Setting: Church office of The What's Happening Now Church...Eldership meeting.

Characters: The Eldership

Bro. Elder #1, "Brethren, this is an important meeting. We have a grave problem. We are not growing here at The What's Happening Now Church. We are losing members and those who are here seemed to have lost interest. The pledges are being ignored."

Bro. Elder #2, "It is good that we are here. I'm sure we will be able to toss around ideas and come up with a solution to improving our Church."

Bro. Elder #1, "Well...I put a lot of thought into this problem. It appears to me that we are in need of a preacher change."

Bro. Elder #4, "WHAT? Bro. Elder #1, we have a fine preacher. Bro. Busybee works many hours. He visits the sick, plays on the Staff ball teem, goes to all the Staff retreats. He resides at our funerals, weddings and even attends our children's graduating ceremonies. What more can we expect?"

Bro. Elder #3, "Well, now Bro. Busybee is getting on in years. He is 55 you know, and he did seem a little slow at the last staff ball game."

Bro. Elder #1, "Yes, I noticed that. And we need a younger man who can keep up with the activities of The What's Happening Now Church. We need him to have a wife who can be more active in all the programs than Sis. Busybee has been lately. The average age of our membership is about 38, and they want someone of their own age they can relate to, don't you see."

Bro. Elder #4, "Well, I'm against this, brethren. If we move Bro. Busybee and his family out where will he go?"

Bro. Elder #3, "There are congregations who can use older preachers...where the members are mainly retired. Bro. Busybee can relax..slow down as he goes into his golden years."

Bro. Elder #2, "This may just be the solution to our problem. Lets toss this around some more."

Bro. Elder #1, "A man employed by the Peppercorn University in Maybewho, CA. has compiled a directory of our people who have their Ph.D completed. I took it upon myself to send for a copy."

Bro. Elder #3, "What a splendid idea, Bro. Elder #1."

Bro. Elder #1, "As I was examining the directory list I came across a young man, age 35, who is well qualified for our needs."

Bro. Elder #3, "Splendid idea. Tell us more about him."

Bro. Elder #2, "How do we know he will be willing to come here?"

Bro. Elder #1, "I contacted him, brethren, to feel him out. He is interested and will send his resume, picture, and a tape of his delivery. I sent him our usual application with the 100 questions for him to answer. If we can meet his salary needs I feel sure he will agree to come."

Bro. Elder #3, "But can we meet his salary requirements?"

Bro. Elder #1, "I'm sure we can, because with his energy level our contribution will, without a doubt, be doubled in no time."

Bro. Elder #3, "Well, there you have it. The Lord is leading us to this young man who will put new life into our Church."

Bro. Elder #4, "Sorry, I am against this idea and cannot condone such action. However, the Eldership must present a united front in the leadership of this Church. I will not stand in the way."

Bro. Elder #1, "Good!. Let's vote on whether to offer the position to this fine new man."

All hands go up.

Bro. Elder #1, "I feel we will have no trouble with any of the men of the congregation agreeing to our decision.. except, of course, Bro. Concern."

Bro. Elder #3, "Bro. Concern? He never even placed membership. He has no part nor lot in this matter."

Bro. Elder #2, "Bro. Concern, Bro. Concern! Frankly, I'm tired of Bro. Concern and his concerns. He should change his name to Bro. Contrary, if you ask me."

Laughs rang out, as all leave the room.

<

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

Answers

John and Michael.....Did I miss something in Nelta's post??

Nelta may have to do as Jesus did on a number of occassions and explain this "parable" for the simple minded like me.

I read it....and my first impression was one of agreement.

Now again....I only agree with it if I'm reading it right.

What I read is.....the dismissal of an older, well established, well accomplished preacher.....who had done nothing wrong....but it was felt they needed "the new and improved model."

I feel our churches in the past 10 years have been guilty of this. Look at some of the "ads" in the Standard...."Wanted....35 year old preacher with 25 years of experience....must have Master's degree....and be able to work with all ages."

However, our churches are now paying the price.

In the next four years it is estimated that preachers will be one of the 5 most needed positions to fill in the US.

Well....before I go any further with this.....I really need to step back because I may be off the subject completely and that may not be fair to Nelta's original purpose.

So....help....I need clarification.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

Nelta,

This is the stuff of Disney fantasy. But...I guess you think this is how all churches operate. Here's a question, how would you, as the main leader of the Nelta church of Christ, go about acquiring an evangelist?

