The Spirit of God takes a back seat.
[Feel free to discuss this while I ruminate a while longer. But here's a question to consider... Should our churches be conducted as Theocracies or Democracies?]
76 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This world is one big game of "Go"-- Black against White, Light against Darkness --and we all have a choice to make: Do we war FOR the Light?
...or against it?
The Spirit of God takes a back seat.
[Feel free to discuss this while I ruminate a while longer. But here's a question to consider... Should our churches be conducted as Theocracies or Democracies?]
By "theocracy," I assume you mean, when churches cease to be led by God's Spirit (as opposed to an actual State Theocracy) the Spirit of God takes a back seat? That would seem a self-substantiating statement, so, sure, I could agree with that.
Perhaps a trickier question would be how do we know when churches have ceased to be led by God's Spirit?
To which I reckon I'd answer: When they do not demonstrate the love that is our defining quality; when they do not bear the fruit of the Spirit (Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control...).
Seems to me.
But then, we're rather anabaptist (priesthood of the believer) in that regard, so it's to be expected.
Obviously, we should be following God. However, since we don't physically hear God, we're in this together to try to figure out God's will.
Therefore, since we don't hear God directly (ie, God speaking to us telling us which way to go and how high to jump - directing a theocracy), wouldn't the better question be to ask if we want a dictatorship or a democracy?
Do we want ONE person telling us God's will or do we want to strive to work it out together?
When you do things God's way, it works.
We certainly need to do things God's way as much as we can. But we can't just say that the way that we've been doing it is God's way simply because it's the way that we've been doing it.
I'm sure you can agree.
Ergo, a theocracy with Christ as the head.
Democracies in the Church tend to distort the lines we as Christians are commanded to follow. Without a shepherd leading, the sheep wander, collect burrs and trash in their coats, and fall prey to wolves. The sheep do not command the shepherd-- His undivided attention, yes, but they do not dictate his service.
The body of Christ is one body... with one head. And we are but members of HIS body. Our pastors are undershepherds to the CHIEF Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ. The sheep have no business, nor any right, to question the leadership of their shepherd unless he neglects the needs and nourishment of his flock.
This is why we are told to study to show ourselves approved... rightly dividing the word of truth. So that we can tell the difference between "loving care of the flock" and "neglect." Truth from heresy. Only in the event of mistreatment or false teaching by our pastors can we "democratically" voice, with God's approval, our concerns regarding how we are led.
Ultimately, we are ALL priests of God, but God has placed these men over us, and we are obligated to follow their lead... Assuming they are truly following the Lord. If not, it is our duty to lovingly correct him and ask him to repent. If he refuses to accept correction and repent, we should first seek God in prayer, and barring a definitive "No" from the Lord, we should ask the Lord to send us a new shepherd.
The Church is not a Democracy. It is an earthly branch of God's Kingdom, to be administered as though Christ were arriving for inspection at any moment.
The idea of "Church as a Democracy" is a great contributor to the decline of God-fearing churches across Europe and America.
...
Thank you Ms Green
I totally agree Dan. So please, tell me what part of what I said do you want Scriptural references for and I'll be happy to submit them for your approval.
I agree that the Church is God's body on earth. The Community of Christ.
But, as such, we find directions on what that should look like in God's Word and specifically in Jesus' teachings and the teachings of the early church.
If we look to what the Bible actually says, we will see various roles within the church. But none of these are stated to be boss-men beyond question.
The pastor and deacon roles - according to the Bible - is one of servant. Jesus said:
"Those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you!"
(Mark 10)
And again, in Matthew 23, we are told:
As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers...
Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be your servant.
Acts 6, Acts 20, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 all describe the qualifications and role of deacons and pastors and nowhere in there does it mention that they are the "heads" who aren't to be questioned. In fact, that suggestion is simply not made biblically. Not that I can think of.
I understand that we have our traditions and those traditions oftentimes feel like they must be right, but we are Bible believers here and we base our beliefs on God's Word and not our feelings.
If we can't support it with the Bible, do we really want to go so far as to say that "THIS is how GOD wants it!!" What if you're wrong? Isn't that a bit like blasphemy - presuming to speak for God?
Ms Green, Eric, you have not provided a single Biblical bit of reasoning to support your case. I ask you, if I were to declare that you should believe something is GOD'S WILL TO BE OBEYED and didn't offer ANY biblical reasoning, ought you take my word for it?
The sheep do not command the shepherd-- His undivided attention, yes, but they do not dictate his service.
?? But they DO - at least in Baptist, anabaptist, Nazarene and other "low church" evangelical traditions. The people pray, search for their pastors and other staff, hire them at their pleasure, let them know what they expect and the pastor leads from that point.
