Authority & Tradition

[Tamara224]

I'm starting this thread in response to a post Simon_Templar made in another thread....

This might be fun to discuss in our little corner here...

What is the proper scope of authority and tradition in the Church?

Most Pentecostals that I've known have expressed a pretty strong dislike to anything which they call "tradition". But is there a kind of tradition that is good? Should there be an established type of Tradition (like the Catholics have)?

And what is proper authority? What should authority look like in the Church? How would authority interact with tradition?

Thoughs, opinions, experiences.... What do you think?

[Tamara224]

:doh: Oops. I meant to post this thread in the Charismatic Non-WoF forum.

My bad.

Can one of the mods please move it for me? Or close this one and I'll start it again.

Thanks a bunch.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Done. :)

[JAS4Yeshua]

My personal opinion is that sometimes traditions need to be thrown away, if they overshadow Christ. I think the final authority should always be God's Word, and if the tradition doesn't contridict the Word, then I see no problem with it.

Take an example from Scripture of where tradition was good, but eventually had to be discarded.

Numbers 21:4-9 NIV
4 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; 5 they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!" 6 Then the Lord sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, "We sinned when we spoke against the Lord and against you. Pray that the Lord will take the snakes away from us." So Moses prayed for the people. 8 The Lord said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.

The purpose of the snake? To protect the people, to get them to look to God for their safety. After a time, the purpose of the bronze snake was perverted, and no longer pointed to God. This brought the king of Isreal, Hezekiah, to break the snake and the tradition to get people focused back on God.

2 Kings 18:1-8 NIV
1 In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother's name was Abijah daughter of Zechariah. 3 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father David had done. 4 He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.) 5 Hezekiah trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him. 6 He held fast to the Lord and did not cease to follow him; he kept the commands the Lord had given Moses. 7 And the Lord was with him; he was successful in whatever he undertook. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and did not serve him. 8 From watchtower to fortified city, he defeated the Philistines, as far as Gaza and its territory.

There are other examples that can be pointed to as well, as Christ fulfilled many prophecies, and ended the need for some of the traditions (such as the sacrifice).

Is there a problem with church tradition? Not by itself. But I do think the tradition needs to always be weighed in terms of the Word, and in terms of where the focus is. If it doesn't direct a person to the cross, then it may need to be reevaluated.

[jeolmstead]

I think tradition is good up to the point in which it conflicts with God wants to do.

This happens when traditions become bigger then God. They become idols to us. They become like the bronze serpent Moses lifted up for the healing of the people. Latter on, that same thing had to be broken up because the people worshiped it instead of God.

Pentecostals and Charismatics have their own traditions. “Holiness” for the Pentecostals is a good example. What was once an inward experience that worked its way out of the heart became a set of religious duties. It changed into the “white washed tomb” Jesus spoke of, pretty on the outside but full of dead man’s bones.

Charismatics (IMO) have attempted to do the same with “worship”. Worship has taken on the definition of the music we play before the sermon. Hey, I love to experience God this way, but, some are in danger of worshiping “worship”.

Others have the tradition that bible is “chunk full” of promises, there for my choosing. They and their friends search it diligently for the proper words to speak (or chant) over today’s situation of need (or want). These people worship the “word” it is an idol to them.

I guess in a nutshell, we all form traditions. Even us “Non-DeNoms” The temptation is always there to trade relationship for them.

John O.

[KenBrauckmann]

subscribing for now - will comment as things develop :wave: .

[Simon_Templar]

one of the big problems all people face and struggle with is a kind of personal hyperopia, farsightedness. We see problems with others, but are blind to our own. This is, as far as I can tell, universal to humanity and as such universal to the Church as well. It is also the basic meaning of the word hypocrit.. you criticize others, but you are under critical of yourself.

When it comes to things like tradition, it is a hot button word among charismatics. Its practically a dirty word in some circles. The problem is that charismatics and pentecostals have just as much tradition as anyone else does, they just don't admit it to themselves, and they don't recognize it about themselves.

Tradition is, again as far as I can tell, inevitable. I have never seen any group that did not have tradition, no matter how much they claimed they didn't.
The question then is not, to have tradition or not.. but rather, what tradition will you have.

The issue of tradition inevitably goes back to doctrine and then to the interpetation of scripture. The battle, of course, is always between "traditions of men" and the Word of God.
The problem again with this mindset is the illusion that we can interpet the Word of God in a vacuum and understand it perfectly with no outside influences.

First, there are always outside influences because no one started interpeting the word of God and forming their doctrinal positions in the womb. Everyone was raised and taught as a child and as such you were imparted with a "tradition".
Even those who come late to the faith, or convert from one group to another, do not have the benefit of interpeting the word of God without outside influences and biases, because the basic framework of how you think and how you understand the very words themselves has been impacted by the worldview that you were raised in.

In charismatic and pentecostal circles there is often a great dislike for words like philosophy, and theology, and they are often thought to be unspiritual.. but just like tradition, everyone has them. Disliking them and pretending that you don't have them just ensures your blindness to them and your inability to overcome them.

For example, most charismatic/pentecostals have a modern worldview, based on modernist philosophy. They themselves in most cases have no idea how much their views and understandings of everything have been influenced by such things because they have never bothered to study them, or even become aware of them.

If you become aware of the role that these things play in influencing you and begin to understand it, you can over come the biases involved and look at things more independantly and more objectively. By refusing to consider them, most people just doom themselves to being controled by their tradition, as much as any Catholic or Eastern Orthodox person is by theirs.

so the first, and crucial step in discussing tradition and its role is that everyone needs to begin to be aware that they have a tradition and that it is impacting their doctrines and the way they understand scripture.
Coming to realizations like this can shake people's comfort zone quite a bit so a lot of people aren't willing to do it.

I have to go offline for a bit but when I get back I'll post on authority. I'm looking forward to the discussion :)

[jeolmstead]

one of the big problems all people face and struggle with is a kind of personal hyperopia, farsightedness. We see problems with others, but are blind to our own. This is, as far as I can tell, universal to humanity and as such universal to the Church as well. It is also the basic meaning of the word hypocrit.. you criticize others, but you are under critical of yourself.

When it comes to things like tradition, it is a hot button word among charismatics. Its practically a dirty word in some circles. The problem is that charismatics and pentecostals have just as much tradition as anyone else does, they just don't admit it to themselves, and they don't recognize it about themselves.

Tradition is, again as far as I can tell, inevitable. I have never seen any group that did not have tradition, no matter how much they claimed they didn't.
The question then is not, to have tradition or not.. but rather, what tradition will you have.

The issue of tradition inevitably goes back to doctrine and then to the interpetation of scripture. The battle, of course, is always between "traditions of men" and the Word of God.
The problem again with this mindset is the illusion that we can interpet the Word of God in a vacuum and understand it perfectly with no outside influences.

First, there are always outside influences because no one started interpeting the word of God and forming their doctrinal positions in the womb. Everyone was raised and taught as a child and as such you were imparted with a "tradition".
Even those who come late to the faith, or convert from one group to another, do not have the benefit of interpeting the word of God without outside influences and biases, because the basic framework of how you think and how you understand the very words themselves has been impacted by the worldview that you were raised in.

In charismatic and pentecostal circles there is often a great dislike for words like philosophy, and theology, and they are often thought to be unspiritual.. but just like tradition, everyone has them. Disliking them and pretending that you don't have them just ensures your blindness to them and your inability to overcome them.

For example, most charismatic/pentecostals have a modern worldview, based on modernist philosophy. They themselves in most cases have no idea how much their views and understandings of everything have been influenced by such things because they have never bothered to study them, or even become aware of them.

If you become aware of the role that these things play in influencing you and begin to understand it, you can over come the biases involved and look at things more independantly and more objectively. By refusing to consider them, most people just doom themselves to being controled by their tradition, as much as any Catholic or Eastern Orthodox person is by theirs.

so the first, and crucial step in discussing tradition and its role is that everyone needs to begin to be aware that they have a tradition and that it is impacting their doctrines and the way they understand scripture.
Coming to realizations like this can shake people's comfort zone quite a bit so a lot of people aren't willing to do it.

I have to go offline for a bit but when I get back I'll post on authority. I'm looking forward to the discussion :)
I would also add that while most of us have a modernist view the world in which we live is for the most part post-modern.

Unless we come to grips with that we will never reach them.

John O.

[lismore]

Most Pentecostals that I've known have expressed a pretty strong dislike to anything which they call "tradition".

In my experience pentecostals sometimes say they hate tradition, but just about everything that they do is based on a pentecostal tradition.

Tradition is something that is handed down. Here is a good scripture:

Judges 2:10

After that whole generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation grew up, who knew neither the LORD nor what he had done for Israel. 11 Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD and served the Baals

The knowledge of God was not handed down and the people turned to idols.

Where tradition becomes a problem is where it nullifies the word of God.

:)

[Simon_Templar]

Authority is a very important issue biblically. It is also one of the prime examples of an issue where our traditions have handicapped us in our ability to properly understand scripture without most of us even knowing it.

For most of us charismatics and pentecostals (as well as most evangelicals) our concept of authority is based on the modern ideas of democracy and individualism.
The problem is, while representative government may be good, democracy as a principle, and invdividualism have no place in a scriptural understanding of authority.

God is an absolute monarch. Today when we look back on history at the idea of divine right of kings and such, we think of it as an archaic excuse used by tyrants to justify their rule etc.
The problem is that the basic idea behind this principle, is biblical and the very idea itself developed because of the fact that the whole world knew for millenia, since the very beginning of history, that God appointed rulers.

The concept quickly became twisted among fallen people, but the basic truth behind it remains that God appoints rulers, and he gives them authority.

Authority is defined as the right to do something. We recognize the links between the words authority, authorize, author, etc. The most basic truth about authority in scripture is that God has all authority. He has the right to do everything. He has authority over everyone and everything and no one has any rights against him.

In scripture it is recognized from beginning to end that all authority, wether spiritual, or political, or familial, comes directly from God.