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

Unfortunately, Michael, something very similar to this just recently happened here. It happened because the elders were governing by worldly means, not by the scriptures. They were far more interested in the physical aspects of the church than its spiritual needs (hmmmm .... I thought that was what deacons were for ...). This was just kind of the last straw in a series of events, too complicated to go into here (nor do I feel the dirty laundry needs to be aired anymore). The congregation finally got fed up, rose up and demanded change. They got it: all of the elders but one resigned, and a new election was held. I am glad to say that we have a fine group of Godly elders now, led by the spirit, and an interim pastor who is a real blessing (he makes us uncomfortable!).

This is a great blessing from God, because I saw the same thing happen about 20 years ago in a nearby church, and that church ended up disintegrating; most of the congregation moving to other churches, only a remnant faithful to the "old guard" remaining. Praise God our congregation came through it, and came through it stronger than before! Members (ouch, there's that word!) are far more involved in church activities now than they ever were before, getting off their pews and getting active, both within the church and in the community!

I think that is the real point that needs to be asked: not so much do the elders have the authority to govern the church (they do!), but are they governing in a Godly, scriptural manner? As servants, guides and examples, or "lording it over?" Thats my humble opinion, anyway.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

Nelta, I agree with Danny and what his assesment of your post was.

One thing I would like to comment on is your church's election of Elders. I have a question, who had the Biblical right to find new qualified Elders. If your Church truly is biblical about this matter, then why did they vote. I want to state for the record... no congregation has the right to out vote the Elders. Not even the deacons (which is an appointed position to fullfill some basic needs), have the biblical right to be on a board to outvote the Elders. In your threads you often critize the local church polity, but yet you attend and agree with a church that goes against what you proclaim here on the forum. Why? If you were consistant with what you proclaim then, why attend church at all?

I am sorry for straying off the subject but, I was wanteing to ask you this.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

You guys are totally losing me over this one. Why can't the church body, or the deacons, out vote the elders?? What gives elders any divine right that other believers don't have? This is not a sarcastic question -- I would really like to know. I guess I have been a Baptist too long, but this makes no sense to me. (We don't have "elders." I've never been in a church with "elders," except as a designation of the older, more experienced believers.)

Educate me, please. How do you get elders in the first place?

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

Ok, let me rephrase the question so I don't look like a complete idiot. I have been going over the old posts about elders, and trying to get a background of you all's concepts. My question PRECISELY is: What do YOU PERSONALLY do to get/appoint/ordain elders in your specific congregation? I'm seeing different things in the olders posts. I would like specifics.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

<>

So would I, Jon.

Nelta

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

Jon,

In our congregation...A man displays the desire to become an elder. He has most likely already been doing things that are required by biblical principles in Timothy & Titus.

The Leadership team made up of current elders and the evangelist...will consider him for the position prayerfully. If there are no Biblical objections, he is presented to the congregation. The congregation also prays for this situation. The congregation has two weeks to one month to bring up any concerns about this individual to the Leadership team. If there are no BIBLICAL concerns or objections, the man becomes an elder. NO VOTING is done. I don't see voting in the Bible. Even when it comes to having to decide on an issue in a Leadership team meeting...as little voting is done as possible. More often than not the men discuss, pray, discuss some more...and usually come to an agreement.

BTW...Deacons are not voted in either. They are appointed/asked to do a specific ministry/job serving the church. We (deacons) do not go to the Leadership team meetings unless it is directly related to our specific ministry.

Once yearly we have a congregational meeting...it is very rare that there is a vote in these meetings also. One thing is understood...people's opinions are asked for often...much discussion goes on...most generally we come to a consensus on important decisions without voting.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

D. Lee Muse,

Concerning your last post: If I would have written your post, I would have written the exact same words. You hit the nail on the head!

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

Doc Jon, I currently am in a ministry where there are not any congregational voting. The Elders and myself (I being the Minister and Elder) decide on what is needed. But, to include the congregation in the decision making process we assign important tasks or ministries to be done, then we ask for anyone willing to be in on this task. If no one volunteers we generally appoint deacons to do the job. Of course, saying all this any person who serves is a deacon in the truest sense of the word (waiter of tables).

