This is be a summary of the scriptures Duane sent to be dealt with on *leadership*. Acts 20:28: To the Ephesian Elders "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God....."

I Timothy 3:1: "It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do."

Office means *duty*. It places on a person the responsibility of doing a certain work. During the time of the infant body, this was needed because the word had not been completed. The H.S. MADE the leaders what they were. This *office* gives no authority or power. I Timothy 5:17: "The elders who RULE well are to be considered worthy of double honor."

When we take a scripture and fit it into our English meaning of that word there is misunderstanding. The Lord said the Gentiles had those who *ruled* over others. No where do the scriptures give anyone that power. It is only in the institution made out of the body today that power is given (and taken) by certain ones over others. Ephesians 4:11-12: "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints."

This scripture is one that is used and misused as people see fit. Either it applies to us today or it was for the time of the beginning of the body. We pick and choose. We now have the scriptures which *furnish us unto every good work." Then the H.S. guided them directly. If we say they do that today then we have to admit there are prpophets today, those who God talks directly to. There are people in the religious world who believe this, as well as believing there are certain men among us who are inspired as were the apostles in the 1st. century. I say all the gifts listed above were for the beginning and not for us today. Hebrews 13:17: "Obey our leaders and SUBMIT to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account." This we can apply today if it is understood what the body of Christ is. We do need leaders. We should be leaders. Let me explain what I mean. We all (all who have accepted the grace of God through obedience) make up the universal body of Christ. When we go about gathering with other Christians (as the early Christians did) we do not become something else. We don't join anything (place membership), we don't place our aliegance in anything, we simply meet together for the reasons given in scripture. There are those among the different groups who are older and more mature in the faith. They are to lead, first by a godly life the sheep can observe and be able to teach those who need teaching at the time.This is not group teaching. Not everyone needs the same teaching. Christians in a certain area should be so close they know one another and the needs each has. Leaders will know each sheep *they are among* , otherwise they cannot give the guidance they are suppose to be able to give. The sheep should know the leaders and this does not mean they know them *in the building* or by their pictures on the wall of the building. They know them by their godly lives as they go about their living. Contrast that with what goes on today in religion. There is a fancy building *from which all blessings flow.* *Church* is focused in the building. It is a place where the *staff* reside and from whence they run the business of the Church. Elders usually don't know the individuals members (those they are responsible for) nor their needs. Just as a side line: What does go on in this fancy building? Let me name them. 1) A certain day is set aside to do all this Church stuff. This day is called the Lord's day (not scriptural.) People are taught this is God's special day and they must not fosake it. 2) There is the *formal worship service*. There, of course, is no scripture for this group worship but it gives many people something to direct. 3) This is the day the Lord's supper is taken. Of course, Christ said as oft as you do this, giving no time nor number of times.....but the institution says Do it on Sunday only. 4) A collection is taken to run this business, which includes paying all those salaries. 1 Cor. 16:1-2 is used as authority for such and people are taught if they don't give into the plate they are robbing God. This scripture is taken out of context and fitted into traditions of today (and yesterday). 5) The two scriptures on singing are also taken out of context and fitted into the *formal worship service* thus contributing to the 5 acts of worship. 6) A staff has been built and added to each time the powers-that-be go (usually) to a lecturship or workshop where they learn about all these different additions. If Jesus walked the earth today and went into one of these fine buildings and observed what was going on do you wonder what He would think had been made out of HIS body? The first post sent today was unfinished. I decided not to add the last 3 points.

-- Anonymous, October 31, 1999

Answers

Nelta...

I must admit this, when someone goes wrong, they can truly go wrong. What you have said here is nothing more than a highbrow excuse to deny submission to authority that God establishes. You really have displayed, in an "educated" way, a rebellious spirit.

Your hermeneutic approach is the very thing you accuse some of doing - picking and choosing Scripture. You have what I call a Salad Bar hermeneutic. You choose arbitrarily what Scriptures you deem to be applicable to a 1st century audience and not to ours, quite consistently though they are ones that do not obligate you to a commitment to anyone else.

This sounds good. I mean, our allegiance should be to Christ alone, correct. Wrong. We are committed to our spouses. We are committed to our friends. And we are to be committed to our congregations where we serve. And yes, that means even membership.

I am so sick and tired of the absolutely empty and vain arguments against placing membership in a local church. It is nothing more than a good way to avoid responsibility.

Does placing membership mean you have denied Christ, or lessened your faith, or done something anti-Biblical? NO. It means you have done something that may not be spelled out verbatim in Scripture, but neither are pews, buildings, hymnals, English translations of the Scriptures, "Worship services", pulpits, and this list can go on ad infinitum. Come on, it is time to grow up.