Further, one of the basic truths recognized about authority, which we have forgotten in the modern era is that when a person is given authority, within the realm of their authority, they represent and stand in the place of the one who gave them authority.
This was always recognized up to modern times that to act against an agent of the king, was to act against the king himself. This is the same in scripture. When people in scripture rebelled against someone that God appointed, it is presented that they rebelled against God himself.

Biblically rebellion (which is disregard for, or hatred for, or disobedience to, authority) is considered synonymous with witchcraft.

Authority is always given as protection. God established human governments and gave them authority in order to protect the weak and the innocent from evil doers. God established the order of authority in the family to provide protection, and the same within his people. This principle was always recognized, again, until the modern era changed our concept of authority. The law, the king, all existed to protect and when a person rebelled, they were declared outlaw.. outside the protection of the law.

Authority, by its very nature can not be "taken" it can only be given. No one can take upon themselves the right to do something, thats called usurpation.. to act on your own authority without the authorization of a higher power.

Further, and this one gets very problematic for people today, authority is not destroyed by misuse, or mistakes. Authority contains inherently the right to do well, and the right to do poorly.

Consider this, parents have the God given authority to raise their children. This means that a parent has the right to instruct their children as they see fit in what topics and beliefs they see fit.
If a parent teaches their child poorly, it doesn't mean they do not still have the authority of a parent, or if a parent teaches their child to worship a false god, they still have the authority of a parent.

Certainly they will answer to God for what they do, but the child under their authority has the same obligation to honor them and obey them in all but those things where they contradict God.

Likewise, a government can not be rightly over thrown because they make poor laws, or because they make bad choices in how they wage a war.

Even so, a God appointed leader in the Church can not be over thrown simply because he teaches something wrong, or he does the wrong thing on an issue of discipline or what have you.

Now, there are, of course, mitigating factors to be considered.
#1 - all delegated authority has limits and a person does not have the right to act outside their authority.

A government does not have authority to raise your children, and a parent does not have authority to wage war.

An ordained minister has the authority to teach, but he does not have the authority to run your family, or your career, or determine how you spend your money, or who your friends are etc.

#2 - even when some one is within the bounds of their God given authority, God himself is always the highest authority. So if a parent teaches their child to worship a false God, the child should not obey.
However, the authority itself is not inherently destroyed in this case. Even if a child doesn't have to obey in this particular they still are required to honor their parents and obey in those areas where there is no conflict with God.

The ideas above are all biblical, but are nearly completely foreign to most of the evangelical and charismatic church, why? because we have interpeted the bible in the mindset of our individualism and our modern concept of individual rights, and democracy, usually without even being aware of it.

I would especially point out the results of rebellion biblically. Because the fact is that a good portion, if not all, of the charismatic/evangelical church has been ingrained with rebellion as a basic principle.

If you don't like something about the pastor of the Church, you just leave and go to a different one. Usually of course you talk about the pastor first, behind his back most of the time, making sure not only to rebel yourself but also to undermine his authority with others and try to foment as much rebellion as possible.

This destroys God's protection over us and our Churches. It opens us up to the curse of witchcraft, which is deception and sin.

actually there is a good book I would recommend on this topic called "Under Cover".

[Simon_Templar]

John O,


true, we are living in a changing society.

The change to post-modern is taking place in the Church as well, usually it takes the form of the emerging and the emergent church movements.

There are some positive things going on in the change, but some negative as well.

[Simon_Templar]

Going back to tradition for a moment,

As Lismore said, tradition is simply something that is handed down.

In the case of Christianity, tradition is teachings, and practices. It influences how we understand the bible, how we apply it to daily life, etc.

Tradition, in this sense is directly linked to our heretige, which is one of the great tragedies of the anti-tradition attitude. In addition to making people hypocritical about their own tradition, it has also robbed us of our heretige in the faith.

The Church has existed for 2000 years, and in that time there have been MANY great men and women of God who did great things and were great testaments to faith and to the Glory of God... yet most charismatic/pentecostal churches don't have any heretige going back more than a hundred years or so.

In rejecting the historic traditions, they also rejected the heretige that went with them, and all the fellow saints who handed them down.

The result is that we became isolated and disconnected. One of the great problems in the modern world is disconnectedness because people have been cut off from their history, as well as from their communities. Really the two are usually connected. A people without history is a people without real community.

As a result, even within the charismatic church you usually find that local churches are pretty much cut off from even other charismatic or pentecostal churches.

When you remove authority... and tradition, and with tradition goes heretige, and community, eventually you get to a place where you have very little left of the biblical concept of the body of Christ.


I don't doubt that there are a great many things that built up in "traditions" over the years which are not necessary, and many of which were hinderances and should have been done away with.
However, there is also a great deal of wisdom, understanding on numerous issues both practical and doctrinal which are handed down because the Holy Spirit has been active in the Church for 2000 years. He hasn't just been wasting all that time.

So when we reject everything that was handed down, we are essentially impoverishing ourselves.
And when you get to that isolated state, it is also very dangerous because you have removed most of the things which were originally put in place to keep people from straying.

Why do you think it is that churches like the reformed, the catholics, the orthodox, etc, even if you believe them to be totally dead spiritually, have maintained reasonable correct and orthodox teachings on all the core issues of the faith for 2 millenia, where as the evangelicals and the charismatics in a matter of decades have produced all manner of false teachings, and perversions of truth?

There is no doubt that within any of those groups you will find individuals who are off base, but the churches as whole entities, remain on track doctrinally, despite the individuals who go off.
In the charismatic churches, there is little check or balance against false teachings and people who get lead astray, so when they go, they take entire churches and even whole denominations with them.

People think of tradition usually in terms of things like how we worship, with liturgy or without, and things like that, but there is a great deal more involved. It also includes how we understand and think about doctrines like the trinity, the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the nature of the fall and original sin, the attonement, the nature of the gospel, everything.

Tradition ultimately goes back to the apostles. They began the Church by handing down teachings and practices, those in turn were handed down by the generations that followed.

Catholics and Orthodox usually claim that Holy Tradition is all apostolic, most of us would probably disagree at least to some degree. However, I believe that there is a core of tradition that is apostolic and has been maintained by the Church for 2000 years. In addition to that, some of the things which may not be apostolic, are still worthy for the simple fact that the Holy Spirit has been active in the Church and in people for that whole time, he has been revealing truth and teaching, and giving understanding that whole time.

Which brings us back to the isolation of the modern pentecostal/charismatics. Very many of us quite literally seem to believe that the Holy Spirit did virtually nothing from about 70 AD until 1500 AD and then again stopped working shortly after 1500 AD until the advent of the pentecostal and charismatic awakenings in the last century.
In addition to isolating us from our heretige, this has bread a great deal of pride in us.

[NorrinRadd]

Authority is a very important issue biblically. It is also one of the prime examples of an issue where our traditions have handicapped us in our ability to properly understand scripture without most of us even knowing it.

For most of us charismatics and pentecostals (as well as most evangelicals) our concept of authority is based on the modern ideas of democracy and individualism.
The problem is, while representative government may be good, democracy as a principle, and invdividualism have no place in a scriptural understanding of authority.

God is an absolute monarch. Today when we look back on history at the idea of divine right of kings and such, we think of it as an archaic excuse used by tyrants to justify their rule etc.
The problem is that the basic idea behind this principle, is biblical and the very idea itself developed because of the fact that the whole world knew for millenia, since the very beginning of history, that God appointed rulers.

The concept quickly became twisted among fallen people, but the basic truth behind it remains that God appoints rulers, and he gives them authority.

Authority is defined as the right to do something. We recognize the links between the words authority, authorize, author, etc. The most basic truth about authority in scripture is that God has all authority. He has the right to do everything. He has authority over everyone and everything and no one has any rights against him.

In scripture it is recognized from beginning to end that all authority, wether spiritual, or political, or familial, comes directly from God.

Further, one of the basic truths recognized about authority, which we have forgotten in the modern era is that when a person is given authority, within the realm of their authority, they represent and stand in the place of the one who gave them authority.
This was always recognized up to modern times that to act against an agent of the king, was to act against the king himself. This is the same in scripture. When people in scripture rebelled against someone that God appointed, it is presented that they rebelled against God himself.

Biblically rebellion (which is disregard for, or hatred for, or disobedience to, authority) is considered synonymous with witchcraft.

Authority is always given as protection. God established human governments and gave them authority in order to protect the weak and the innocent from evil doers. God established the order of authority in the family to provide protection, and the same within his people. This principle was always recognized, again, until the modern era changed our concept of authority. The law, the king, all existed to protect and when a person rebelled, they were declared outlaw.. outside the protection of the law.

Authority, by its very nature can not be "taken" it can only be given. No one can take upon themselves the right to do something, thats called usurpation.. to act on your own authority without the authorization of a higher power.

Further, and this one gets very problematic for people today, authority is not destroyed by misuse, or mistakes. Authority contains inherently the right to do well, and the right to do poorly.

Consider this, parents have the God given authority to raise their children. This means that a parent has the right to instruct their children as they see fit in what topics and beliefs they see fit.
If a parent teaches their child poorly, it doesn't mean they do not still have the authority of a parent, or if a parent teaches their child to worship a false god, they still have the authority of a parent.

Certainly they will answer to God for what they do, but the child under their authority has the same obligation to honor them and obey them in all but those things where they contradict God.

Likewise, a government can not be rightly over thrown because they make poor laws, or because they make bad choices in how they wage a war.

It's a bit more complicated here in the US, I think. We exist as a nation *because* we rebelled, and our founding documents -- the Declaration of Independence AND the Constitution (via the Second Amendment) implicitly recognize that such action could be necessary in future.

So it's a bit more convoluted when we talk about whether or not it is always "wrong" to overthrow the government of a nation that intrinsically recognizes such is NOT always wrong.

Even so, a God appointed leader in the Church can not be over thrown simply because he teaches something wrong, or he does the wrong thing on an issue of discipline or what have you.