Many churches in our movement still do have congregational votes and have an election for Elders and deacons. In many cases the deacons have the same level of responsibility as the elders. In fact many churches have a board of deacons (usually seven) that can outvote the elders when ever they want. This of course is the Americanized version of the church and has no place in biblical reality. Voting then becomes a popularity contest that places more emphasis on the more visual person rather than their qualifications.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

Thanks for your answers. I am learning here!

I am also trying to understand what I think I am hearing. I did more research so I can clarify my understanding so you can understand where I am coming from. I made a mistake in my first post: there ARE elders in Baptists churches (and not just as older Christians, I was wrong there), but it is not like in yours. In the Baptist tradition, there are only two offices in the church: Bishop/Pastor/Elder, and Deacon. Notice the way I put the first position. While different words, the application has been that bishop, pastor, or elder are different words for the exact same office. A deacon has a totally different function in the church, and I think we agree here.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that you have THREE offices in your churches: the Minister, Elders, and Deacons. This is the impression I get. While a minister may also be an elder, the elders may fire the minister, which makes them separate offices to me.

Am I understanding this right?

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

And Jon, the way some are set up (an elder is the preacher) you can rest assured the preacher will never be fired.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

Jon,

Some congregations have "evangelists". Sometimes these are simply another title for the pulpit minister, and the other positions, if any, are "ministers". Other times, evangelist is simply substituted for minister (senior evangelist, youth evangelist, college evangelist).

Occasionally, to recognize that all disciples are to be ministers, the "paid" staff are given names other than "evangelist" to distinguish them.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

Jon:

In our congregation, the minister is not an "office holder". The deacons hold the "office" of deacon, but they are not reaslly considered officers of the church. The final decision making authority rests in the elders. The deacons and the ministers are answerable to them. When the most important matters are to be decided, the ministers have input and advise, the deacons put in their two cents worth, but the elders are the only ones with final autority. The ministers and deacons are given certain lengths of authority adn independance under that, and don't have to go running to the elders to justify every dollar spent and every decision made or direction taken. The elders, as a rule, tend to reserve for themself only the weightiest of matters, and farm out the rest, giving, as I said, a great deal of responsibility to act to others in the church (not even just the ministers and deacons.) But the final responsibility rests with them.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

Jon,

In Eph 4 there are four offices given to the Church - Apostle, Prophets, Evangelists, and Pastor/Teachers.

The Apostles and Prophets were givers of revealed truth and the evangelists and Pastors (which is one of 3 Biblical names for the Elder) are the teachers of that revealed truth.

ALL Christians are to be ministers, and it is unfortunate that we mingle the terminology so much. Deacons are servants to the congregation and have no authority in the Church - at least Biblically speaking.

Our movement calls itself the Restoration Movement and is an effort to restore the Church to what we see in the Bible. That means there is no denominational "pattern" for each and every congregation. Some are better restorers than others. Also unfortunately, many in our movement have the "wanna-be-like-em's" when it come to denominational ways (That's a term I learned from Danny Gabbard).

There will be many that disagree with me on this, and many won't, but the Pastor is not an evangelist. They are two separate offices. They have many overlapping areas, yet they are still distinct. And as I understand Biblical Church leadership, the evangelist has no business being an elder because they oversee each other.

I've dealt with this on another post so I won't go into it here.

Keep asking questions. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

Dr. Jon:

In your post, which I now quote, you ask a very good question. In the last few threads on the elders it has been our purpose to show that the elders are appointed from among the "older" or "mature" MEN of the congregation. We have completely refuted Nelta's position that the elders were nothing more than the "older" or mature believers in the church. This was the point of contention and therefore the object of discussion in those threads. For that reason you did not see a discussion of "how" the elders were appointed. For it was our purpose to show that they were, in fact, appointed. This fact we have established beyond any reasonable doubt from the scriptures. Therefore we will not review that unless it becomes necessary.

Let me also state that this thread, which is just another one of Nelta's silly plays expressing her view of what happens in an elder's meeting which she most likely has never attended, has nothing to do with the question that you have asked. The reason that Nelta does not know "how" elders were appointed is because she does not believe that they should be appointed. She believes that they are nothing more than the "older" Christians, which they become simply by the natural process of aging.

Your words containing your very good and reasonable questions were as follows:

"You guys are totally losing me over this one. Why can't the church body, or the deacons, out vote the elders?? What gives elders any divine right that other believers don't have? This is not a sarcastic question -- I would really like to know. I guess I have been a Baptist too long, but this makes no sense to me. (We don't have "elders." I've never been in a church with "elders," except as a designation of the older, more experienced believers.)

