This is largely an issue of semantics, but I thought I'd bring it up.

I am not from a CoC background, but from what I hear, some congregations have ministers who preach and head up church meetings like Protestant 'pastors,' but instead, these ministers are called 'evangelists.'

There also seems to be an idea that an evangelist is one who goes around planting churches, appoints the elders, and then starts another one. [Or stays at the one he planted preaching until he dies.]

Is there anything in scripture to indicate that appointing elders is the work of an evangelist per se. Scripture calls philip and 'evangelist.' He went into a city, preached the gospel, did signs, adn wonders, cast out demons, and baptized people. He left making sure the Holy Spirit came on people and follow-up work to the apostles.

Later, Paul told Timothy to 'do the work of an evangelist.' If we want to get really technical, that doesn't even say directly that Timothy was an evangelist, but rather to do the work of evangelist. Timothy, apparently, did some work in appointing or approving elders. (Titus was directly told that he was supposed to appoint elders in the epistle to Titus.)

But Scripture also indicates that Timothyw as an apostle (I Thesalonians 2.) Now, elders are made overseers by the Holy Ghost, but while we are looking at these patterns, is there any pattern for someone who is just an evangelist and not an apostle to appoint elders?

I wonder if using the term 'evangelist' for a clergyman over the elders isn't just an attempt to make the 'status quo' appear more Biblical.

-- Anonymous, July 11, 2000

Answers

It is best to speak of what you know and not what you hear.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

James, Well, I've heard other people from the CoC movement talk, and that is the general idea of what an evangelist is from what I gather. There isn't a denominational handbook I can look in for this kind of stuff.

Is there any other way your comment can be interpreted other than 'smart alec?' If I'm wrong about the CoC view of 'evangelist' let me know.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Link,

Let me give it a shot for you. Understand, my background is mostly acapella CoC, so that will taint it a bit. There are CoC's using instrumental music that are more aligned with independent Christian Churches, but that's another ball of wax.

Ok, in practice (as opposed to scripture), the tendency is that an evangelist is the preacher or pulpit minister. Some have youth evangelists or other designated ministers, this would be the youth minister, etc.

At most churches, these positions don't really compare to pastors from denominational realms. The authority lies with the elders, who too often act analogous to a board of directors. The evangelist is hired and evaluated by the elders, and can be fired by the elders. The elders may (in practice, not necessarily with biblical authority) delegate some authority and more often some of their responsibility to the evangelist. The analogy is much like a board of directors who hires a company president and then keeps tight reins on that president.

Some congregations realize that their "evangelist" really isn't fitting the biblical description, so they refer to him instead as the "pulpit minister" or if they have a staff of paid ministers, he may be the "senior minister".

And you are right, some labeled evangelists are church planters who stay awhile, training potential elders and then overseeing the appointment of elders, then going off to plant another or staying around to preach.

A newer "trend", which some claim is a return to a more biblical mode, is that the evangelist is one who equips others to do evangelism. This view of an evangelist is that the evangelist trains: he trains up leaders (elders and otherwise), he equips outreach ministries, he teaches others to do the work of evangelism. He is less talented at actually preaching the gospel (but still talented at it) and more talented at teaching others to proclaim Jesus. A church with evangelist(s) may have other paid staff, some bearing different titles besides "evangelist".

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

As a Christian Evangelist I had to jump in here for a short. I think there are a few mis-nomers throughout your quest. So far as I know there is no coc movement. If there is a movement on anyones part it is on the part of the King of Kings. Period. :) I cannot answer for the congregations of Christ in each local. There are no positions in the Lord's Church and I appreciated that you used the word "Work", cuz that is what it is all about. Ephesians 4:1l ff outlines these labors that God has given with appropriate terminology. BUT NOT AS A TITLE AS SOME INFER. Part of that assignment come from verse 12, where we get into equipping. As we progress into I & II Timothy & Titus Paul expounds on that work even more fully. Let not the phrase "Do the work of an Evangelist" distress you. The rest of the verse says "Make full proof of thy ministry" Servanthood is what it is all about, The word Minister or Ministry has been much abused by many. There is no such thing as "The Minister" in scripture. However, Phillip was called "The Evangelist." for ever reason God intended. If we pick up on Titus l:5 we learn some more about the responsibilities of the evangelist. There are many Christian Evangelists out there who take seriously their calling and do their best to complete their course. Its pretty sad when they are hampered by religious traditionalism. If nothing else, Timothy & Titus were sure given that work to do and in those days Titles were not important, but rather the work God had called them to do. There is much more that needs to be said on this subject, but I will leave that to others more capable than I. Keep studying. Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Jack,

You did a fine job, keep it up.