If the Local Church congregation does not feel that the pastor is sufficiently following God as their leader or if they believe God is leading them another direction, they may fire that pastor and hire another.
What church tradition are you coming from? I suppose in some (methodist, catholic, presbyterian maybe?) the pastoral decisions are made by a larger church body and the pastor answers to that larger body AND to the church.
But I know of no denominations where the Pastor is an autonomous ruler (except maybe in some charismatic traditions - which might be your tradition, Eric, now that I think about it - is that right?)
Regardless, as I've already pointed out, there's not really a biblical basis for believing that and a pastor that teaches this ought to be questioned as he/she is teaching extra-biblical/contra-biblical teachings.
"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."
--John 21:15-17 *
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."
--Acts 20:28-31
"And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves."
--I Thessalonians 5:12-13
"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour"
--I Peter 5:1-8
-----
* Bonus points to the one who can identify a deeper, more profound significance in this passage.
The closest I can find is, "and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake."
And I agree with Paul that we ARE to esteem them highly, but that is not the same as the sort of barely questioned submission you refer to.
But perhaps we're not that different. We both believe that the church has an obligation to weigh what the pastor says. We both agree that we are to honor and love our pastors. We both agree that, if there's a problem with the pastor, the church has an obligation to come together as the People of God and vote that pastor out.
In reviewing what you said, it sounds like we agree largely. It's just that you don't like thinking of it in terms of a democracy, it seems.
My problem comes when you all use phrases like, "The sheep have no business, nor any right, to question the leadership of their shepherd unless he neglects the needs and nourishment of his flock."
I'm having a problem with the "No business, no right" side of that equation. WE are the body of Christ and we each have our roles. And we all have an obligation to hold one another accountable in love. We have every business and every right to question our pastor's leadership if we think she has made a questionable call. And pastors, leading by example and in humility, ought to WANT us to help hold them accountable.
In that sense, we're all in this together and it's an egalitarian effort. In another sense, we are all striving to submit to God's leadership.
So, for me, the better way to frame this question is: WE have an obligation to submit to God - how can churches best do this: In a authoritarian Top-Down (top meaning church leadership) manner or an egalitarian Bottom-Up manner?
I say, healthy churches are to be more democratic than dictatorial in seeking to follow God.
Can we agree on that phrasing?
As for myself, I don't have a "tradition" in this respect. I've frequented churches that were ruled by committee, as well as churches lorded over by elders, as well as lovingly guided by Godly pastors.
Committees that hire pastors, in my experience, actively control what their hired pastor can and cannot preach about. This is evil. The pastor of a flock is not subject to th3e demands of the flock... not according to God's word.
Cliques within churches: elders lording it over other members, in rebellion against their pastor, create strife, envy, division... such men are tools of Satan. They do his will rather than the Lord's.
But a pastor that lovingly, yet firmly guides, teaches, exhorts, and ministers to his flock is blessed of God... for that is what Jesus expects of his pastors. It's what He expected of Peter. They are our shepherds; to guide us, teach us, and protect us from false doctrine.
This is the role of a pastor. This is scriptural. The church was never meant to be a democracy, oligarchy, or any other "archy." The LORD is our shepherd, not the committee. And when the Lord appoints a shepherd to watch over His flock, that shepherd will be held accountable for our wellbeing. He is in charge...... until the LORD removes him.
They are Pastors and Elders for a reason.
The idea of 'voting him/her out' is also quite close to anathema for me. Voting implies the consensus of a majority. A pastor should not be removed simply because a majority want him/her gone. There has to be a scriptural reason to vacate a pastor from his post. The whim of a majority of congregants is not good enough. Consider a pastor moved by God to take a position at a new church which is, as I described in my previous comment, ruled by clique or committee. That congregation almost certainly needs weeding. This naturally won't go over very well with many 'weeds' who will seek to have the pastor removed before he's really begun.
This is a big problem in churches across the fruited plain.
Agreed. 100%.
The question is: HOW do we seek God's Will? Do we rely upon a pastor to deliver it to us or do we individually and as a body seek it? I say we seek it individually and as a body.
How does a church determine God's will? Listening to what the pastor tell them God's Will is or by consensus amongst the body?
Or, put another way: Who do you trust more - one individual who is the pastor seeking God's Will or a the whole of the church seeking God's will?
If your pastor says "We should endorse Obama" and the church thinks they should have no part in such an action, where do you side with? The People, says I.
Of course, ideally, we're all in agreement with the pastor on important matters and the pastor helps lead us in the Ways we agree our Godly.