Educate me, please. How do you get elders in the first place?"

First you say that we are " totally losing you over this one". I apologize to you that we often cannot make things as clear as we should. Communicating in this medium is difficult, especially for those such as myself that are not very talented as writers. But we shall try to improve. It may also be attributed to the fact that we do not understand everything as much as we would like to imagine that we do. Our intent is not to "totally lose" anyone in our discussions.

You tell us that this is not a "sarcastic question - I would really like to know". Dr. Jon, I have never seen you ask a "sarcastic question" in this forum and therefore judge that you are not the type of person that would resort to such. I would hope that Nelta could learn from you that these sarcastic plays are nothing more than Nelta's sarcastic ranting against elders in the church that she does not believe should exist as a "post of oversight" with authority in the first place.

Then you express your view that you may have been a "Baptist too long". I do not doubt, Dr. Jon, that you have been a Baptist too long. For you will not find a Baptist Church in the entire New Testament. And you point out that they do not have elders. But the Church of Christ (Romans 16:16) in the New Testament did have elders who were appointed from among the older and more mature Christian MEN that met the requirements listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:5; Acts 14:23. Now, this fact alone marks the Baptist church as being completely different from the Church of Christ found in the New Testament. Though I believe that you will find that at leat some of the Baptist Churches do have "elders" though not quite in the same way as the Church of Christ we read of in the New Testament.

You say that you have never been in a Church with "elders" except as a designation of the older, more experienced believers. But the Christians in the New Testament were members of the Church of Christ (Romans 16:16) and their congregations had "elders" that were appointed from among the "older more experienced" MALE believers. (Acts 15; Acts 14:23; 1Timothy 3:1-8; Titus 1:5-10) This very distinction shows, without question, that they also were not members of the Baptist church. Therefore, because the Baptist church is a church different from and contrary to the church that we read of in the New Testament, you have correctly determined that you have been a member of the Baptist church too long. Thus, from comparing your own words with those found in the word of God we can see that the Baptist church is not the church to which the first century Christians belonged. We also see that the Baptist Church is not as old as the New Testament and is in fact contrary to the New Testament in its polity and leadership. This I say to you because you agreed with Brother Lipscomb whom you quoted in your thread entitled "When Tradition Becomes Dogma". You quoted and agreed with these words from him: "Again, "Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament." This precludes and prohibits all inventions and devices based on opinions of men in any age."

Now based on your agreement that we should not receive anything into the faith or worship of the church, that is "not as old as the New Testament". And the fact that the Baptist Church is not as old as the New Testament and their form of Church leadership is not only not as old as the New Testament but is also completely contrary to the New Testament. I must agree with you that you have truly been a member of the Baptist Church too long for you have not been a member of the Lord's Church described in the Word of God at all. Now I say this, not to insult what you have believed and practiced all these years but to ask you to honestly examine those things in the light of what you have already agreed that we all should do. We examine ourselves daily in this forum and many of our most cherished beliefs come constantly under scrutiny. We are therefore not asking you to do anything less that what we openly do in this forum.

You have admitted that the Baptist Church does not have elders. We have shown that the Church of Christ described in the pages of the New Testament did, under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit through the apostles, have elders that were appointed from among the older MEN of the congregations. Now before we engage in a discussion of how these elders were appointed, which the New Testament shows us, we must first settle and agree that such men were appointed and that all of the Churches of Christ should appoint them. For if you do not even believe that the New Testament requires that elders be appointed and that they are to have such authority to "oversee" the "flock of God which is among them" (Acts 20:28); then, it is fruitless to even begin to discuss how they were appointed in the New Testament. If you are not going to follow the New Testament order that requires elders to be appointed then why would you show any more respect for the New Testament teaching concerning "how" they should be appointed.

Now Nelta, says that she would like to know how the elders are appointed also, even though she does not believe that they should have any "authority" in the church and that they should not exist as an "post of oversight" in the Church. Well, we will be happy to answer Nelta when and if she ever wants to get around to answering our numerous questions that we have asked her challenging her completely false doctrine on this issue.