Jim

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2000

Mark,

Thanks for the informative posts.

Jack, by calling the "CoC" a movement, I meant the movement of churches that put 'Church of Christ' on the sign out front. Those churches are not the only churches in the sight of God. There are many assemblies of disciples of Christ who do not meet in buildings with 'Church of Christ' on the door. This is the 'Christian Church' discusson board, after all. The Bible doesn't say that only the churches with 'Church of Christ' on a sign on the front are defacto churches of Christ. In fact, the Bible doesn't tell us to have a church building with a sign out front.

There is a movement, or whatever you want to call it, of people who use the label, 'Church of Christ.' How is calling htat movement the 'Church of Christ' any different from the divisive Corinthians who would say of themselves 'I am of Christ' implying perhaps, that the other siants were not of Christ?

Back to the subject- you have a real point about titles. many Chrisitans use the term 'pastor' to refer to the clergyman. I don't see 'cergyman' in Ephesians 4:11, and I think there may be plenty of pastors out there who are not elders int eh church and who do not stand up in front. There are plenty of people with agift to teach and shepherd other believers who do not get official regonition as pastor. In a church community, an older woman who teaches younger women may act as a pastor. That doesn't mean she is a bishop in the church.

The verb euuangelio (or something like that in Greek) seems to be used to talk abotu proclaiming the gospel to non-Christians. The evangelist, or evangelizers int eh Bible went out and preached to unbelievers. I see that as a primary place where an evangelist works- out among unbelievers. But he is also to equip believers. Somehow, churches have an idea that evangelism is supposed to take place within the church. Church meetings are for the edification of believers.

Do you think that using the term 'evangelist' might just be a way of doctoring up the cultural religious church system to make it sound more Biblical? We have inherited a tradition of one man standing at the front preaching in church. Biblically, though, the congregation would share teachings, songs, etc. in the church meeting, rather than just coming and listening to one person talk each week. (I Corinthians 14:26, Hebrews 10:24-25.)

Link

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

I dont know what happened to my post as only part of it came through, hummmmm. As an Evangelist for the Lord and HIS Church I can only attempt to respond to your guery in light of the Oracles of God. As to what some do or whatever deviations occur in the religious world I cannot answer for. I am trying my best to give you as revealed in scripture for Gods Evangelists. There are many words and terms misused and abused in the world around us, which I dont have to give accounting for. "Do the work of an Evangelist" seems consistant with the Holy Spirit inspired Paul, as that is what an Evangelist is to do. A number of commands are given by Paul to The Evangelist Timothy starting in the very first chapter. As we proceed through these books (I & II Timothy & Titus) wse learn first hand what an awsome responsibility and servanthood we have. I am sure you have read these yourself. A few of them are preaching the good news, inherent in the word "Evangelist" itself. They are to set things in order in the churches as needs arise, equipping the saints, Ordaining Elders (Pastors) etc. There are tremendous Christian Evangelists in the world today, doing their best to fulfill Gods commands to them, and it is a shame (vent time) :) that they are often hamstrung from doing their work because of traditions and vain janglings. We are way past due for a revival in the Lords church throughout the land. Now, my friend I have not castigated man made churches, names and doctrines as that is not what I have been called to do. My stand is upon what the Lord in His Holy Oracles commands and Himself supports. I grant you there is much being done today religiously and blameing God for it. As Christian Evangelists all over the world do their best to adhere to the sacred counsel, there are many who do understand and do appreciate the great work that is set before us. I hope this helps clarify & illucidates sufficiently much of What an Evangelist is responsible for and what he is. Just a servant of the Most High God. Keep studying, Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2000

In response to the last post,

I believe God's grace can work, even if we mislabel a ministry. But it is profitable to understand Biblical terminology, so that when we red the Bible we gain more understanding. And that is a good reason for discussing this topic.

One of the points of my original posts is that I don't see where, in scripture that appointing elders, setting things in order, etc. is the work of an evangelist per se. There is plenty of evidence that apostles did this work.

Philip was an evangelist, and we don't see him doing this work. He preached, did miracles, cast out demons, baptized, and moved on, leaving the follow-up and setting in order to the apostles.