Now, there are, of course, mitigating factors to be considered.
#1 - all delegated authority has limits and a person does not have the right to act outside their authority.

A government does not have authority to raise your children, and a parent does not have authority to wage war.

An ordained minister has the authority to teach, but he does not have the authority to run your family, or your career, or determine how you spend your money, or who your friends are etc.

#2 - even when some one is within the bounds of their God given authority, God himself is always the highest authority. So if a parent teaches their child to worship a false God, the child should not obey.
However, the authority itself is not inherently destroyed in this case. Even if a child doesn't have to obey in this particular they still are required to honor their parents and obey in those areas where there is no conflict with God.

The ideas above are all biblical, but are nearly completely foreign to most of the evangelical and charismatic church, why? because we have interpeted the bible in the mindset of our individualism and our modern concept of individual rights, and democracy, usually without even being aware of it.

I would especially point out the results of rebellion biblically. Because the fact is that a good portion, if not all, of the charismatic/evangelical church has been ingrained with rebellion as a basic principle.

If you don't like something about the pastor of the Church, you just leave and go to a different one. Usually of course you talk about the pastor first, behind his back most of the time, making sure not only to rebel yourself but also to undermine his authority with others and try to foment as much rebellion as possible.

This destroys God's protection over us and our Churches. It opens us up to the curse of witchcraft, which is deception and sin.

actually there is a good book I would recommend on this topic called "Under Cover".You've painted us into a tight little corner there, ST. We're not to just up and leave the church, we're not to "overthrow" the erring pastor... Just what *should* we do when a pastor is teaching error?

I think you also need to be careful about your application of the idea of "authority" within the Body of Christ. You've neatly asserted the Biblical points about obedience and rebellion, but you omitted some of Jesus's teachings on the matter -- notably that our leaders are NOT to be as those of the pagans, who "lord it over" those under their authority. In the Body of Christ, leadership is manifested through *service* -- hence the term, "minister." There is an authority structure, but it is not nearly as unambiguously "top-down" as you imply. Paul clearly teaches the importance and interdependence of *all* members of the body. You may see this teaching as erroneous interpretation on my part, and largely responsible for the problems in the P/C world; I can just as easily argue that the big errors really come from individuals who make grandiose claims of "prophetic" or "apostolic" authority.

Similarly, I'm concerned about the implications of your allusion to "familial" authority structures. I hope you're not advocating a patriarchal structure with the "man of the house" as "prophet, priest, and king" of the household, when in fact Scripture teaches *mutual* submission of husband and wife, and even goes so far as to instruct that masters behave toward their slaves in "the same way" (ISV, NET, NIV, TNIV) as the slaves were instructed to behave toward their masters. The home is the microcosm of the Church.

[BenAdam]

A quick aside....

Discussions such as this one are the major reason I come to forums. Bravo to all on this thread, keep the great discussion going. :thumbsup:

[BenAdam]

Tradition has its place but sadly not everything that is tradition should be tradition. Let us look at what may be cultural norms. In a service the common vernacular is used (maybe even some pop culture references and the like) and people tend to dress in the garb of the period. Eventually you have a Latin Mass and priestly vestments which in all reality have zero bearing on Christianity.

[BrBob]

Below is something I wrote while trying to figure out authority issues after leaving a church where authority was being abused.

Authority = Responsibility

Authority in the church is a responsibility. A pastor is responsible for taking care of his flock and running the church (if that is what God has called him to).

He has tools just like any other man in charge but they are different tools. The tools he uses are prayer and Holy Spirit guidance. Within his job description he has two distinct groups to serve. One, the congregation - his responsibilities there lie in teaching and ministering (serving) them. Two, the staff of the church – his responsibilities there are quite different and come under different authorities. As a pastor of a church he acts as administrator of the ‘business’ of running it. In order for this to work efficiently he must be able and willing to hire, oversee staff, teach staff, discipline staff and at times – fire staff. It’s a different level of responsibility than that of serving his flock.

As pastor, he must be able to teach and otherwise influence the people and at times he will come across instances where he believes a person may need some discipline. That is when Holy Spirit direction is especially important. The Bible teaches methods of discipline but they must be applied to the correct area of the church. A member of the congregation should be counseled up to the point where his/her behavior is dangerous to the rest of the flock. When that point is reached, then and only then should the option of removing the person from the assembly be exercised. Definitions and guidelines are important here. A person being dangerous to the rest of the flock is hard to define but for practical purposes the definition should include that ideological differences other than apostasy are not dangerous, nor are behaviors that don’t negatively affect other members of the congregation. On the converse side of that, a person who has decided to infiltrate the church and who is in reality a Satanist, for example, that person is dangerous and should be expelled. If a person is violent or obviously intoxicated, they may need to be expelled at least for a short time. (The operative word being short.) The objective of such an expulsion would be for reconciliation.

In no way does authority in the church allow a pastor or another five-fold minister to lord his will over another person. Being in a place of authority in the church does not give a person a right from God to kick someone out of the church because of a difference of opinion, even if that person is vocal about that opinion. The pastor can suggest that the person would be more comfortable in another body but that is as far as he can go. Now, there is a time when a person may be imbued with a spirit of rebellion and be influential enough to cause serious trouble within a church. This would be a different situation. Biblical methods of discipline would then be put into motion and if the person does not repent, then action would need to be taken. This would be extreme and generally a whole church uproar would be involved before the person would be expelled.

Within the church staff that authority to discipline and instruct staff lies within the employer-employee relationship. The leader of the church body is God. The pastor is meant to lead, teach and counsel. The other staff is also led by God. Staff and Pastor are to have similar (same) or complementary visions for the church body or they are in the wrong place. God will place the individuals together to bring His will into being. A pastor needs to be able to lead without subjugating staff. He needs to rely on Holy Spirit to supply direction and confirming vision within the staff.

God will lead His church. Pastors are not business leaders and can’t expect to lead in the same way that leaders of business do. Prayer and seeking direction are the pastor’s tools for leading staff. Extensive use of these tools prevents injection of man’s will into God’s church.


God Bless
Bob
Spearfish, SD

[Simon_Templar]

It's a bit more complicated here in the US, I think. We exist as a nation *because* we rebelled, and our founding documents -- the Declaration of Independence AND the Constitution (via the Second Amendment) implicitly recognize that such action could be necessary in future.

actually, this is more complicated than you think. Technically the US didn't rebel. There were several important political philosophers which formed the foundations of the original political philosophy of the US. Probably the most important were Rutherford, Montesque and Locke. (and blackstone for legal theory)

Rutherford in his book Lex Rex (Law and the King or Law over the King) argues very persuasively based on scripture that God appoints leaders, BUT he works together with the people in doing so.
Rutherford uses the example of King David. David in scripture was annointed king by God long before he actually became the real ruler of Israel and he didn't, infact, become the actual ruler of Israel until the people acclaimed him as king.

This laid the foundation for the idea that rulers rule at the consent of the ruled. This principle has biblical basis, as well as basis in Church history, and it doesn't contradict with the idea of God ordained authority.

Locke took what Rutherford had already shown and built on it.
If you accept that God allows people to choose their own rulers, then by logical extention, you come to the conclusion that God has vested political sovereignty in the people themselves and they give it, by consent, to a government which is over them.
This then, essentially forms a contract between the people who are giving sovereignty to the government, and the government itself which wields sovereignty on behalf of the people, in the interests of the people.

The phrase "right of revolution" is commonly used in regard to Locke's theory here. However, there is no right of rebellion. The difference is that under Locke's theory as long as the government is operating within the bounds of its contract (ie its authority) there is no right for the people to over throw it or disolve it.
However, if the government acts outside of the contract, by taking action against the interests of the people in a grevious fashion, under Locke's theory the government has disolved itself.

So, in the case of the american colonies, the English crown had taken a series of actions which were against the interests of the people, thus the English crown had essentially disolved its own contract of government with the colonies. So the colonies did not rebel, because there was no rightful authority there anymore.
That is what the declaration of independance is referring to when it says the bit about a long string of abuses which inevitably pursue the same ends.



So it's a bit more convoluted when we talk about whether or not it is always "wrong" to overthrow the government of a nation that intrinsically recognizes such is NOT always wrong.

technically its always wrong to over throw a government. Under the american system, the government must disolve itself and its contract with the people by pursuing a string of abuses (understood to be actions outside of the rightful authority) which inevitably pursue the end of tyranny.

But consider this, the apostles lived under unquestionably one of the worst rulers in history, yet they wrote "honor the emperor".


You've painted us into a tight little corner there, ST. We're not to just up and leave the church, we're not to "overthrow" the erring pastor... Just what *should* we do when a pastor is teaching error?

This is a difficult question. Its all the more difficult because in our situation its very difficult to say that anyone really has just authority. So many people are self appointed that its hard to really say "this man is rightly ordained of God" etc.

However, assuming that the pastor in question is a rightly ordained authority, then the question becomes, what is the error? Is it within the bounds of his authority or is it not?
In the shepharding movement, there were a lot of pastors who went way beyond their rightful authority and began trying to control how people spent their money, their career decisions, all sorts of stuff like that. While a pastor may teach about issues relating to those things, they have no authority to dictate to people in those areas.

A big problem in this area is that people don't trust God. If a pastor is teaching something that you feel is wrong regarding prayer, or even grace, or faith, or whatever doctrine, we should have faith that God will correct the issue. The proper response is to pray and to speak to the pastor about it.
If you are truly under authority, you have to trust that both you, and the pastor are in God's hands and God will see that everything works out rightly.



I think you also need to be careful about your application of the idea of "authority" within the Body of Christ. You've neatly asserted the Biblical points about obedience and rebellion, but you omitted some of Jesus's teachings on the matter -- notably that our leaders are NOT to be as those of the pagans, who "lord it over" those under their authority. In the Body of Christ, leadership is manifested through *service* -- hence the term, "minister." There is an authority structure, but it is not nearly as unambiguously "top-down" as you imply.