It is easy to just ask questions. But to discuss, honestly and objectively these issues requires dedication to a search for the truth and an open dialog among honest and sincere participants. Merely jabbering for the fun of it or seeking to satisfy mere curiosity is vain. If the New Testament teaches that we are to have elders in the church then we must have them or be unfaithful to God's will. And if the Baptist Church cannot be found in the New Testament because their teachings are contrary to the New Testament, then no one claiming to be a Christian should belong to the Baptist church or following their doctrines. A sensible dialog calling upon you to leave the Baptist Church if they are teaching contrary to the word of God would be profitable. But just jabbering, when there is no point and no objective is useless and vain. We are not just the "question" men in this forum. We are here to engage in meaningful dialog. With you Dr. Jon, I am sure we can have meaningful dialog. But Nelta is afraid of such. For her rebellion against God's authority when his words tell us that elders are to be appointed and the qualifications that they must possess is a grave and deliberate sin which comes from her excessive femminist prejudice against men. Therefore I would like very much to separate our dialog from Nelta's sinful rebellion. Thus I will be happy to start a New Thread wherein we discuss the elders their qualification, their selection and appointment wherein I will discuss what the New Testament teaches on this subject. But this discussion should be a serious one and thus I want to remove it from Nelta's nonsense which is not serious in any vain except to lead the souls of men away from the word of God.

If you would like to engage in such a discussion I will start a new thread for that purpose. I appreciate your questions Dr. Jon because I know that they come from a sincere heart that seeks to follow the truth. I appreciated very much your observations in the tread entitled "when tradition becomes dogma". I believe that we can have a profitable discussion but not in the background of a thread dedicated to slandering the elders of the church. In Nelta's case it is nothing more than pure slander. The elders of the congregations that I have worshipped with have never been guilty of any of these extreme abuses. Her method in these plays is to perpetually discredit the entire "office of oversight" throughout the entire body of Christ because of the FEW elders who have disobeyed God and sinned in their abuse of the office. She hopes by doing this she can cause everyone to so despise the office of oversight that they will rebel along with her and begin to have only the old people male and female running the church as a democracy following their own whims and neglecting the word of God. The reason she resorts to these "plays" to make her "point" is because she cannot go to the WORD OF GOD to make it. This is like the atheist who attempts to discredit genuine Christianity by pointing to the abuses of the inquisition and wars fought in the name of Christ etc. While none can doubt that such occurred no one that knows the truth can say that these abuses happened because they were being "Christians" but rather because they we not following Christ.

I pray that we can all benefit from our efforts here to discuss the truth that is found in the revealed word of God. I respect your questions Dr. Jon and would like to discuss these things with you. But I want it to be a sincere discussion with open dialog. I mean by this that we have an exchange that is fruitful. Therefore I want to separate the discussion from Nelta's ranting because she never responds and she does not engage in dialog and your questions, which are very good ones, have noting to do with her slanderous plays. I also want to be separate from one who so easily falsely accuses MEN of "having something against women" then tells lies and will not repent. I wish to remove our discussion from a thread where I may be called upon to harshly rebuke this evil woman who is guilty of blatant, deliberate sins as we have pointed to and proven conclusively in other threads and refuses to repent. Now these matters may not be so serious to you. I can respect that but they are serious to me. I have tried often to engage Nelta on these matters but she refuses to discuss them with me because the truth is too much for her to face. No need to say anything about being "judgmental etc. We have proven conclusively without doubt that she has committed sins and told deliberate lies in this forum. Yet she continues to write in the forum and to act as if she has committed no sins. I will remind her until she repents of them.

I am willing to discuss these questions that you have asked but I would rather begin a fresh thread so that the discussion is not tainted with slander, sin and lies. I hope that you can understand even if you do not agree. My intent is for the truth about the elders in the Church to have a fair and reasonable hearing.

Your Friend in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

Again, "Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament."

Lee,

Hmmm.

No midweek services, no multi-service sundays, no sunday schools, no church-owned buildings, no instruments, no four-part harmonies (or two part for that matter), no printed bibles, no printed songbooks, no childrens' church, no youth activities, etc?

We have got a lot to eliminate to get to nothing that isn't as old as the New Testament.

Also, Lee, you keep citing "Church of Christ" as if it is the only biblically sanctioned name. That term appeared once! And for that matter, if we go back to the original language, it could be just as well translated as "Christ's church". The most common name and/or reference to churches was as "the church at x" or "the church in y". The previous church I was at was initially known as "the warehouse church", because that's where we met. We adopted the "permanent" name of "Northeast Church" because those in it were all from the northeast suburbs of Dallas TX.