I'm just saying there's no a biblical place for suggesting that a pastor somehow has MORE authority than the rest of the congregation. Certainly the pastor has a different role, but not more authority - nowhere in the bible does it say so and churches that rely upon a pastor for the bulk of their guidance are taking a big risk trusting that one man or woman.
What a sad statement from someone claiming to be a Christian. Your cynicism of my statement leads me to believe you've never been fortunate enough to be in a real Bible believing assembly where the members are actively seeking God's will daily, both individually and corporately. If you only knew the joy of that kind of church family...and how God blesses it.
"Even the apostles split over some things.
I know of a few instances in Scripture that you may refer to as "splits", even though in actuality they were not. Paul and Barnabus parted ways at one point because of a disagreement about someone else, but they later reconciled. The other instance was between Paul and Peter, but it was a reprimand and not a "split". In another instance, John referred to some who had gone out from them, but as he said, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."
Most church splits are over some sin or gossip, or about someone thinking they have to have their way. I thank God that some churches have managed to rise above that kind of pettiness. That type of atmosphere is used by the lost to justify why they are not Chistians. Yet, you state that never having a split is not something to boast about.
For the record, I wasn't boasting. I was sharing the blessing God has given my church family for following His Word and His godly preacher that He gave us.
Sometimes, ER, your statements are just plain sad.
Yes, the Lord has always favored Theocracies.
And I appreciate your theory but I once again will have to say that, short of any logical or biblical evidence to support your claim, I'll have to treat it as your opinion and naught else.
That goes for everyone here who is demanding that you have discerned God's Will when you have not offered the first verse to support your position. Your opinion is fine and you're welcome to it, but it's just your opinion if you have nothing more than you have offered in support thus far.
Please. Brothers, sister. Understand where I'm coming from. You're asking me to believe as "God's Will" something that you haven't offered any biblical support for.
"and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; "
"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."
Sheesh. Sounds like you need a break.
How dare any of you presume. Anything! You won;t hear the bell ringing the "y'all come" for the Marriage Supper because you'll be like a bunch of junior high kids checking yout own made-up social "in" and "out" list to make sure your own favorites got IN, and the the ones you dislike are kept OUT.
You all make a JOKE of Grace, Grace, God's Grace!
It really DOES mean your worse nightmares. Thjne wiorst sorts of people will be allowed in.
People make up a church. Even saved people disagree to the point of taking their own personal STEPs on THE WAY. They have to! Or they're stripped of free will and find themselves in CULTS.
Damn straight I said that. I say it again. Chuurches, made of people, are meant to GROW -- and that means planting new chuches, either on purpose of by necessity when the members disagree on crap that doesn't matter.
Everyone, please re-read the rules commenting above the comment box.
"Contentiousness is fine so long as it is worthy of a hearty "Touché!!!""
I shouldn't have to mention the rest. It SHOULD go without saying. Words speak every bit as loudly about the state of ones mind and soul, as do ones actions.
EL, you do with me what you want. This is the sound of a brother in AGONY friom seeing another brother in UTTER ERROR, who mistakes his own interpreation of God's Godness to the point that he would DARE condemn a brother! You do it by silence, and by omission, but you do it!
And Ms. Green! You need to get saved from YOUR SELF, and YOUR pitiful assertions of RIGHTNESS, born of desperation to be CORRECT when you CAN'T BE, since you are no more or less a WRETCH than I am!
G'night.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
You were less than erudite, this evening, and I'm not about to magnify that by digging at you.
Dan asks for scriptural evidence. None I've offered thus far convinces, and neither will anything I add now, but add I will.
Genesis 2:16-17
"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
And it was so, for Adam and Eve both died spiritually the very moment they ate what God commanded them not to eat.
I am reminded of a song... not a gospel song by any Christian band, but by a secular band...
"And God said the reason had hung from the tree,
but I feel the reason hanging on me
I am free of my innocence,
falling too far
I am helpless to change,
I am hopelessly lost,
I'm all that you are..."
For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I am no better than ER. or Dan. or Edwin. or Ms Green. I'm all that they are. I have fallen too far. I am helpless to change (in myself). I am hopelessly lost (in myself). Were it not for God; Jesus my King and savior, I would have no hope. He is my shepherd. I His sheep. He leads. Not I. And if He appoints a shepherd over me, I obey that shepherd. This is scriptural.
Exodus 20:1-7
"And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
He has delivered me-- all of us --from Egypt; from the penalty of sin. He commands me and I must obey. He is my God. My Lord. My Sovereign. My Savior. My King. His word is Law. He demands I make Him the ONLY object of my worship. Eternal life is found in obedience. Eternal damnation is the penalty of disobedience. His word rules my every step. Even when I stray I cannot escape Him. His is a theocracy of fearful unflinching adoration.