This is a common mistake of the modern, egalitarian mindset. There is no such thing as egalitarian authority. Authority by its very nature is top down, it is heirarchical.

There are absolutely requirements placed upon those who are in authority. In fact, they are held to a much higher standard biblically, than the rest of the Church. Where as a Church member is responsible for themselves, the bible states that a pastor is held responsible for all the souls under his care.

The teaching about lording it over each other, is not a statement that mitigates authority, it is a statement about the humility and heart-attitude required by God of people who are in authority.
Men, being human, have frequently missed the boat on that issue, but it doesn't invalidate the authority because the authority doesn't come from them, it comes from God.


Paul clearly teaches the importance and interdependence of *all* members of the body. You may see this teaching as erroneous interpretation on my part, and largely responsible for the problems in the P/C world; I can just as easily argue that the big errors really come from individuals who make grandiose claims of "prophetic" or "apostolic" authority..

Paul does teach the importance and the interdependance of the body. That, however, is not the same thing as egalitarianism. Every part of the body is important, and every part has a role to play. A leader is not more worthy, or more important than a follower. The eye is not more important than the big toe.

Paul also teaches "obey those that have the rule over your..." (specifically said about church leaders, not political leaders) and things like that.

The biggest problem with people who make grandiose claims of prophetic and apostolic authority (in the P/C Church) is that most of the time they are in fact usurpers. They are trying to take authority upon themselves that they have not been given.

The biblical model for ordination is that a person was annointed or ordained by someone who already had authority. There are exceptions to this, such as the case of Paul. However, the general rule is that people are ordained by the laying on of hands from someone who already has authority. Even in the case of Paul, he submitted his calling and ordination to the council of James, John, and Peter.


Similarly, I'm concerned about the implications of your allusion to "familial" authority structures. I hope you're not advocating a patriarchal structure with the "man of the house" as "prophet, priest, and king" of the household, when in fact Scripture teaches *mutual* submission of husband and wife, and even goes so far as to instruct that masters behave toward their slaves in "the same way" (ISV, NET, NIV, TNIV) as the slaves were instructed to behave toward their masters. The home is the microcosm of the Church.

The biblical model of familial authority is clearly patriarchal. There is no denying it. It is stated as such over and over again.

You point out the idea of mutual submission, which is true, but its a case of apples to oranges. Everyone in the Church is required to submit to everyone else. This doesn't invalidate authority.

Jesus submitted himself to his disciples, when he washed their feet. Yet there was never any question about his authority over them.
The idea of Christian submission in this sense is not in terms of obedience and lordship, but rather in terms of needs and interests.
When I submit myself to you, I am not acknowledging that you have authority over me. I am putting your needs ahead of mine, your interests ahead of mine.

That is a crucial thing that leaders should understand, together with the requirement of humility, that they are required to put the needs and interests of their flock, ahead of their own, just as Jesus did for his disciples, and for us all.

[Tamara224]

I would especially point out the results of rebellion biblically. Because the fact is that a good portion, if not all, of the charismatic/evangelical church has been ingrained with rebellion as a basic principle.

If you don't like something about the pastor of the Church, you just leave and go to a different one. Usually of course you talk about the pastor first, behind his back most of the time, making sure not only to rebel yourself but also to undermine his authority with others and try to foment as much rebellion as possible.

This destroys God's protection over us and our Churches. It opens us up to the curse of witchcraft, which is deception and sin.

actually there is a good book I would recommend on this topic called "Under Cover".

This is the only part that you've written that I have to disagree with.

And I would ask, along with NorrinRadd... what then should a Christian do who finds him or herself in a church with a pastor who is a wolf in sheep's clothing? Surely, you cannot be suggesting that the sheep should simply continue to be led astray by such?

The thing is that Pentecostal/Charismatics have attempted, in various "movements" to form a heirarchical structure and impose ideas of authority. And in every instance that I know of, what has happened is abuse. The under-shepherd (pastor), if he wasn't a wolf to begin with, was sooner or later (and I've seen it happen within a couple of months) corrupted by the power. He (or she, even) soon begins to lord it over people.

And, I've never been to a Pentecostal church that did not recognize the pastor as the ultimate authority in the church. In word, they claim that God is the ultimate authority. But in practice, it is the pastor who calls all the shots.

Maybe the problem isn't lack of authority. Maybe the problem is a failure to understand the kind of authority that the Church is supposed to have. For the most part, churches in America are formed and run on the premise that they are a corporation. The pastor is the CEO, the elders are VPs and authority trickles down from the head to the rest of the people.

That is the modernist approach to church. It's based on the idea that authority must be vested mainly in one person, one human "head" who runs things from above and dictates his will to everyone else.

But that is not the Biblical Church. I believe that if Paul, our main source of what the Church is and should be, had wanted to give the idea that the church is a psuedo-governmental authority with a heirarchical structure, he would have compared the Church to government. But he never did. His most prominent metaphor of the Church is a body whose members are equal. And the Head is Christ. Does the head need to talk to the mouth so the mouth can tell the hand to grasp something? No, the head communicates with the hand directly.

Does this mean there is no order, no authority, no boundaries? No. I don't believe so. I believe that there needs to be people who watch over and are responsible for guiding the flock. However, I think it is very rare for those who are truly pastors to be recognized as such. Those who stand in front of a pulpit may or may not actually be shepherds.

I believe that true authority in the Church is vested in those who serve. Those who are humble.

This is what is supposed to make the Church different from anything God has done among man before.

IMHO.

[BenAdam]

Tamarra, if I may comment. A Pastor that abuses the position has IMHO abdicated the role of being a Pastor and therefore is not in the position of Pastor any longer. Now that obviously does not apply to mistakes and gaffs but wholesale abuse of position and authority. (The whole subject of pastoral authority is another question all together).

[Simon_Templar]

Tradition has its place but sadly not everything that is tradition should be tradition. Let us look at what may be cultural norms. In a service the common vernacular is used (maybe even some pop culture references and the like) and people tend to dress in the garb of the period. Eventually you have a Latin Mass and priestly vestments which in all reality have zero bearing on Christianity.

agreed, there are things which get into tradition which are not necessary, or even not important.

However, even those things shouldn't necessarily be rejected, just because.

The worship of the Church should be conducted in the language of the people. It was always done so originally, otherwise there would never have even been a latin mass, because the original language of the Church was Greek, not Latin.

Vestments are not necessary, but they can serve useful purposes. As with most of the trappings of a traditional liturgical service, the things involved are meant to be symbolic.

Having two candles on the alter, for example, symbolizes that Jesus Christ was both God and Man. Mixing water in with the wine at communion similarly reflects his human nature and his divine nature.
The alter itself symbolizes the throne of God in heaven.

etc etc.

Are all those things necessary.. no. However, they can be very useful, and very meaningful if done right.

using the example of vestments. My pastor uses them and he says that one of the main reasons for them is to essentially make the person of the minister invisible. When he is up at the alter wearing vestments, he just blends in with the rest of the alter. Also, it shows that its not about him, as a person. He isn't up there because he is bob and bob is annointed, he's up there because he has been given authority by Jesus Christ. So its not about Bob at all.. its about a representative of Jesus Christ.
I can see all that, and of those reasons I think the most important is that it removes focus from the personality of the minister. However, for me personally, the reason I like using vestments is different. To me, when I go to Church I want it to be different than the world. To me sacredness is a big deal. I don't want to go to church and feel like I'm sitting in a coffee shop, or what have you. I want Church to be set apart, not ordinary. Vestments remind me that there is something special about Church. Vestments remind me that this a place and a time, where heaven and earth meet as we worship at the throne of God, in the company of saints and angels.

things like that should not be allowed to become legalistic, but they should not be despised either.

[BenAdam]

agreed, there are things which get into tradition which are not necessary, or even not important.

However, even those things shouldn't necessarily be rejected, just because.

The worship of the Church should be conducted in the language of the people. It was always done so originally, otherwise there would never have even been a latin mass, because the original language of the Church was Greek, not Latin.

Vestments are not necessary, but they can serve useful purposes. As with most of the trappings of a traditional liturgical service, the things involved are meant to be symbolic.

Having two candles on the alter, for example, symbolizes that Jesus Christ was both God and Man. Mixing water in with the wine at communion similarly reflects his human nature and his divine nature.
The alter itself symbolizes the throne of God in heaven.

etc etc.

Are all those things necessary.. no. However, they can be very useful, and very meaningful if done right.

using the example of vestments. My pastor uses them and he says that one of the main reasons for them is to essentially make the person of the minister invisible. When he is up at the alter wearing vestments, he just blends in with the rest of the alter. Also, it shows that its not about him, as a person. He isn't up there because he is bob and bob is annointed, he's up there because he has been given authority by Jesus Christ. So its not about Bob at all.. its about a representative of Jesus Christ.
I can see all that, and of those reasons I think the most important is that it removes focus from the personality of the minister. However, for me personally, the reason I like using vestments is different. To me, when I go to Church I want it to be different than the world. To me sacredness is a big deal. I don't want to go to church and feel like I'm sitting in a coffee shop, or what have you. I want Church to be set apart, not ordinary. Vestments remind me that there is something special about Church. Vestments remind me that this a place and a time, where heaven and earth meet as we worship at the throne of God, in the company of saints and angels.

things like that should not be allowed to become legalistic, but they should not be despised either.
An excellent response over all and one worthy of reputation (as is this entire thread).

I think we are entering areas of preference and POV. I feel that vestments draw attention to the clergy. Therefore for the entire reason you prefer them I would adopt an idea where clergy should not be distinguishable from the congregation. When I am in the Church (as opposed to going to a church) I want us to appear as a Body. I want my life to be that of a believer whether I'm in a Coffee Shop, Mall, Cathedral, or what have you.

I don't eschew tradition, but it needs to be in its proper place, not made something holy or required.

[jeolmstead]

While I’ve always said I’m not God’s policeman. I think we can glean an understanding of biblical authority by looking at the position.