Otherwise, fine comments.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

I don't know if this is a western thing or what, but in the six Christian churches I have been a part of so far (four in the Los Angeles vicinity, one in Phoenix, and one in the Seattle area), all of them proceeded with the appointment of elders and deacons along similar lines. A man displays the desire to become an elder (or deacon ... an elder has most often, but not always, previously held the position of deacon and proven himself). He has, as D. Lee stated, most likely already been doing things that are required by biblical principles in Timothy & Titus. (In the church I currently attend, the elders -- the pastor being one of the elders -- are responsible for the spiritual guidance and leadership, and the deacons are responsible for the temporal matters.) The current elders and deacons prayerfully consider the candidates for the position, and if there are no Biblical objections, they are presented to the congregation. The congregation has about 2 weeks to also prayerfully consider the prospective people, then if there are no Biblical concerns or objections, the congregation holds a vote. Usually this vote is just a formality, an affirming of the congregation approving those men chosen.

I have a question. In those churches where no vote from the congregation is ever performed, where the presiding elders appoint elders and deacons themselves, what happens if the presiding elders begin to lead in an unbiblical or a worldly manner? (And don't tell me it never happens.) How are those elders removed, if no congregation ever has the right to vote out the elders? Or does the congregation just pack up and build a new church next door? (I'm not being flip, I am generally interested, since I have never seen it done that way before, where the congregation had absolutely no voice.)

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

Brother Mark: I appreciate very much your kind reponse to my post. I will quote it and respond because you have clarified some things for me with which I am happy to agree. Others I wish to discuss. I now quote your words as follows:

Again, "Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament."

Lee,

Hmmm. No midweek services, no multi-service Sundays, no Sunday schools, no church-owned buildings, no instruments, no four-part harmonies (or two part for that matter), no printed bibles, no printed songbooks, no childrens' church, no youth activities, etc?

We have got a lot to eliminate to get to nothing that isn't as old as the New Testament.

Also, Lee, you keep citing "Church of Christ" as if it is the only biblically sanctioned name. That term appeared once! And for that matter, if we go back to the original language, it could be just as well translated as "Christ's church". The most common name and/or reference to churches was as "the church at x" or "the church in y". The previous church I was at was initially known as "the warehouse church", because that's where we met. We adopted the "permanent" name of "Northeast Church" because those in it were all from the northeast suburbs of Dallas TX. Otherwise, fine comments.

You begin by quoting my reference to a principle that I believe is scriptural that was also expressed by Brother David Lipscomb, which stated:

"Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament."

You then argue that this is not an acceptable principle to follow because of all the things that we must give up if we follow it. Now you and I should take some time to discuss whether this principle is scriptural. This will take some time but it could be profitable. For your argument does not militate against the principle at all. For if it is a scriptural principle then we must follow it regardless of what we must give up. If we are practicing things that are not taught or authorized by the word of God then by whose authority do we practice it? So your argument from your list of things that you consider to be without authority in the scriptures would only cause me to sacrifice them for the sake of following the scriptural principle. It would not cause me to consider that the scriptural principle was unscriptural. Now I know that we have not discussed whether this principle is scriptural or not but That is the question that must be settled first. For if it is in fact a scriptural principal we must follow it even if it means we must sacrifice some of our most cherished traditions and favorite practices. If this principal were scriptural I would follow it even if I have to meet in the rain to worship God.

But lets examine the things that you claim to be without scriptural authority:

First you mention no mid-week services. Now the scriptures that command us to worship God, Pray without ceasing, and study the scriptures all authorize meeting any day of the week to do so.

Second you mention  no multi  service Sundays Now the scriptures that command us to meet on the first day of the week to break bread authorize our doing so on that day in as many services that it takes for all to obey that command.

Third you mention no Sunday schools. Now we call these Bible Schools because what we do there is teach others the word of God and teach them to observe all things whatsoever the lord has commanded us (Matt. 28:19,20) And the command to study (1 Timothy 2:15) and the command to give ourselves to reading to exhortation and to teaching all authorize us to study, teach, and exhort one another. This authorizes a bible school whether it is held on Sunday or not.

Then you mention  no church owned buildings. Now the command for us to assemble together in one place (Heb. 10:25; 1Cor.16: 1,2; Acts 20:7) authorizes a place to meet whether it be a rented hall or upper room, or a building owned collectively by the brethren a place to meet together is essential to obeying the command to assemble. Thus this has New Testament sanction.