Acts 20:28-31 [Paul speaking to the Elders at Ephesus]
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."
From the testimony of three:
Pre-incarnate Christ, the Logos, who walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. Whose command demonstrated His sovereignty over man, His creation. His rule, a theocracy.
God the Father, speaking to Moses, and writing upon stone tablets the Law. Whose commandments demonstrated His sovereignty over man, His creation. His rule, a theocracy.
God the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Apostle Paul, and through Luke the author of the book of Acts, establishing a hierarchy within the Church with God at the head, and the Elders as ministers. The Holy Spirit of God whose very presence in the hearts of believers demonstrates His sovereignty over man, His creation. His rule, a theocracy.
---
By the way. The bonus points I spoke of regarding the passage of John 21:15-17
Peter denied the Lord three times the night of His arrest. Asking Peter three times 'Lovest thou me?' Jesus gave Peter an opportunity to declare his love for Him; once for each denial, and a command each time to be pastor over His flock.
Babes, still drinking milk, cannot lift a sword, let alone participate in a democracy.
"God did not ordain committees to rule over flocks." [with the implication that pastors ARE to rule the over the flocks? - Dan]
"The pastor is not to rule over us, but we are to submit to his authority, which comes from God."
"And when the Lord appoints a shepherd to watch over His flock, that shepherd will be held accountable for our wellbeing. He is in charge..."
"I don't suggest that pastors over us are to be dictatorial, only that God has placed them in a position of authority over us..."
And you're saying that based on these two verses (and a bunch of other verses that aren't really relevant to the topic, ie, that don't address a pastor's "authority.")
...and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you ~Thessalonians
...feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. ~1 peter
Okay thus far?
The problem that I am having is you're quoting two verses that mention a pastor having oversight over a congregation (and at least I can see a hint of what you're suggesting in that passage) and saying "THEREFORE, a pastor is IN CHARGE and we are to SUBMIT TO HIS AUTHORITY."
THAT is where I have a difficulty with your interpretation. You've taken one or two lines from the whole of the Bible, found two words in them (Admonish, oversight) and created a belief system out of those two words (Oversight = GOD demands that the pastor is in charge and we are to submit to his authority).
You're making some leaps. It'd be like me saying, "GOD is opposed to WAR," and offering as evidence, Gen. 1:1 ("in the beginning,") John 15 ("Jesus wept") and Matt 5 ("Blessed are the peacemakers") as obvious evidence. Two of those passages don't address my claim and the third one might hint at it but it's not an outright absolute assertion of the point.
And so the reason why I've brought this up is because this is what so often happens in churches. We find one or two verses that HINT at what we've been taught (and firmly believe) and can no longer see that it's not an absolute given, just a possible interpretation of a passage - and not necessarily the only interpretation.
For what it's worth.
Peace.
I reckon I need another break from the particular strain of fundamentalism found 'round here.
(|)
... now I have.
It's just crazy, this idea of Christianity as being an exclusive club, with exlusionary rules, and a rule book even!
The Bible, our precious heritage, our guide, is too sacred to be treated like I treat the manual for my lawn mower. Stringing verses together with opinions and interpretations interspersed in the worst kind of proof-texting justification of preconceived ideas just makes me nuts.
I see I'm gettin' riled again, and I don't want to.
Never mind. Sorry I lost it.
SIGH.
As Freferick Buechner puts it: "Jesus said, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me' (John 14:6). He didn't say that any particular ethic, doctrine, or religion was the way, the truth, and the life. He said that he was. He didn't say that it was by believing or doing anything in particular that you could 'come to the Father.' He said that it was only by him -- by living, participating in, being caught up by, the way of life that he embodied, that was his way."
As always, I need to work on that last part some.
Exclusionary because ONLY those bought by the blood of Christ are Christians. Exclusionary in that ONLY Christians will be ushered into Heaven at the moment of their death.
The rules that govern our conduct and walk ARE exclusionary, for we are called OUT of the world... in the world but not OF it.
The Bible IS our rulebook, for no where else is found God's words, let alone the teachings of Jesus. NO where else.
The problem here is not that the Bible doesn't speak of pastors being in positions of authority over us, or our proper conduct and submission to their authority, but that it is not spelled out in a modern language, in modern terminology. Neither is Homosexuality. Neither is "the Rapture," but both those issues are covered in the Bible.
The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom, And his tongue talks of justice. The law of his God is in his heart ~Psalm 37
I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts ~Jer 31
The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays God's handiwork ~Psalm 19
I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and revealed them to little children ~Matt 11
I could go on, but you get the idea.