A policeman has all the authority of the state when he properly administers his duties. Most will recognize his authority. That is why an eighty thousand pound truck will stop when he raises his hand. It’s not that he has any power in his hand to stop it. It’s the recognition of the power behind him that stops it.

He is also provided with the tools necessary to enforce the law of the land. He can use these tools on those who would not obey. He is even justified to use even deadly force if the circumstances warrant it.

If however he steps out of his state given authority and acts improperly or according to his own will he forfeits his position and has no authority. He is now held accountable to the state for which he once served.

We have all the authority of the kingdom of God to be about the kingdom’s business. If we try to claim authority beyond that we have no authority.

A wolf in sheep’s clothing has no authority. He is like the guy who rents a policeman’s uniform for a costume party. If you know he is not a cop you are not obliged to listen to him. If he represents himself as a cop he will be turned over to the proper authorities.

John O.

[BenAdam]

While I’ve always said I’m not God’s policeman. I think we can glean an understanding of biblical authority by looking at the position.

A policeman has all the authority of the state when he properly administers his duties. Most will recognize his authority. That is why an eighty thousand pound truck will stop when he raises his hand. It’s not that he has any power in his hand to stop it. It’s the recognition of the power behind him that stops it.

He is also provided with the tools necessary to enforce the law of the land. He can use these tools on those who would not obey. He is even justified to use even deadly force if the circumstances warrant it.

If however he steps out of his state given authority and acts improperly or according to his own will he forfeits his position and has no authority. He is now held accountable to the state for which he once served.

We have all the authority of the kingdom of God to be about the kingdom’s business. If we try to claim authority beyond that we have no authority.

A wolf in sheep’s clothing has no authority. He is like the guy who rents a policeman’s uniform for a costume party. If you know he is not a cop you are not obliged to listen to him. If he represents himself as a cop he will be turned over to the proper authorities.

John O.

Something intresting you said here John. A police officer has authority to enforce laws. But under what context does he have the authority to enforce laws? Under the context of a ostensibly unbiased enforcer. He doesn't get to decide what laws to enforce (or shouldn't anyway, although discretion should be used) and more importantly he doesn't get to enforce the laws in such a way that they benefit him and his ideas of how things should be. If he did that would be a betrayal of the public trust. He wields authority for the protection and benefit of the public. He is a public servant and when in and out of uniform should have no special privledges given to him except in allowing him to perform his duties. How many people in ministry abuse their positions for personal gain?

[Simon_Templar]

Tamarra,

The problem we face with the question of "what about a pastor who is abusing his position" is that so many times, people are unjust in the way they assess things like that because the people themselves are already rebellious.

There are always going to be problems on either extreme that we can point to. On the extreme of authority there were the abuses of the shepharding movement etc, there are the personality cult churches were the 'annointed' leader hears everything from God etc etc etc.

On the other hand, there are many many cases where legitimate pastors are constantly undercut by rebellious gossip and backbiting, and any time a person has a even a minor disagreement they pack up and leave and go looking for another church.

Also, I think we face a real problem in the P/C Church that its hard to find legitimate authorities because so many of the 'leaders' have simply appointed themselves, or gotten where they are through rebellion etc.

going to Paul's teaching on the Church and authority in the Church, its an area where we have selective vision. Because we have a set idea already in our minds of what the Church should be structured like, that we tend to see scriptures which support that, and not see ones that don't.
One of the most amazing things to me was when I started reading through scripture specifically looking for things regarding certain issues (one of them was baptism). I was shocked because I'd read scripture and been taught scripture all my life, but suddenly I was seeing things all over the place that I'd never seen before. It was simply because the mind filters out things that don't fit within its pre-conceived structures. Thats why when calvinists read the bible they see nothing but scriptures that support predestination, and when Arminians read the bible they see nothing but scriptures which support free-will. Both are amazed that the other side can't see what is so blatantly obvious "in the Word".

This is an issue where I think tradition is important. You mentioned the fact that Paul equated the Church with a body of which Christ is the head.
If you go back to the very earliest writings of the Church, writings that follow immediately after the new testament, shortly after the death of the original apostles, the clear teaching is that the elders and bishops of the Church are representatives of Christ. They literally stand in the place of Christ, to the congregation.
This idea is accurate to how the bible presents authority.

Two concepts that are important here are that of the priest and the apostle. A priest is a person who goes to God on behalf of people, an apostles is a person who goes to people on behalf of God.
We are all priests in the sense that we do not need someone to go to God on our behalf, we can go ourselves. Jesus is our high priest because he is the one who went to God and reconciled us to him.
In a sense we are all apostles as well, in that we are sent by God to the nations on his behalf. However there are apostles who are sent specifically to the Church and in that office, they are God's representatives to the Church.

The idea of the early Church that God's appointed elders and bishops stood in the place of Jesus Christ, is in line with what the bible teaches. They are his representatives, they carry his authority, and thus when people reject them, they are rebelling against Jesus.

The objection of "what about someone who is teaching or doing wrong" must be considered. Yet we always seem to think that our only options are abject obedience, or complete rebellion.
It is possible to not obey a wrong teaching, without rebelling against the authority involved.

The first example that comes to mind is the hebrew children with Nebuchadnezer. When he ordered them to bow down, they didn't say "you have no authority over us, so we're not going to obey you, you tyrant!"
They said "We won't disobey God, O King". They recognized his rightful authority, even as they refused to obeya command that was contrary to a higher authority.

Or look at the apostles when they were brought before the sanhedrin. They didn't say "you bunch of apostates, you have no authority over us!" They recognized the authority of the council, but also recognized and pointed out that they were subject to a higher authority "is it right to obey God or men?"

when it comes to the issue of a wolf in sheeps clothing, the biblical and traditional standard is that you had better be right :). We absolutely should not follow false teachers and wolves in sheeps clothing. However, if you're wrong and you reject a true person its bad news for you.
Its very much like a soldier in the Army. You are legally obligated to follow orders, except if the order is illegal/immoral, but you had better absolutely be right because you are putting your butt on the line.

[Simon_Templar]

BenAdam,
(the quote function doesn't seem to be working right atm)

the issue of sacredness is always an interesting balance for me.

I very much believe that for a believer, all of life is sacred. However, I also believe that we as humans need times and places that are truly set apart from daily life.

One of the amazing things about knowing God is that you begin to see how sacred everything is... everything that was ordinary, becomes so much more. Yet at the same time, it doesn't, for me, remove the desire for things in life which are set apart from the every day.

[jeolmstead]

I think another example of the abuse of power come from the desire of people to have a king:


1 Sam 8:4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20sam%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-7375afen-NIV-7375a)] us, such as all the other nations have."
6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

(Compare these verses with some of the things we see in the church now)

10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20sam%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-7386bfen-NIV-7386b)] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."


Carnal people want kings to worship. They find them anywhere they can and they’ll place them in the pulpit if we let them.

John O.

[Simon_Templar]

I think another example of the abuse of power come from the desire of people to have a king:


1 Sam 8:4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20sam%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-7375afen-NIV-7375a)] us, such as all the other nations have."
6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

(Compare these verses with some of the things we see in the church now)

10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20sam%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-7386bfen-NIV-7386b)] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."


Carnal people want kings to worship. They find them anywhere they can and they’ll place them in the pulpit if we let them.

John O.
It should be remembered that even before Israel had a king, they still had a person whom God appointed to be his representative.

They had the Judges and the prophets whom God appointed as his representatives.

Notice that when the people rejected Samuel, whom God has appointed to them they were, infact, rejecting God.

There is an interesting point here. When people reject God's authority, they are left with tyranny. God appointed judges and prophets as representatives to his people. They rejected those whom God appointed and in so doing rejected God's authority over them. The result was that they were left as slaves under tyranny.

One of the american founders made a quote something like this "those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."

The leaders that God appoints in the Church are not potentates, or princes (though that is what they became), but they are stewards and governors who hold authority in trust from God.

[jeolmstead]

It should be remembered that even before Israel had a king, they still had a person whom God appointed to be his representative.

They had the Judges and the prophets whom God appointed as his representatives.

Notice that when the people rejected Samuel, whom God has appointed to them they were, infact, rejecting God.

There is an interesting point here. When people reject God's authority, they are left with tyranny. God appointed judges and prophets as representatives to his people. They rejected those whom God appointed and in so doing rejected God's authority over them. The result was that they were left as slaves under tyranny.

One of the american founders made a quote something like this "those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."

The leaders that God appoints in the Church are not potentates, or princes (though that is what they became), but they are stewards and governors who hold authority in trust from God.
William Penn said it long ago: "Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants."

[BenAdam]

William Penn said it long ago: "Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants."
Didn't he start the BIC corporation?

[Tamara224]

Tamarra,

The problem we face with the question of "what about a pastor who is abusing his position" is that so many times, people are unjust in the way they assess things like that because the people themselves are already rebellious.

There are always going to be problems on either extreme that we can point to. On the extreme of authority there were the abuses of the shepharding movement etc, there are the personality cult churches were the 'annointed' leader hears everything from God etc etc etc.

On the other hand, there are many many cases where legitimate pastors are constantly undercut by rebellious gossip and backbiting, and any time a person has a even a minor disagreement they pack up and leave and go looking for another church.

Yeah, there are always extremes in either way. But the greater evil, by far, the one that causes most damage, the one which God has spoken against often...is the abuse of the flock by the "leaders". Not the rebellious little group of sheep who go off on their own.

Also, I think we face a real problem in the P/C Church that its hard to find legitimate authorities because so many of the 'leaders' have simply appointed themselves, or gotten where they are through rebellion etc.

Exactly.

going to Paul's teaching on the Church and authority in the Church, its an area where we have selective vision. Because we have a set idea already in our minds of what the Church should be structured like, that we tend to see scriptures which support that, and not see ones that don't.

Exactly my point about churches being set up like corporations. People read that into the text of Scripture because they started with that idea. They see a list of the types of callings, for example, "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers" and they assume that's a heirarchical list. When, in fact, the grammatical structure of that text does not support the idea that it is an exclusive list and in any particular order.