Then I am extremely happy that you have the good sense to recognize that there is absolutely no authorization in the New Testament for instruments of music in the worship. For you have included it in the list of things that are not as old as the New Testament. Now that is a fact. You and I completely agree about this one though I know that we do not agree about following this principal. But if we were to follow it you and I are in full agreement that the instrument of music would have to be sacrificed. Now you and I agree on this and for that reason I admit that we would, if we followed this scriptural principle, have to give up the instrument. This we have done, as you know- because I am sure that you are aware that I do not use instruments of music in the worship- and you have correctly identified one of the principals upon which I refuse to practice such things.

Then you mention no four-part harmonies (or two part for that matter). Now the command for us to sing is found in twelve places in the New Testament. All that is necessary to singing is authorized by that command. This would authorize harmony, whether four part or two part, which is essential to singing. In fact harmony is one of the very things that distinguishes singing from mere talking. This also authorizes all that is contained in a songbook. For all of the music in the world is divided into to major classes, vocal and instrumental. The notes, which are used to express distinction between tones, are essential to singing whether they are written in a book or memorized. But the command to sing authorizes the use of notes and printed songbooks to facilitate the obedience to that command. Then, I am surprised that you would say that printed bibles are not authorized. For the very word of God was delivered to the saints on parchment that was printed by the hands of scribes. The fact that we do the same thing by printing their words with a printing press so as to avoid copying errors, which incidentally they also sought by various means to avoid, is proof that such is authorized. The command to preach the gospel and to study also authorizes printed Bibles, which are conducive to obeying these commands. Then you say we must give up  childrens' church which I agree with you completely is absolutely without any scriptural authority whatsoever. So lets us stop that unscriptural practice. Then you say no youth activities, etc? Now I do not know what you include in the etc but if it does now as old as the New Testament it can go away. We do not need it. Now concerning this youth activities you are not clear. I teach the word of God to young people in a Bible class. They are young and that could be considered and activity but that activity is authorized by 1 Timothy 2:15. But if you are speaking of youth activities that are designed to entertain the youth such as pizza parties and roller-skating, or swimming or camping, these things are the responsibilities of parents but there is absolutely no scriptural authorization for the church to pay for and sponsor such activities. In that case I would agree with you that they would have to go away also. Now I want to examine your words as follows: Also, Lee, you keep citing "Church of Christ" as if it is the only biblically sanctioned name. That term appeared once! And for that matter, if we go back to the original language, it could be just as well translated as "Christ's church". The most common name and/or reference to churches was as "the church at x" or "the church in y". Let me say just here that you and I agree in most of what you have said above. I was not using the phrase Church of Christ as a name for the church at all. For the Church in the New Testament does not have a name. For if we give it a name we would denominate it. There are numerous descriptive phrases for the church in the New Testament. Christ referred to it as my church and he is the only one that can properly speak of it in such a way. It is called the house of God and the church of the living God, the church of the first born, the church of God, the church of Christ, the kingdom of God, and the body of Christ. Now none of these are names of the church but are rather descriptive phrases that show various relationships that the church, or assembly (ecclesia) sustains. So I did not use it as a name. I would like to see all names taken down from in front of Church buildings because the church has never been named and we have no authority to give it a name that suits us. In fact, I agree with you completely when you say that the Greek terms for church of Christ could be translated Christs church. However, I completely fail to see any difference between the English phrase, Church of Christ which uses the preposition of to indicate possession thus meaning the church that belongs to Christ and the English phrase Christs Church which uses the  s to indicate possession and therefore means exactly the same thing as the phrase church of Christ. So I cannot understand your complain. I used a phrase that is identical in meaning to the one you say is close to the original. How could one of these two phrases be closer in meaning to the original Greek words if the two phrases mean EXACTLY THE SAME THING? I selected the one that I prefer because I could not use them all in the relationship that I was discussing. But I am happy to use the one that you prefer. Christs Church is the one to which all Christians belong. I like that! How about you? It does sound less than a name doesnt it. But it means the same as church of Christ. So how is it that you though I was using it as a name for the church when it means the exact same as Christs church, which few would consider as a name. Now one thing is certain, the church is never described in the New Testament as a Baptist Church and that was my point. It is also not named the church of Christ. It is described as the church that belongs to Christ by use of this phrase but it is not so denominated. I do not belong to ANY denomination including one NAMED the church of Christ. As a Christian, I am a member of the body of Christ, the church of Christ (or if you prefer Christs Church) and I do not belong to any other assembly. I belong solely to Christ our Lord and nothing else. I appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention because it is very difficult in our modern times which the devil has filled with sectarianism, and denominationalism to speak in any language that others could comprehend as being completely without sectarian bias. I was trying to do just that and you have allowed me, by your question, to make it clear that such was my intention. I refuse denominationalism even if the denomination calls itself the Church of Christ. The church does not have a name. Now Gods people we first called Christians at Antioch but they were not called the Christian Church. We all bear individually the name of Christ our Lord for we have named the name of Christ in our obedience to Him. But we have not, collectively been given any other name but the name of Christ (Acts 4:12). Now I hope that such clarifies this matter for you. For it definitely was not my intent to use the term Church of Christ as a name for the church at all much less as the only name for the church. For I do not believe that the church has a name in the sense that you speak of it. I appreciate your kindness in noticing that the rest of my post was otherwise fine comments. You are very kind and I appreciate it. I pray that our Lord will bless you in your work and life and ultimately with eternal life. Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