God reveals God's Self in many ways. In nature. By God's Spirit. In a cup of cold water. In the face of the homeless man. in our very hearts and minds. And yes, in the Bible.
It does not behoove us to limit God nor presume to speak for God. I would ask if you think that God's Word is limited to the 66 books of the Bible that you demonstrate this to be true by showing me in the Bible where it says thusly.
Of course, this does not exist within the Bible.
This would be another example of people declaring "Thus saith the Lord," when the Lord hath not said.
The Apocryphal books... the books of Jewish history and folk lore... could also be the word of God. And if God is still speaking, as ER suggests, so too could CS Lewis' Mere Christianity be the word of God. How about a Chick Tract? How about the Gospel of Thomas? The Shepherd of Hermes? The Epistle of Barnabas?
The test, as I understand it, is that all scripture from GOD must agree. The 66 books of the Bible DO agree, but all these others do not.
The Holy Spirit was given to guide us in ALL truth. I must therefore, trusting God to preserve His word for all generations, trust the men guided by the Holy Spirit who judged what was and was not inspired of God. I'm not going to second-guess the Holy Spirit. If the 66 books of the Bible are what we have today, there is a reason for it... a reason why the Holy Spirit of God put into the hearts and minds of early church fathers to accept some, and reject others.
To come forward now, and claim to know more than these men did centuries before is, as ER so eloquently pointed out, the height of hubris.
As for 'thus saith the LORD,' if he had wanted it recognized as HIS word, He would have preserved it as such.
You unnecessarily complicate the truth of God. It is not complicated. Not at all. Jesus spoke to ordinary people. The apostles wrote to ordinary people. The language difference is not difficult to overcome. The problem lies in some's efforts to both spiritualize and over-literalize the message. Jesus spoke almost exclusively in parables. You will not find a whole lot of straight-forward, literal instruction; much of it is implied via illustrations.... parables. Jesus upheld the Law given by Moses, while simultaneously displaying mercy; he still called sin, "sin", but He didn't brow beat anyone. He forgave while simultaneously admonishing them to turn from their sin.
The Bible is quite clear on many of the issues that plague modern society.... abortion, homosexuality, sexual impurity, marriage, divorce, adultery... all problems of the flesh; SIN is a problem of the flesh. But the problem you and others have is an unwillingness to believe that Jesus, let alone GOD-- also a problem of the flesh --will condemn someone for behavior they have no control over, i.e., congenital conditions such as homosexuality. But the Bible is clear on such subjects. The LAW is clear on such subjects. And Jesus did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. The Law is still in effect... for everyone not covered by the blood of God Himself, the Law will judge them on the last day.
The Bible is a supernatural book. It is alive. Countless people have tried to destroy it over the centuries, none more hell-bent than today's "modern scholars" with their new translations based on questionable sources.
The Church is also, by design, a Theocracy, with Jesus as its head. He is the bridegroom... we the bride. Yet because he had to leave and prepare a home for us, he has left us with leaders he expects to faithfully train us, and keep us pure. Failure on their part will not earn them any prizes.
We who are growing in our faith NEED guidance every bit as much as a child needs it parents.
Even pastors need a pastor; someone THEY can go to for guidance and support. We are all subject to one another, but there is a hierarchy within the Church which is characterized as a top-down organization. This is so very scriptural. If you can't see, nothing I say further will open you eyes.
A Magic Book?
Again, I'd ask for you to provide some SCRIPTURAL support for such a position, and again (and for the last time), I'll note that it simply doesn't exist.
Believe in a supernatural book (although it doesn't claim to be) that tells us (without ever saying so) that we are to "to submit to his [a pastor's] authority" because "he is in charge" - believe in all that all you want.
I'll pass unless you can find some scriptural support that actually addresses your position.
"Theonuestos" is Greek for "God-breathed". It is used in II Timothy 3:16 and translated as "inspiration".
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
I would say that "God-breathed" is Scriptural evidence of the supernatural nature of the Bible. Unless, of course, one doesn't think that God is supernatural - then His God-breathed Word would be no different than anyone elses.
No.
This is an example of the logical fallacy of making an unproven assumption (The Bible = All Scripture) and thereafter, everything you see only validates that (the bible SAYS "all scripture is God-breathed" therefore the 66 books of the Bible are supernatural and the only source of God's revelation).
God will and God DOES reveal God's Self however and whenever God chooses to. That would be my point.
You all are choosing verses as "proofs" that don't address the claims you're making.
I LOVE the Bible.
And because I love God's Word, I'm not willing to make it say something that it doesn't.