This is an issue where I think tradition is important. You mentioned the fact that Paul equated the Church with a body of which Christ is the head.
If you go back to the very earliest writings of the Church, writings that follow immediately after the new testament, shortly after the death of the original apostles, the clear teaching is that the elders and bishops of the Church are representatives of Christ. They literally stand in the place of Christ, to the congregation.
This idea is accurate to how the bible presents authority.

You seem to me to be sort of contradicting yourself here. You acknowledge that one of the problems we have is reading Scripture through our preconceived ideas. So we miss seeing things, we miss the intent, the real meaning.

And yet you suggest that the solution to that is to let tradition tell us what it means?

We already are letting tradition tell us what it means.

The whole idea that there is such an "office" of pastor which is the head and authority of the local Church is a tradition carried over by the Protestants from the RCC.

And yet, I was recently challenged to re-examine Scripture and look, really look, for any indication from either Jesus or the apostles that they expected or required authority to be vested in one man or one class of men (i.e. the clergy). I have come to the conclusion that all of that has been added on and is really man-made tradition that hurts more than it helps.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Holy Spirit has been lazy for the last 2000 years. But the thing about God is that He tends to use us even when we're doing just about everything wrong.

Two concepts that are important here are that of the priest and the apostle. A priest is a person who goes to God on behalf of people, an apostles is a person who goes to people on behalf of God.
We are all priests in the sense that we do not need someone to go to God on our behalf, we can go ourselves. Jesus is our high priest because he is the one who went to God and reconciled us to him.
In a sense we are all apostles as well, in that we are sent by God to the nations on his behalf. However there are apostles who are sent specifically to the Church and in that office, they are God's representatives to the Church.

The idea of the early Church that God's appointed elders and bishops stood in the place of Jesus Christ, is in line with what the bible teaches. They are his representatives, they carry his authority, and thus when people reject them, they are rebelling against Jesus.

See, I humbly suggest that you are reading into Scripture here. I do not see where Scripture teaches that a man can stand in the place of Jesus Christ in the Church.

In practice, Pentecostal churches (and most evangelicals) have placed the pastor in the position as "head" of the church. But the Bible only ever calls Christ the Head of the church.

To say that an authority figure in the Church stands in the place of Christ to the rest of the Church, imo, is to attempt to make that man the "head". Which is, in essence, a usurpation of authority.

The objection of "what about someone who is teaching or doing wrong" must be considered. Yet we always seem to think that our only options are abject obedience, or complete rebellion.
It is possible to not obey a wrong teaching, without rebelling against the authority involved.

The first example that comes to mind is the hebrew children with Nebuchadnezer. When he ordered them to bow down, they didn't say "you have no authority over us, so we're not going to obey you, you tyrant!"
They said "We won't disobey God, O King". They recognized his rightful authority, even as they refused to obeya command that was contrary to a higher authority.

Or look at the apostles when they were brought before the sanhedrin. They didn't say "you bunch of apostates, you have no authority over us!" They recognized the authority of the council, but also recognized and pointed out that they were subject to a higher authority "is it right to obey God or men?"

But, to use a lawyer's phrase... this assumes facts not in evidence.

You are assuming that a pastor/priest (clergy) is, in fact, an authority figure analogous to a king, the Sanhedrin and/or the Israelite priesthood.

I see a vast difference between the authority vested in a King and that vested in a Christian. I do not believe that God has given the Church human "rulers" with the authority to dictate. So, there can be no question of a true Christian leader giving orders akin to what Nebuchadnezzar gave.

The only people who would even attempt to give such an order would be a usurper, as you have yourself said. So, our obligation to their "authority" is zero - because they don't have any authority.

I guess what I"m trying to say is: You have to show me where the Bible says that God authorized men in the Church to have the same functional authority as He gives to governments and as He gave to the priesthood in Israel.

The way I see it is that the Church is a radically different concept from any other structure of human governance, be it government or social/religious structure. This goes hand in hand with the difference between Grace and the Law. Just as we Christians are no longer under the Law, we are no longer ruled by human substitutes for God. Jesus left us, but He sent the Holy Spirit in His place.

Jesus turned the accepted concepts of leadership and authority on their heads when He said things like "if you want to lead, you have to serve."

when it comes to the issue of a wolf in sheeps clothing, the biblical and traditional standard is that you had better be right . We absolutely should not follow false teachers and wolves in sheeps clothing. However, if you're wrong and you reject a true person its bad news for you.
Its very much like a soldier in the Army. You are legally obligated to follow orders, except if the order is illegal/immoral, but you had better absolutely be right because you are putting your butt on the line.

I think it's more important that our attitudes about it be right and how we deal with it be right. If I continue to follow and submit to a wolf in sheep's clothing then I am enabling him to continue to fleece and abuse the other sheep.

I am not suggesting that we forget about humility and submission one to another. That means no back-biting, stirring up strife or promoting rebellious attitudes. It means prayerfully considering things and being led by the Holy Spirit on what to do.

But if I stop going to one church because the pastor is teaching false doctrine...I have not rebelled against God, per se. If I warn others that the wolf is a wolf, that is also not rebelling against God. It needs to be prayerfully done.

But I don't believe there's a special punishment reserved for those who do not recognize an authority figure in the Church. It is not always a rebellious spirit that rejects heirarchy. Usually, IMO, the ones who are rebellious are the ones who want the power themselves and aren't happy that someone else has it. Which is why rebellion is related to witchcraft - it's about humans grasping at more authority and power for themselves.

[boswd]

Ok I have to throw this out here because obviliouly this is referring to the Catholic Church or Orthdox Church.

What traditions do you guys find most appalling? I'm actually very curious?

[BenAdam]

Ok I have to throw this out here because obviliouly this is referring to the Catholic Church or Orthdox Church.

What traditions do you guys find most appalling? I'm actually very curious?
Personally, I find a ruling Clergy to be the most appalling. I see non-denoms falling into this the last couple of decades.

[Tamara224]

Ok I have to throw this out here because obviliouly this is referring to the Catholic Church or Orthdox Church.

What traditions do you guys find most appalling? I'm actually very curious?


Actually, it's not about the Catholic or Orthodox churches at all.

We're discussing what we believe the proper role of tradition and authority are in the Church (universal Church in general and Pentecostal/Charismatic churches more specifically).

The traditions of the Orthodox and Catholics do form a small part of the discussion... But we're not here to slam the traditions of others. More like pointing out the traditions of our own that we often fail to realize are traditions.

[BenAdam]

Actually, it's not about the Catholic or Orthodox churches at all.

We're discussing what we believe the proper role of tradition and authority are in the Church (universal Church in general and Pentecostal/Charismatic churches more specifically).

The traditions of the Orthodox and Catholics do form a small part of the discussion... But we're not here to slam the traditions of others. More like pointing out the traditions of our own that we often fail to realize are traditions.
How about a very prevelant tradition among non-denoms that mainline churches are inherently flawed?

[boswd]

Personally, I find a ruling Clergy to be the most appalling. I see non-denoms falling into this the last couple of decades.
I actually like a form of a governing body so to speak, to keep all the churces within the denomination of one voice etc. But not one person totally rulling over it. Just a body to annoint Pastor's, Reverends etc and to address issues and to make sure churches within this structure follow the voice of it's denom. A sort of a check and balance if you will.

Does that make sense?

[boswd]

Actually, it's not about the Catholic or Orthodox churches at all.

We're discussing what we believe the proper role of tradition and authority are in the Church (universal Church in general and Pentecostal/Charismatic churches more specifically).

The traditions of the Orthodox and Catholics do form a small part of the discussion... But we're not here to slam the traditions of others. More like pointing out the traditions of our own that we often fail to realize are traditions.
Oh I didn't think you were slamming the RCC or The EOC but these two without a doubt and the Angelican Church hold the strongest ties to tradition and authority.

[Tamara224]

Oh I didn't think you were slamming the RCC or The EOC but these two without a doubt and the Angelican Church hold the strongest ties to tradition and authority.

Okay, gotcha. Yeah, that's definitely true.

[Tamara224]

Oh I didn't think you were slamming the RCC or The EOC but these two without a doubt and the Angelican Church hold the strongest ties to tradition and authority.


And welcome to CF, boswd! :wave: Good to have you here.

[boswd]

And welcome to CF, boswd! :wave: Good to have you here.
Glad to be here

[jeolmstead]

Didn't he start the BIC corporation?
No, “Quaker Oats” ;)

[BenAdam]

I actually like a form of a governing body so to speak, to keep all the churces within the denomination of one voice etc. But not one person totally rulling over it. Just a body to annoint Pastor's, Reverends etc and to address issues and to make sure churches within this structure follow the voice of it's denom. A sort of a check and balance if you will.

Does that make sense?
There is a difference between a centralized adminstration (which I really don't have an issue with) and overlordship. You see extremely authoritarian leaderships in P/C churches (who should know better concerning the debacle of the shepherding movement) that is reminiscent of the Papal authority in the Late Middle Ages although on a smaller scale.

[BenAdam]

No, “Quaker Oats” ;)
hehehe good one!

[boswd]

I would also like to add that I think it's great to have discussions/debates like this. For this is the only way for us as believer's to truely understand each other's faith's even if we don't totally agree on certain things.

But an understanding and could disspell any previous thoughts one might have held in a negative light without truely understanding them.

So thanks for the topic

[jeolmstead]

There is a difference between a centralized adminstration (which I really don't have an issue with) and overlordship. You see extremely authoritarian leaderships in P/C churches (who should know better concerning the debacle of the shepherding movement) that is reminiscent of the Papal authority in the Late Middle Ages although on a smaller scale.
The shepherding movement however was not ruled over by one man, it was ruled by multiplicity.

There were many hands involved.

I think the problem is not how many lead in as much as is it Godly leadership?

John O.

[Simon_Templar]

Tamara,

focusing specifically on the question of church heirarchical leadership.

