A reader (I am always amazed that people actually read this blog) submitted a rather long comment on the original post on Elders. It is apparent that the reader did some good homework as the comment has several, well, more than several, reference citations. It is clear that they both read the original post and did some Bible study before posting their comment. Because the comment was so long, I thought it appropriate to post another entry rather than bury the response in the comment log.
In the following discussion, I have included the text of the comment without the Scripture references. If you want to read the comment in its entirety, scroll to the Elders post and click on the comment.
---------------------------------------------------------
Does this include the doctrines (teachings) of this people?]
---------------------------------------------------------
All of Scripture must be seen in light of God’s purpose. Scripture, while it describes God’s purpose for us, does not define that purpose. In other words, the purpose came first, and Scripture is given to describe it. As we read Scripture then, we must keep in mind that there is a larger purpose than the text we are currently reading, and all texts must fit that larger purpose. For instance, murder is not wrong because the Bible says it is. Rather, the Bible proscribes murder because murder is wrong. If we understand that God invites us into His world and asks us to understand life as He would have us live it, the Bible becomes an invitation rather than a set of hurdles to negotiate and a set of rules to learn. When we try to use Scripture to define rather than describe God’s view we risk confusion and overly limiting both ourselves and God.
Being the People of God includes primarily the purpose for which we have been chosen. That purpose is essentially the same as that of
---------------------------------------------------------
Is that not what Paul was concerned about in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-11?]
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul’s concerns were more about providing Godly leadership and direction to the congregations he had established. His concern is a proper (not legally, but Christianly) functioning community rather than specific rules for functionaries. The question becomes “what kinds of people” are appropriate to lead the People of God. It is instructive to note that the two lists of elder qualifications that we normally use are different, and likely neither was available to the other community when they were first delivered and read. And so we see Paul describing kinds of people rather than seeking to establish absolute rules for every congregation in every place. What we want are mature Christians that both understand the faith and have given themselves over to it. While the lists we have can be useful, they are not dogma in and of themselves. They can’t be because they are not mirrors of each other.
---------------------------------------------------------
Is not the new testament/covenant the law of Christ? If it is not a law, how it even possible to sin?]
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law of Christ is love and submission to the will of God, not every detail that we might find between Acts and Revelation. Sin is possible without Law as is clear with Adam and Eve. They did not have a Law and yet were cast from the Garden. Paul’s discussion of Law and sin is not intended to argue that you cannot sin without Law, but rather that the Law is insufficient to save and in fact can only define sin for us. He goes on to say, as many psychologists will tell us, that when we’re told not to do something, that seems to be the very thing we want to do. And so to what Law are we to submit? The Law of love and submission to God, just as we were made to live. A written Law will always be inadequate because perfect Law keeping as an external requirement is not, and never has been the goal. The goal is transformation of the people into those who would live as God would have them live. They so live not because God makes them, but because eventually they come to own the vision of God as their own, and they can do nothing else but live that vision. In that case Law becomes superfluous and can only entrap those to whom it is given.
---------------------------------------------------------
It is true that these men must protect and feed the flock they are shepherding (Acts 20:17-28). It is true that they provide wisdom from experience and knowledge gained from a life of study of God's Word and therefore must not be a novice(1 Tim. 3:6) and must be apt to teach (1 Tim. 3:2).
But is it not also true that they are rulers of the congregation (1 Tim. 3:4-5; 5:17; Heb. 13:7, 17)? What is the aspect of bishop/overseer about if not authority? Is it not just about guiding by example, but enforcing the law of Christ so that God's people are not corrupted by outside influences, but the flawed teachings of men?]
---------------------------------------------------------
Elders do have authority because they have responsibilities. Those responsibilities include maturing Christians and protecting the church from corruption of the Faith. As a result, elders hire and fire staff, they determine spiritual growth needs of the congregation, they determine what kinds of things cannot be taught in their congregations, and they direct the use of the congregation’s resources to accomplish those things. But, elders resort to “pulling rank” only when necessary. Just as both Jesus and Paul could pull rank if they needed to, they both appealed to people to live as they should because they wanted to live that way; because they were made to live that way. Elders need to know people in general and their people in particular. They need to know how to foster growth and development in others without having to push and pull, and without insisting on “doing church” according to their personal preferences. Therefore, this “rule” becomes a less apparent prerogative, something that should be transparent and seen largely in the selection of staff and teachers, and the kinds of material given to the congregation to study (as far as our corporate meetings go). Outside of our corporate meetings, this function is seen in mentoring, visiting, correcting, and perhaps cajoling members to live as God made them to live.
The purpose of the original post was not to describe every aspect of eldering, but rather to argue that elders are much more important in the lives of their congregations and the church at large than simply pastoral counselors. Elders are given the charge of protecting and furthering the faith to the point that they embody that faith. Elders are not advisory boards for congregational staff but they are the directors of the staff; they give the staff the vision, and shape the staff to further the faith needs of the congregation.
I appreciate you responding to my original comment. Your response to the authority aspect of elders clarified some things for me on what you believe.
ReplyDeleteI guess where I am having trouble is the word "must" in those two passages of qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). In my vocabulary must means absolutely required. Yet you are saying that it is not necessarily the case that an elder MUST meet any or all of these properties listed. Could you expand on that a bit?
Thanks.
It would seem that "must" would mean absolutely required. However, it may not be a universal requirement.
ReplyDeleteLet me explain first by observing that the two lists are not identical. If they were both universal musts, either we have an incomplete account or "must" means something other than universal.
And that is exactly the case. The word here can carry the idea of "in this situation," which makes sense because each situation (Timothy, and Titus) is different, and their lists are different.