I have read the Bible and am convinced, for instance, that Christians ought not engage in killing our enemies. I think that is antithetical to God's Will and think that this is clear within the pages of the Bible.
EVEN SO, I would not make the claim that "God commands us NOT to go to war, it says so right in the Bible." Why wouldn't I make that claim, even though I'm convinced of its soundness? Because God does NOT command us within the pages of the Bible not to go to war.
I will stand strongly and proclaim God's Word as such when it is clear (WE MUST LOVE OUR ENEMIES!!!), but I WILL NOT speak for God something that God has not stated.
Do you have an opinion about what the Bible means when it says a pastor is an overseer over his/her congregation? By all means, voice that opinion ("I think that when it says THIS, it means THIS OTHER THING.")
Just don't presume to speak for God what God hasn't said. That's all I'm saying.
2 Timothy 3:16 does spell out that all scripture is inspired. How anyone can believe God created our world, universe and all existence but for some reason cannot be depended on to compile a book is beyond me. Also consider John 1, and please tell me the difference between the Bible as know it and the Word and then scripture.
How did we get the 66 Books of the Bible?
John 1 most certainly does NOT refer to "the Word of God" as you understand the term.
It refers to the Logos. And I encourage you to keep looking, until you meet Wisdom, whose other name is Sophia.
As for the Timothy "all Scripture" reference: No one has ever, not once, explained to me how words written at one point in time, which themselves were not considered Scripture at the time, referring to "all Scripture" can possibly refer either to themselves or to words not yet written or considered as Scripture.
It takes voodoo to do it. It ain't
biblical, and it does take one from veneration of the Bible, which is one thing, to idolatry, which, ironically, the Bible itself forbids! And the real kicker is this: Like all idolatry, it's based on a strange cocktail of fear, hubris and self-righteousness. Sucj truly is a sight to behold.
sigh.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. EXCEPT that I DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU SAID I SAID. I did NOT say, "unless the bible specifically spells out that a church should be led by one person then the default is a committee." It's NOT IN THE TEXT just as none of what you are saying is in the text is in the text.
It's extrabiblical. Made up. Play pretend.
Today's my day for losing patience.
Learn to read, people.
DROOD:
Oh, I'm sorry Dan, I misunderstood what you were saying. My fault.
Dan:
No problem, Ed. Misunderstandings happen.
ERIC:
You know Dan, you're right. The Bible doesn't say that we are to be submissive to our pastor. But reading what the Bible DOES say about the role of pastors - that we are to honor them, respect them, learn from them - it makes sense to me that this means that we are to be submissive to them.
Dan:
Well, I certainly agree that we are to do all that (respect, learn from them, etc). But then, we both agree that the congregation has its obligation to learn for ourselves and act accordingly, right? So perhaps we're not that far apart...
ERIC:
True dat.
God, Who is not contrained by time, but is outside of time - being in the past, present, and future simultaneously, knew when II Timothy was written, what books were yet to be written, and obviously was telling us that we could trust the Scriptures that would be given to us. I believe that he guided the process that determined the final canon of Scripture, just as you and Dan believe God guides people today.
Proverbs 9:10
If you don't believe it was God then why did you capitalize Logos? surly you know it is a verb right?
We're straying from the topic here, but I'm game.
Thank you for spelling it out. Most people don't. I agree with you!
Except for the "final" part. Beause of the "God guides people today" part. The main point of our disagreement is that very point:
You appear to believe that the full Godness of God has been expressed in the Bible, and I do not. I believe that the full Godness of God is expressed in Christ, who is given witness in the Bible, as well as in hearts, rocks, nature, etc., as the Bible itself testifies.
Re, "Thanks ER all that education really paid off huh. Yes Logos is the Greek that means tell say or speak. So if it was not God saying or speaking or telling or counting then who was it? (I hope you didn't take out student loans).."
Yes, it did. But not nearly as much as 35 years of off-and-off-again study, prayer and meditation, all the while clinging desperately to the bloodied yet resurrected Christ himself. Not the book that tells us partly -- ! -- about Him.
Keep studying the concept of Logos -- the Christ! Wisdom! "Sophia"! -- and get back to me, 'k?
EL, re: "who was it ..."
YES. We agree. Yet again. But, where do you get those ideas? From your interpretation of Scripture -- when you let it be free -- under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which, itself is a gift of Grace -- through ... CHRIST.
As do I.
But, and: The Scriptures at the root of those ideas, like all roots, are only the beginning. Not the end. Not a box.
Not something by which to exclude those whom God has blessed with Grace outside of your own tradition, and your own understanding of it.