I would suggest that all your doing is renewing the problem of "I have no tradition". Not all tradition is necessarily formal religious tradition.

we all have a structure of ideas and assumptions that frames how we see the world. The only way to come near to objectivity is to be aware of that, to know what ideas you are holding and how they are influencing you.

I'm not suggesting that we should avoid tradition in trying to understand the bible, I'm suggesting that we should consider which tradition is more likely to be accurate in understanding the bible. For example, one of the key questions people need to ask themselves is, is a modern mindset born in the last 200 years, really going to understand the bible better than an ancient mindset which existed when the bible was written.

I understand that I am using tradition to influence how I interpet the bible. I have come to the conclusion after considering the various frames of reference, that the ancient tradition is more accurate, and is a better one from which to view the bible.

you use the reference to the "five fold ministry" I don't particularly think that is talking about heirarchy. Its just listing different ministries, and I don't think its meant to be a comprehensive all inclusive list either. Its just giving an example of the variety of ministries.

For example, an apostle is almost always a teacher as well. There is no record either biblically or historically that there was ever such a thing as an authoritative office of "a prophet" within the Church. The ministry of being a teacher did not confer authority at all, but those who had authority were required to be teachers.

I think part of the problem here is that in the modern P/C view, the idea is that the ministry itself grants authority. Thus everyone who feels called or gifted as a teacher, thinks that they have authority to teach etc. Well thats not biblical. Ministration of a gift does not confer authority.

However, there are very clear and very distinct instances in scripture where both Jesus and his apostles DO speak about authority and more importantly institute actual offices of authority.

Looking at Jesus. The infamous incident where Jesus gives Peter the keys of the Kingdom etc. This scripture is very controversial because of what Rome has built on it. Yet, the fact remains that Jesus is granting authority to his 12 apostles and there is zero indication either in scripture, or in history until the modern era that he gave it to anyone other than his apostles.

In that instance he gives the authority of binding and loosing, which is much misunderstood as well as giving the keys of the kingdom, and if the scripture is read honestly, he is speaking specifically to Peter.

The authority of binding and loosing was two fold, it was authority to teach, and it was authority to allow, or forbid actions in terms of practical application of teaching. The keys of the kingdom is also a grant of authority. In the bible the symbol of a key always relates to authority. Holding the key meant that you could open, or close the way, you could allow, or disallow. This speaks specifically to the authority to bring people into the Church, and the authority to cast them out.
As I said, in that instance Jesus is speaking specifically to Peter. This is established by the fact that in the greek when he says "you" it is singular, not plural. So he's speaking to only one person and in the context its obvious its Peter. Rome builds stakes their tent on that.

However, a few chapter's later Jesus gives the exact same authority to the rest of the 12 apostles. So while Peter was singled out because of his confession, there is no indication that he had greater authority than the rest of the 12.

In that instance they are given authority to teach, they are given authority to establish pracitces, and they are given authority to bring people into the Church, and to cast people out of the Church.

Later, after the crucifixion Jesus speaks to the 12 again, and he breaths on them and says "receive the Holy Spirit". He then immediately goes on to tell them that they have authority to not only forgive sins, but even more shockingly, they have the authority to NOT forgive sins. "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."

I had read that numerous times without ever noticing it, until I had it pointed out to me and when I read it again I was shocked.

there is no indication in scripture that this authority is given to every believer.

This will probably not be well liked, but the statement that Jesus makes to his disciples "When the Holy Spirit comes he will lead you into all truth" does not apply to all believers, it applied to the 12 Apostles.
The Holy Spirit literally lead them into all truth. That is why they were able to write infallible inspired scripture. We do not have that same ability.

When the apostles came together in council in Jerusalem, their decision was held to be authoritative and binding for all Christians everywhere, for all time. It was held to be essentially, scripture.

Paul talks on numerous occasions about appointing "elders" and "overseers". Deacons are also of course mentioned in acts.

The method of appointing these people was ordination by the laying on of hands. The whole point of doing this was that the person who laid on hands was passing on authority to the person whom they were laying hands on.
Paul talks about this in his letters to Timothy and to Titus.

In Hebrew 13:7 it says
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of [their] conversation.

The word "rule" here is the same as that used for kings and princes. Its where we get the english word "hegemony"

In 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.

Few things indicate Paul's teaching on this better than the fact that he began virtually everyone of his letters by claiming the office of Apostle and presenting himself as a representative of Jesus Christ. Paul repeatedly stresses the fact that his office and his authority were given to him directly from Jesus Christ. He also makes it clear in his letters to Timothy that he has passed on that authority to Timothy.

In the beginning of Timothy Paul makes it clear that not only he, but the people he has pointed have authority to establish doctrine as he tells Timothy that he has specifically appointed him to charge the local leaders under him not to teach any doctrine different than what Paul has taught. He also makes it clear in his various letters that he, and the local church leaders have the authority to cast people out of fellowship, and to hand them over to satan.

In 1st Timothy 3 Paul lays out qualifications for overseers (bishops) and deacons. In the first verse Paul specifically calls the position of overseer an office.

If there is no office of elder/overseer, you would literally have to throw out the entire book of Titus as well as pretty much all of both epistles to Timothy.

One of the most telling things about this whole issue is that the modern version of the egalitarian church pretty much didn't exist until the last few hundred years. The only groups historically which came close to anything like it were all heretical gnostic sects that rejected the mainstream gospel of Jesus Christ.

One of the problems we face because of our rejection of tradition is the fact that certain issues are not clearly laid out in scripture because they were either so obvious that they didn't need to be addressed, or they were mostly handled in person rather than through written letters.
For example, people commonly argue that the offices of church leadership are not clearly enough stated. (although I would argue that they are pretty clearly stated). Well, if you really look at the new testament you will find that there is very little at all written about the day to day functioning of the Church or the practical structure of the Church, including worship etc. The vast majority of what is written deals with moral teaching, and most of it is specifically written to address problems. Almost all of Paul's epistles were specifically written for the purpose of addressing specific heretical teachings or specific false practices that had arisen.

There is no part of the New Testament which is simply a lay out of a normal ordinary service etc.

If you simply read the new testament as a narative, its obvious that the Church had a heirarchy. The apostles were the top of the heirarchy. They decided doctrine and settled doctrinal questions when they arose, they determined what was acceptable worship when questions arose regarding that etc. In Jerusalem where the apostles themselves were the elders, they ordained deacons as officials to handle the daily work of the Church. They had authority over the money and the logistics of the Church.
When the apostles went out to other areas and established Churches, they universally ordained local converts as elders who functioned in their local Churches just as the apostles did in Jerusalem. The elders in the local Churches were then free to ordain deacons or other elders.

Despite the fact that there is no scripture which says, "The heirarchy is as follows Apostle-Elder-Deacon, and hear are the authorities which go with each office" it is crystal clear in scripture that those offices existed and how they functioned.
I mean, really when you get down to it, we get pretty close, there is a scripture which declares the office of elder/overseer, and immediately after that it talks about deacons. It is clear what authorities were given to the apostles, and it is clear that they intentionally passed on authority to those who they ordained by the laying on of hands.

I use the examples of kings etc, because they display the nature of authority. A king is not the same as a priest, or an apostle. But they all have authority and authority is governed by the same principles.

The idea that a person stands in the place of God is not unbiblical at all. If anything the opposite idea is unbiblical. If you look through out the bible, from beginning to end, the universal principle is that when God sends someone, they represent him and whoever opposes the person whom God sent, is opposing God. Wether it be kings, prophets, priests, apostles, its presented the same way in scripture.

the ancient tradition agrees with that, the modern tradition denies it.

[Simon_Templar]

There aren't a lot of specific traditions that I find apalling. I have a problem with the legalism that is placed on tradition in general in the RCC and the EO. There are some things which are essential and must be adhered to, but Holy Tradition in the Orthodox/Catholic sense expands that out way to far, in my opinion.

Some examples of traditions that I don't agree with are celibate priesthood as a required discipline, a number of the Marian traditions in the Catholic Church.

[Tamara224]

Tamara,

focusing specifically on the question of church heirarchical leadership.

I would suggest that all your doing is renewing the problem of "I have no tradition". Not all tradition is necessarily formal religious tradition.

How am I doing that though? I've never claimed not to have tradition, or that all tradition is bad. I've just said I think that a certain specific tradition is man-made and is, imo, contrary to Scripture.

we all have a structure of ideas and assumptions that frames how we see the world. The only way to come near to objectivity is to be aware of that, to know what ideas you are holding and how they are influencing you.

I'm not suggesting that we should avoid tradition in trying to understand the bible, I'm suggesting that we should consider which tradition is more likely to be accurate in understanding the bible. For example, one of the key questions people need to ask themselves is, is a modern mindset born in the last 200 years, really going to understand the bible better than an ancient mindset which existed when the bible was written.

Well, it would depend on what was influencing the people closer to the time.

And what is influencing me in understanding them.

If we modernists can't be expected to understand the Bible because of the disparity of culture and time... how can we be expected to understand theologians writing only a hundred years after Jesus? How can we be sure we understand their understanding of it? How can we be sure the people who interpreted them got it right?

Also, one cannot rule out the fact that other influences crept into the Church very quickly after Christ left. The apostles were already dealing with false teachings. So, it is difficult to determine really and truly whether an ancient theologian was interpreting Scripture the way he did because he had a better understanding of Scripture (being closer in time and culture to it) or because he had been influenced by pagan and worldly thinking.

Look at our modern example of how churches are carried out. There can be no question but that the modern evangelical church (especially Charismatics) have quickly and easily adopted secular practices into our liturgies. We utilize power-points and various other multi-media, electric guitars and keyboards, sound systems, etc, etc. I'm not saying those are bad, necesarily. However, they do betray a certain prediliction on the part of Christians to think that church is done in the same manner as any other human event. We have adopted motivational techniques utilized by our culture, commercialism and advertising, sound-bite Gospel, etc. The whole concept of televangelism is an adoption of worldly techniques and practices into the Church.