Timothy is told not to appoint novices as elders; Titus is not. Must an elder not be a Novice? Using these two lists we don't know. Rather, we must conclude that it was for Timothy, but not for Titus.
Therefore we can reasonably conclude that Paul had a reason for telling Timothy one thing and Titus something different. I believe the most reasonable answer is not necessarily that the situations are different in both places (although that is likely the case), but that Paul is simply describing the kinds of people that should be elders.
It may be that Paul is deliberately providing targeted lists for each locale but I don't know that that is a necessary conclusion.
We have the same conundrum when discussing the fruit of the Spirit. In Galatians chapter 5, Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit. Is this list exhaustive or descriptive? Well, is compassion a fruit of the Spirit? I'm thinking it is even though it does not appear in Paul's list. Let's look at the negative flip side of this. Before Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit, he lists the works of the flesh. Do we read that list as though it includes every work of the flesh? If I was writing the list, I might include murder as a work of the flesh, but Paul doesn't. Does that mean that murder isn't a work of the flesh?
The point here is that the Bible isn't written so much to define and set absolute boundaries on concepts, but rather to describe and example. The fruit of the Spirit, the works of the flesh, and Paul's two different lists for elders do the same. They do not define (in absolute legal terms), but rather they describe for us, they give us the flavor of what we are looking for in our specific situations.
We are not intended to use any of these lists as legal checklists, but as descriptions of the kinds of people we are made and called to be.
And so the primary question remains, if the lists are different, how can we say they are comprehensive and universal musts?
Does that help?
Just to make sure I understand you correctly, you are saying that if we don't find a concept in every book of the NT, then it can't be a command that we must do because not everyone in the first century saw that letter?
ReplyDeleteFor example, giving (contribution) is not in the book of Jude, so it's not required that I do that? I can go to heaven without giving?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not what I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteThe assumed question was, "Are the lists in Titus and 2 Timothy universally required as qualifications for elders?"
My answer is "no."
The reasoning for my answer is this...
For them to be universal mandates, we would have to argue that they were universal mandates when they were written. However.....
--The lists were written to two different people in two different places, at about the same time.
--We know that the lists contain different specific requirements.
The inescapable conclusion is that one list was applicable in one place and the other list in a second locale.
If there were different lists applicable in different places, it becomes apparent that each list was not applicable in the place to which it was not sent (because that place had its own, different list).
Therefore, the lists were not universal mandates when they were first penned and there is no reason to believe they have taken on more stringent authority with the passing of a few years.
To look at it a bit differently, let's ask the question, "Did Timothy use his list or Titus' list, or both lists?"
The simple answer is that Timothy used the list that was sent to him, and not the one sent to Titus. On the other hand, Titus would have used his list and not Timothy's.
Therefore neither list was intended to be a universal list when they were originally written and they are not universal lists now.
This conclusion has nothing to do with the fact that they appear in different books. Rather, we can determine from the evidence we have that the lists were not intended to be, and are not universal mandates for elders.
The question then becomes, what are they? We have two options. The first is that they were specific requirements for the locations that received each list, or (option 2) that the lists each represent the kinds of people that should be selected.
If we choose option one, we are left with the fact that the two lists are different and we have a somewhat insurmountable task of deciding which should be applied in say, Virginia. If we choose to require both lists of requirements as universal mandates, we must ignore the fact that the lists were not universal mandates when they were written. Therefore, option one is less than satisfying since we attempt to create universal mandates where God did not intend there to be any.
If we choose option two, we allow both lists to be appropriate for their intended recipients and yet still allow ourselves to use them in the same way without mandating their exact use in every locale.
This to me seems the cleanest and less problematic understanding of the two lists and has little to do with their appearing in different books. The simple point is that they cannot be universal mandates because it is demonstrable that they were never intended to be.
Thanks for asking.
So what conflict is there between the "two" lists that makes it insurmountable to require all the qualifications of "both" in any single place? I am having trouble seeing any contradiction.
ReplyDeleteYou see, I believe that where scripture is concerned we may have to do at least what any given verse or passage states, but possibly and in fact most likely must do more.
A given example would be John 3:16. One might conclude then that all I have to do is believe in Jesus to be saved, but then Mark 13:13 only says that one needs to endure persecution to the end to be saved. If I were to take only one of those, do I get to pick, or is it that I need to both believe AND endure (and repent, confess, be immersed, hope, come in contact with the blood of Christ, and more) to be saved.
Let's stay with the Titus and Timothy texts, and ask these two questions: "Which list did Paul expect Timothy to use?" and "Did Paul expect Timothy to use the list sent to Titus?"
ReplyDeleteIf our answer is that Timothy should use the list that was sent to him, and that he was not expected to use the list sent to Titus, then we understand that Titus' list was not mandated for Timothy.
The inescapable conclusion then, is that the two lists are independent and were not mandated for use in every place in the first century.
If we then require Timothy (or ourselves) to use Titus' list, we go farther than God went when He penned the lists in the first place. We have in fact created a law that God did not create.
If a particular congregation wants to use the two lists together, I suspect that would be fine (but see below), but that we would require a congregation to use both lists would be inappropriate.
Below:
The only issue with using both lists as checklists, is that it does not appear as though they were given for that purpose for a universal church. Therefore, it seems much more in keeping with the context of Timothy and Titus that we consider them descriptions for use in specific places rather than definitions for a universal church.
Different parts of Scripture were intended for different purposes and come to us in various contexts. I would love to discuss what "belief" means to John, but this post is about elders, and so I'd prefer to keep the discussion about it limited to that topic.