John,

In our congregation...we have not yet had a presiding elder lead in an unbiblical or a worldly manner.

I did say not in my last post that our congregation never has the right to vote, or that the congregation has absolutely no voice. Quite the contrary. The two weeks to one month given to the congregation to bring to the leadership any BIBLICAL CONCERN OR OBJECTION is their vote. Now...if I have no legitimate objection that I can come forward with...I have consented to his becoming an elder.

You asked how are those leading in an unbiblical or worldly manner removed. If this should happen in our congregation, the same procedure would be followed as is done for anyone who chooses to remain in blatant and unrepentant sin:

Matt 18:15-17 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

1 Tim 5:19-21 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning. I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.

I can tell you that in our congregation (not for an elder) the above biblical guidelines for discipline have been followed. THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A VOTE because when the man refused to repent and it was finally taken before the congregation...everyone could see the sin that was going on in the person's life and his refusal to repent. The congregation was encouraged to go talk to the man to try to turn him back. He did not listen even to the church.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

At the risk of being "Staffolded" <grin>:

I read in Ephesians 5:19, "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord" and in Colossians 3:16, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly ... as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God." Not to mention that the Psalms themselves are quoted some 80 times in the New Testament. Now as I understand it, although the Psalms may be read, or sung acappela, they were originally meant to be accompanied by musical instruments. In fact, Psalms 4, 5, 6, 55, 61, 67, and 76 go so far as to indicate the type of instrument that ought to accompany the singing of the psalm. So since there is an overabundance of evidence that psalms should be sung with instrumentation, and if we in the New Testament church are also instructed to sing psalms, why should we not assume that we ought to sing them the way they were meant to be sung, with instrumentation? Why do we assume that, since instruments are not specifically mentioned, they are therefore forbidden? Isn't that literally reading something into the scriptures that isn't there?

D. Lee: That is essentially what happened in our congregation. There was no vote of no confidence taken. Not just two or three, but a great number of congregants (I deliberately dodged the term "member" <g>), both privately and then publically, spoke out about what they were having problems with. An open board meeting was then held, where the congregation could speak directly with the elders and deacons about the issues they had. Very shortly thereafter all but one of the elders submitted their resignation. (The vote taken was not one of no confidence, but a vote to affirm a new eldership.)

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

Lee,

I see from your response that you did not mean literally " ... as old as the New Testament ..." but rather that you follow principles only as old as the NT. At least that is what I get from your note. For each of the things I mentioned are not mentioned in the NT, and in many cases did not arise until well after the 1st century. It's the principles that we should follow, not necessarily the literal examples. Is that what you mean?

As for "four-part harmony", apparently you don't realize that multi part harmonies weren't "invented" until well after the first century. Historians will tell you that first century singing is much like the famous "Benedictan chants" made famous a couple of years back. the singing of the first century, historians will tell you, was one part harmony.

And, Lee, no, my preference is not "Christ's Church". My preference is "church", with the only distinguishment in name made on a geographic basis -- like most references in the Bible.

So, in summary, I think we should follow biblical principles applied to our culture and time, i.e., let's be the first century church in the current century, not let's bring the 1st century church to our century (they are different: the former "interprets" principles to our time and place, the latter only brings the practices to our century).

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000