There is nothing "New Age" about what I'm saying. It is as old as the first inklings that those first fisherman had about the man from Galilee who so capitivated them solely by His very holy presence and His simple invitation:
"Follow me."
What you're suggesting is goddess worship, and it's heresy... blasphemy... it's down-right evil.
The Jews believed in ONE God. [Deuteronomy 4:35-4:36, 6:4; Isaiah 42:8, 44:6-8, 45:5-6; Jeremiah 10:10-11] They did not worship Sophia as the goddess of wisdom [A Roman construct, btw, and centuries removed from the writing of the book of Proverbs], let alone as the wife of God! There is no other repository of wisdom other than God Himself.
Can you not see the nature of Proverbs? As a writer can you not see in this book a certain poetic style? You wrongly infer divinity to wisdom where the literary artifice of Personification is quite evidently being used.
Please tell me you don't really believe in this whole Sophia nonsense.
Wisdom = Sophia = Logos = God = Christ.
Heresy is one thing, and I do have some heretical ideas. But blasphemy is quite another thing, and I have none. And evil is something different again, and I suppose I have as much of that as you do, as we all do.
And I should refrain from this, but I can't resist: True worship of God, as you and I understand God from our youth -- IS as much Goddess worhip as it is God worship.
You silly.
http://www.encyclopedia.com
/doc/1G1-15861175.html
The discussion of the shift from the feminine Hebrew concept of "Wisdom" to the masculine Greek concept of "Logos" in John 1's personification of Jesus as God is especially interesting.
This whole idea of a male/female God, Sophia=Logos is nothing new. It is warmed over Gnosticism, which did creep into both Jewish and Christian faiths, but was never mainline thinking in either faith - it was considered heresy by the majority of both religions.
It is unfortunate that it is resurfacing in the New Age religions.
And rather than seeing God as male/female, shouldn't we, really, see God as above both?
The whole Wisdom-Sophia-Logos-Christ strain of thought is one of perception, I think, not a declaration that "God is a girl" or "God is a boy."
The Eastern Orthodox would certainly argue with your assertion that this "was considered heresy by the majority" of Christendom, their belief being that Wisdom is the same person as the Divine Logos.
Many languages attribute male or female to words, but in most cases, it is not literally to be taken as a female or male persona. Dog is el perro, and “el” denotes male – but my dog is a female, so she would be called El perro femenino. Does that mean she is androgynous? No.
For instance, in Spanish, I live in la hacienda. So does that mean I live in a female because “ranch” is female in the Spanish language?
How about these passages from I Corinthians.
(I have changed every time the word “wisdom” is used to “sophia”. Let’s see how much sense it makes to attribute a female persona to each instance.)
“For Christ has sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with sophia of words (hey – try adding in “logos” here = “sophia of logos”.)
For after that in the sophia of God, the world by sophia knew not God…
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after sophia…
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the sophia of God…
And these from I Cornithians:
That your faith should not stand in the sophia of men, but in the power of God.
Howbeit we speak sophia among them that are perfect; yet not the sophia of this world…
None of these Scriptures appear to be talking about a person - but rather a concept - that is, the concept of wisdom.
There has been goddess worship for centuries upon centuries, but the God of the Bible makes it clear He is to be considered Father and Jesus is to be considered Son.
Worship of a “mother of heaven” was forbidden by God. Worship of any god but Jehovah God is idol worship.
Gnosticism under any other name is still Gnosticism.
“The Eastern Orthodox would certainly argue with your assertion that this "was considered heresy by the majority" of Christendom, their belief being that Wisdom is the same person as the Divine Logos.”
Eastern Orthodox teaches many things contrary to Scripture. For instance, they teach a works based salvation. So if they believe that sophia is a female person that’s just one more false doctrine they believe.
By the way – just to clarify something – if “wisdom” from Proverbs is the same as “logos” in John 1, that still doesn’t give us an androgynous god, or a female god. I don’t believe the two are the same, because no divinity is attributed to wisdom. God is a triune God, not a four-person god. God tells us He is Father and that Jesus is Son. The Holy Spirit is referred to as “He”. No mentions of female deity anywhere in Scripture. If God wanted us to think of Him as something other than male, He would have let us know.
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24
Earlier, Dan said, "This is great comedy." And I must now agree. It is utterly comical that ER can chide and shout [and I'm being gracious...] about my and Ms Green's supposed idolatry, yet can't see the idolatry inherent in his own belief in Sophia. Adding to the laughs is Dan's assertion that the thought behind the body of this post is extra-biblical, while remaining peculiarly mum about ER's introduction of the mother of extra-biblical doctrine, the great goddess Sophia.