Why should we assume that the same is not true for the ancient Church? Why should we assume that such things as "apostolic tradition" did not originate in the adoption of worldly/pagan mind-sets?

So, while it is important for us to recognize that we are vastly removed from the culture of the times in which the Bible was written and that we have some hurdles to overcome in understanding the truth there, we shouldn't forget that the ancient people had ideologies and preconceptions to overcome too. Many of those originating in the pagan culture around them.

Okay, your post is too long (and good) for me to respond point for point.

I like what you have to say about Peter and the other apostles. It's interesting stuff and I can't say that I really disagree with it.

So, I'll just address a couple more points:


I understand that I am using tradition to influence how I interpet the bible. I have come to the conclusion after considering the various frames of reference, that the ancient tradition is more accurate, and is a better one from which to view the bible.

I'm not sure I understand what "ancient tradition" you're talking about here.

Paul talks on numerous occasions about appointing "elders" and "overseers". Deacons are also of course mentioned in acts.

The method of appointing these people was ordination by the laying on of hands. The whole point of doing this was that the person who laid on hands was passing on authority to the person whom they were laying hands on.

I agree. But I think maybe we'd disagree with what exactly the position of elders and deacons are. I'm not sure what you think that "office" entails.


Paul talks about this in his letters to Timothy and to Titus.

In Hebrew 13:7 it says
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of [their] conversation.

The word "rule" here is the same as that used for kings and princes. Its where we get the english word "hegemony"

In 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.

Ah, but those are troublesome passages and I actually have to disagree with what you said about the word translated as "rule". According to Strong's it means "to lead" and is used of all kinds of authority figures as well as non-authority figures. It can mean "to go before" or even a chief spokesperson. So, the word does not necessarily carry the connotation of a ruler in the sense of a prince or a king.

Also, the word translated as "obey" in Heb 13:17 is a tricky one, according to Strongs.


persuade
to persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe
to make friends of, to win one's favour, gain one's good will, or to seek to win one, strive to please one
to tranquillise
to persuade unto i.e. move or induce one to persuasion to do something
be persuaded
to be persuaded, to suffer one's self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith: in a thing
to believe
to be persuaded of a thing concerning a person
to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with
to trust, have confidence, be confidentContrasted with other words in Scripture that have been translated as "obey" (such as hupakouo,used in Hebrews 5:9) this word gives us an idea that obedience is not as if to a king, but more as if one is persuaded into submitting.

So, the idea that rulership akin to kingship is, imo, not really present in those passages. Or, at least mitigated by the rest of them. And the rest of Scripture with regard to leaders in the Church.

Just like we can call GW Bush our leader and yet without connoting the idea that he is a king. Although a king is certainly a leader.

Few things indicate Paul's teaching on this better than the fact that he began virtually everyone of his letters by claiming the office of Apostle and presenting himself as a representative of Jesus Christ. Paul repeatedly stresses the fact that his office and his authority were given to him directly from Jesus Christ. He also makes it clear in his letters to Timothy that he has passed on that authority to Timothy.

But neither Paul nor Timothy were "pastors" of a single congregation. They were church planters. They went in and preached the gospel, started the local group and appointed elders/bishops and then left - only corresponding occassionally.

Paul never ruled over any of the Churches he planted.

In the beginning of Timothy Paul makes it clear that not only he, but the people he has pointed have authority to establish doctrine as he tells Timothy that he has specifically appointed him to charge the local leaders under him not to teach any doctrine different than what Paul has taught. He also makes it clear in his various letters that he, and the local church leaders have the authority to cast people out of fellowship, and to hand them over to satan.

In 1st Timothy 3 Paul lays out qualifications for overseers (bishops) and deacons. In the first verse Paul specifically calls the position of overseer an office.

If there is no office of elder/overseer, you would literally have to throw out the entire book of Titus as well as pretty much all of both epistles to Timothy.

I hope you don't think that I'm saying there is no such thing as the office of overseers (bishops), elders and deacons.

I'm quibbling with the "pastor" as CEO of a local church.


One of the problems we face because of our rejection of tradition is the fact that certain issues are not clearly laid out in scripture because they were either so obvious that they didn't need to be addressed, or they were mostly handled in person rather than through written letters.

Well, but the flip side of that is that if it wasn't written down, then how do we trust the tradition?

For example, people commonly argue that the offices of church leadership are not clearly enough stated. (although I would argue that they are pretty clearly stated). Well, if you really look at the new testament you will find that there is very little at all written about the day to day functioning of the Church or the practical structure of the Church, including worship etc. The vast majority of what is written deals with moral teaching, and most of it is specifically written to address problems. Almost all of Paul's epistles were specifically written for the purpose of addressing specific heretical teachings or specific false practices that had arisen.

There is no part of the New Testament which is simply a lay out of a normal ordinary service etc.

Absolutely correct. But maybe there wasn't supposed to be one way of doing things and that's why it wasn't written down.

I mean, God got really precise in the OT with what was supposed to happen in the rituals and stuff.

Maybe we're not supposed to have a formula for worship services, and day to day operations and stuff.

Maybe that's our modernist mindset making us want one right way to do things, orderly and traditional.

If you simply read the new testament as a narative, its obvious that the Church had a heirarchy.

I have done so and when I did it seemed obvious to me that there was no heirarchy.

So, I guess we're both bringing preconceptions to the plate here.

The apostles were the top of the heirarchy. They decided doctrine and settled doctrinal questions when they arose, they determined what was acceptable worship when questions arose regarding that etc. In Jerusalem where the apostles themselves were the elders, they ordained deacons as officials to handle the daily work of the Church. They had authority over the money and the logistics of the Church.

Okay, so, I guess we need to figure out exactly what time-frame we are talking about. Because in the NT, there's no indication that the Church had "daily functioning" such as we have today. They didn't have buildings they met in and so had to pay for and maintain. They didn't have salaried jobs. They didn't collect tithes.

Etc, etc.

Despite the fact that there is no scripture which says, "The heirarchy is as follows Apostle-Elder-Deacon, and hear are the authorities which go with each office" it is crystal clear in scripture that those offices existed and how they functioned.

Well, it's not "crystal clear". If it were crystal clear we wouldn't be debating it. ;)

I don't see a heirarchy in the Church when I read the Bible. I see a Body with each member functioning according to his/her gifting for the edification of all.




Okay, sorry, I gotta run. I'll try to come back to this later tonight.

[Tenebrae]

I've just finished reading church quake by Peter Wagner. Hes the father of the "new apostolic reformation movement" in my opinion not a reformation more of a "church repeating the mistakes of the past"

He proposes the idea that things like vestries and church boards are bad in that too often they hinder the pastor from doing the work of God. He advocated that the senior pastor should be the sole authority in a church and all decisions made by him or one of his delegated authorities.

Bascally it sets the pastor up as someone who is beyond mistake and beyond correction. The idea is that God will give the pastor direction and guidance and that the pastor will submit to his delegated authority, which in my expeirnce is usually an overseas bishop or pastor and certainly no one close to that person. Ideally the pastor is answerable to the Vestry or elders however the problem being in a NAR church the elders are pretty much yes men and women as in they are chosen by the senior pastor


For all its abborrence and anti traditions, I find that penticostal churches are still rampant with their own traditions, and while it may not be something as formal as a liturgical order or service, it is still very much something that happens most if not every sunday. For example I just started going to a new penticostal church out west. Have been to three services there and from observation it would appear tht its tradition to have a period of singing in the Spirit or free worship in each service

[he4rty]

The main thing with Traditions is really to understand why we have that tradition in the first place, sometimes the tradition can remain but the reasoning behind it is lost or diluted and sometimes they just become routines then with no real meaning. Take Christenings for example,Lots of people have babies Christened whether of the Church or not, why, Because its a tradition which has lost meaning. Maybe not the best example but the first one to come to mind.

As for Authority, I like the Baptist Church here in the UK, we have a Union which will apply the basic rules/ guidelines each church should adhere to, then each individual Church is allowed to follow its own leading within the basic structure, as for the Pastor he can stay as long as he likes until he decides the time is right to move on or if a majority of the congregation decides he should move. This can mean some churches are without pastors for a period of time, our church has just been four years without a pastor and another pastor from the area just acting as overseers. To start with this does sound drastic, but is seen as a potential growth time of a church if readily accepted as people will be required to step up to the plate so to speak.

And one thing always comes to mind............

What maybe pushing the boundaries today will be the traditions of tomorrow.

[NorrinRadd]

actually, this is more complicated than you think. Technically the US didn't rebel. There were several important political philosophers which formed the foundations of the original political philosophy of the US. Probably the most important were Rutherford, Montesque and Locke. (and blackstone for legal theory)

Rutherford in his book Lex Rex (Law and the King or Law over the King) argues very persuasively based on scripture that God appoints leaders, BUT he works together with the people in doing so.
Rutherford uses the example of King David. David in scripture was annointed king by God long before he actually became the real ruler of Israel and he didn't, infact, become the actual ruler of Israel until the people acclaimed him as king.

This laid the foundation for the idea that rulers rule at the consent of the ruled. This principle has biblical basis, as well as basis in Church history, and it doesn't contradict with the idea of God ordained authority.

Locke took what Rutherford had already shown and built on it.
If you accept that God allows people to choose their own rulers, then by logical extention, you come to the conclusion that God has vested political sovereignty in the people themselves and they give it, by consent, to a government which is over them.
This then, essentially forms a contract between the people who are giving sovereignty to the government, and the government itself which wields sovereignty on behalf of the people, in the interests of the people.

The phrase "right of revolution" is commonly used in regard to Locke's theory here. However, there is no right of rebellion. The difference is that under Locke's theory as long as the government is operating within the bounds of its contract (ie its authority) there is no right for the people to over throw it or disolve it.
However, if the government acts outside of the contract, by taking action against the interests of the people in a grevious fashion, under Locke's theory the government has disolved itself.

So, in the case of the american colonies, the English crown had taken a series of actions which were against the interests of the people, thus the English crown had essentially disolved its own contract of government with the colonies. So the