These arguments against placing membership, or against believing that another individual has authority over another are merely indicative of a faith that is still in its infancy stages. The very idea of servant leadership implies that one is "over" another. Of course, words can evolve and can hinder full understanding, but my experience is that when I see arguments such as this they are nothing more than excuses from having to be obliged to the entirety of the Word of God.

As for the membership thing, remember that there is a great difference between being un-biblical and being anti-biblical.

I remember teaching once to a group of deacons about the qualifications that are laid out for deacons in Scripture. A debate arose over whether or not deacons should actually be able to drink or not. Well, I told them I thought it quite interesting that only a couple of weeks before I had been teaching a group of teenagers about drinking. They debated whether or not one can drink on the same premise that these grown men were. "It doesn't say you can't in the Bible," they said. Such an attitude is nothing more than an indication that the individual has a lot of maturation to go through.

I can't help but thinking the same things when I read arguments such as these against acknowledging the overseers as authority figures or placing membership in a local congregation. It is time to grow up.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 1999

Mike,

I had ended my stay on this forum but your post came into my inbox and I just want to say: You can rant and rave all day long but you have proven nothing. How about taking your traditional blinders off and shine the light of the scriptures on all the things you said in your post?

You are sick and tired of hearing things written? Well, I am sick and tired of preachers who depend on the treasury and the institutional make of the body, of getting sick and tired of hearing what goes against their practices.

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1999

You scared her off Michael! You big bully! I think Danny had her figured out, and she knew it... She never did say if she felt the scriptures were inerrant or not... This whole resentment of male leadership reminds me of something one of my professors wrote long ago. Here is a quote:

The universal trend is for Church to surrender to culture, and our culture is a sissified one. That's the word , not feminine. Modern so-called feminism is not feminine; it is little more than broken womanhood crying out for identity and significance. As a culture removes itself from God, its masculine virtue fades and a twisted femaleness takes over...The real world is not the place for sissified men, societies, or churches.

The modern Church is being sissified. It whispers repentance and shouts forgiveness. Permissiveness reigns falsely in the name of grace. Church discipline? Since when? The modern Church appears to believe that patience is the only virtue. It remembers to sing but forgets to spank. The church that cannot work up the nerve to excommunicate its pro-abortion people, its life-destroying gossips, or its womanizing deacons, is hardly tough enough to threaten Satan's world system. The sissified Church has an astounding toleration for false doctrine.

The Sissified Church wants to do formally what it has done actually in hundreds of congregations--turn over leadership to the women. This is a dreadful offense to godly women and a threat to their dynamic, legitimate ministries. Weak men want to escape the responsibility that God has given them in the church and in the home; women who are the product of third generation matriarchies have no idea how to be in submission to any man, husband in the home or elder in the church. Few local congregations attract what natural male leadership is available; true masculinity cannot stomach the saccharin unreality that oozes from the pulpit and glows in the assembly.

A new and imaginative system of hermeneutics is surfacing; the object of this creative exegesis is to lend scriptural support to a unisex church. Scholars and writers can become very popular by easing the pressure of uncomfortable texts. It is being suggested that a superior science of interpretation discovers that women can preach and be elders and wives are no more in submission to their husbands than husbands are to wives. Freedom, brother, freedom!

-- Anonymous, November 03, 1999

Duane, it isn't like you to misrepresent what someone says.

Of course, the scriptures are inspired and for us today. That does not mean they are understood. Tradition reigns supreme in religion today.

FWIIW, I do follow my husband as leader of the physical home. I follow Jesus in my spiritual affairs.

And no one ran me off. All we can do in this life is plant seeds in the minds of others. If they take root and gerninate...fine. If not, that is fine also. There comes a time when enough has been said.

I think you and others are hung up on the word authority. Instead of taking it in the context of scripture (the teaching of Christ and Paul on the matter) it is used in the worldly sense.

Well, my time is being spent on my new web page where all this stuff will be written about, plus roles in the family...and Christian living while here on earth. These discussions and questions have helped me in my article writing.

One more thing! I am reading a book on Voices of the Past. One fellow is giving the history of how we came about having all these fancy buildings we call *church buildings*. It is very interesting how the trended started and where it led.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 1999

Gentlemen....

Notice Nelta's words...."Of course the Scriptures are inspired for us today."

Notice she did not say..."They were inerrant."

One more time......NEO-ORTHODOXY!!!!

-- Anonymous, November 10, 1999