I tell you, were it not for just how serious the implications in all this truly are, I'd be laughing hysterically right about now.
Surpised to see "androgynous" as an adjective for what I mean when I say I believe God, as God, is above and beyond his own Creation, neither male nor female, was kind of a surprise. Because God, as God, must be above and beyond androgyny, as well.
The masculinity, or femininity, or androgyny of God have to do with human beans' attempts to conceive of God and interpret their encounters with God through the only real lenses we have, which are our selves, which are either male or female, and our experiences, which cause us to blend the two in the attempt to get above them.
Such, then, in my view, are not attributes of God at all. Just poor attempts to scrutinize (examine or observe with great care) the inscrutable (the difficult to fathom or understand).
1) About EL's claim that II Timothy 3:16 references the entire Bible, you write:
This is an example of the logical fallacy of making an unproven assumption (The Bible = All Scripture) and thereafter, everything you see only validates that (the bible SAYS "all scripture is God-breathed" therefore the 66 books of the Bible are supernatural and the only source of God's revelation).
If II Timothy's "all scripture" doesn't mean the Bible, what does it reference? What scripture? Which books? And since you're so insistent on asking others for scriptural support for their position, it would be helpful to see scriptural support for your answer here.
2) Perhaps in anticipating the apparent misunderstanding about your esteem for the Bible, you write the following:
And understand, I LOVE the Bible and believe it to be God's Word, revealed to us. I read it all the time and am quite familiar with what it says. I pray for help in understanding and applying God's Word to my life. I have taught my children from birth the stories of the Bible.
Since you believe it's fallacious to conclude that II Timothy 3:16 was referencing the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, I'm curious about the basis for your claim that the Bible is God's Word.
Where is your scriptural support that the Bible is God's word, support that is more conclusive than the position that the Bible is the "all scripture" that Timothy references?
Re, "If II Timothy's 'all scripture' doesn't mean the Bible, what does it reference? What scripture? Which books?"
The answer is open, subject to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and one's own personal relationship with God through Christ, guided by the tradition of the general history of the Church. That's the actual point. It's terribly untidy, and it requires misty faith, not unquestioned adherence to a bunch of old words.
There IS no Scriptural support for the claim that the 66 "books" of the Bible comprise the "complete" "Word of God." But, as a colloquial description, "the Word of God" fits the Bible (which includes wisps and echoes and snippets of the Word of God), which is sacred becasue of our forefathers' claims and experiences WITH both the Scriptures and their search for, and understanding of, the Word of God.
About the main subject at hand, I'm not sure the Bible goes into detail either about how leaders come to their roles in existing churches -- Acts focuses on the missionary work of founding new churches -- or the specifics of the relationship between elders and other church members. That's not to suggest that these issue are wholly unimportant, but it is possible that the details can vary depending on circumstances.
I believe the Bible is clear that there are different roles in the church, and that leadership is one of those roles. When Jesus contrasted His church with the pagan world in Mark 10, His criticism seemed to concern tyranny, not leadership per se: He taught that true leaders serve, not that there is no such a thing as a leader.
In Matthew 23, Jesus has very strong words for the ostentatious hypocrisy of religious leaders, and then He contrasts that with His commands in 23:8-12:
But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted.
Again I think the emphasis is in service-as-leadership. This is not a repudiation of leadership per se. I say this, first, because we know that Jesus used hyperbole, talking about only those who hate their parents being worthy of Him, even though the second great commandment is to love everyone. I think we such another instance of hyperbole here: I don't believe Jesus excludes all instruction because, for instance, Matthew ends his Gospel with the Great Commission and its clear command to make discipls and teach them to obey all He's commanded.
I think it's clear, particularly from Paul's epistles, that there is an asymmetrical relationship between the elder and his church. When the New Testament goes into detail about asymmetrical relationships -- such as in Ephesians 6 -- the person in the leadership position is commanded to serve humbly, charitably, and sacrificially; the other person is commanded to submit to the other's leadership. I'm very skeptical of the idea that what's true for these sorts of relationships in the home and in the office isn't true in the church.
About your answer, I don't see how it is consistent with the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ.
You write that the issue is "terribly untidy, and it requires misty faith, not unquestioned adherence to a bunch of old words."
You believe that the Bible only includes "wisps and echoes and snippets of the Word of God."
But Jesus affirmed the authority of Scripture as it then existed -- i.e., the Old Testament -- to the smallest stroke of a pen.
And in answering His critics and His enemies, Jesus repeatedly and emphatically appealed to Scripture as the final authority.
I don't believe that how you approach Scripture can be reconciled with the commands and the example of Jesus Christ.