagtion, only a few Deacons have been added. I guess my congregations method of doing this is okay but if another congregation does it differently, why shouldn’t they still be in fellowship?
Silence needs to be difined by the context. And the context encompasses more than just these few verses, but the chapters 11-14 in 1Co; and we might also dare to look into the early church to see how they understood and practiced it. Singing and prayer was never meant by silence.
Alexander
Alexander,
I think Church history would show communion being taken more frequently than once a week. The Catholic tradition is to take communion whenever a Mass is held. For example, I have taken communion multiple times in a single day while on retreat and worhipping in the Catholic tradition.
Doug
Alexander wrote:
I agree – except that I’m not sure that they should even be bound congregation-wide in at least some instances.
For example, the examples Paul used in Romans 14 seem to be more on a personal level. On the other hand, IM in corporate worship demands fellowship of that activity. Churches that insist on using it against the conscience of some of the members may not be acting in love.
Jerry
Bingo! In some places even daily (e.g. Carthage) – and you know what: This can be taken from Acts 2:47! Nice question to discuss: Why do we make Acts 20:7 a “law”, but skip over Acts 2:47? What is the difference beteween these two EXAMPLES of how the early church did things? Which one are we to follow? Maybe both is correct … certainly not less than once a week. But why settle for the minimum?
Alexander
abasnar,
Exactly! It’s kind of scary how much sense you and Jerry are suddenly making 😉
Alexander said: “The qualifications in Timothy and Titus are on the level of a command: This is how an elder should look like”
Er, that second sentence sounds like a description more than a command– but perhaps only to me. Now, if you want a command that sounds like it is “on the level of a command’, consider the following unambiguous directives: “Stop drinking only water and drink a little wine for your stomach’s sake” fills the bill, as does “Greet one another with a holy kiss”. In plain English, these statements sound MUCH more like commands/instructions/directives. But as I don’t know how Alexander makes the determination that something “is at the level of a command”, I may well be missing something.
Then again, perhaps if I were hearing it in Greek or through an appropriate CENI filter, it would sound exactly the opposite.
How did God ever let some fool translate the scriptures into English? It made perfect sense in the Koine, the language in which the Holy Spirit spoke. But now, it’s all vague and imprecise. Except to the Greeks, of course, which probably explains why their spiritual leadership is recognized by Christians around the world.
Lessee now, I can understand the scriptures IF I know Koine Greek, and IF I can quote the “Declaration and Address” and apply CENI correctly AND if I know how to discern the difference between a description which is at “the level of a command” and a direct imperative –from the same author to the same reader– which is NOT at the level of a command. Shucks, there are probably other prerequisites to which I am not yet even privy.
And to think that previously I was trying to place my confidence in John 16:15. A ragged simpleton, I.