Timothy, an apostle (I Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6-7,) like Paul was to 'do the work of an evangelist. The scripture doesn't even say 'Timothy was an evangelist.' The fact that the scripture says Timothy was to do the work of an evangelist doesn't prove that appointing elders was the work of an evangelist. Timothy was also a son of a Greek man and a Jewish mother. We can't use I Timothy to prove that if a brother has a Greek father and a Jewish mother he is the one to appoint elders.

Timothy was also an apostle, and apostles had the work of appointing elders. That was one issue I wanted to raise about the RM understanding of 'evangelist.'

Another is the issue of having an evangelist stay in a local church teaching the congregation like traditional clergy (priest, pastor, etc) rather than going out to evangelize the lost. (Evangelists also equip the saints to do the work of the ministry.)

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

You mention semantics, and I generally agree with your comments on that.

Be aware, however, that some here might misinterpret your comments on apostles. Too often, some say there are no apostles. While there are no descendants of the Apostles (big "A") in an authoritative sense, there are apostles (little "a") today, though not called that. The Greek word transliterated "apostle" means "one sent forth; messenger; delegate". Sounds to me like we call those people today "missionaries" or even "church planters".

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

I never liked that 'big A' apostle idea. For me, Jesus is the only big A apostle, since He is the Apostle and Hight Priest of our profession, and capital letters are used to identify deity.

The word missionary actually comes from a Latin word tht was used in some instances to translate the Greek word for 'apostle.' Not all men called missionaries are apostles, however.

There were many apostles identified as such in the New Testament besides the 12 and Paul. (Paul apparently did not consider himself to be among the 12 according ot his own statements in I Corinthians 15.) Most apostles did not contribute any writings to our Bible.

Scripture indicates that Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and several others were apostles. Jesus commended one church in Revelation for having tested men who claimed to be apostles and finding that they were false. If there were only 13 apostles, why would a church need to test men claiming to be one of the apostles?

Link

-- Anonymous, July 14, 2000

From the standpoint that there were others who were "sent forth" it is true, a number of them were. But upon close examination of the Scriptures we learn of a SELECT band of Disciples, who were called by Christ and later called "Apostles" These were in a catagory by themselves and not the generic use of the word, as you used it.That did not arbitrarily put them into this special calling. The only exception to it was the Apostle Paul, which to me is elementary. THE Apostle to the Gentiles. Which made 13, There was one appointed to take Judas' place. All those in this special class had to meet certain qualifications, which are easily read about in acts 1. These main leaders were placed in the Church in its beginning. Eph 4. I would assume that if Timothy was not an Evangelist, Was not ordained to that work by the laying on of the hands of the Elders, Paul would not have exhorted him to do that work of an Evangelist. Scripture is very plane what that work was in Pauls letter to Timothy under the command of God. Again, God is not concerned with Titles but with function, work. Somewhere that, is easily lost sight of in our modern day philosophical reasoning. The quest for truth from the Holy Oracles of God is what we are after, and let it speak. Yes Phillip was definately called "The Evangelist" It is interesting that he was called "The Evangelist" and not just an Evangelist. This was evidently referring to the fact that it was a distinctive work, that God had and still does call "Evangelists" to do the work of an Evangelist as commannded by God. I try to take care not to just meander around when it comes to this important Call of God to the work of an Evangelist. Praise God he still calls them today, and the Lord's Elders (Pastors, Bishops) ordain them (set them aside) to the calling wherewith God has called them. I thought that Paul under command of God to do so, wrote exactly what the Evangelist is to do, which you mentioned in your post and then slid by it. It is amazing how God has set up a unique manner for the continuance of Evangelists and Elders in the Church. The Elders ordain (set apart) Gods Evangelists and then the Evangelists go forth and among many things, trains, edifys and helps prepare more Elders, which desire the work & God calls. These in turn then are ordained to the WORK God has called them to. Oh the beauty of Gods plan for His Church and its continuance. Keep studying, Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Jack: I don't have any problems with what you said ... but I don't have any problems with what Mark said, either. I think you are probably on the same page. I think that Mark would agree that the 12 Apostles (plus Paul) were in a separate class by themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that many others were called "apostles" in the New Testament. Basically what we term "missionaries" today, if we wanted to call Bible things by Bible names (as the RM wishes to do) we should call them "apostles" instead.

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Jack,

Paul THE apostle to the Gentiles? Seems like I recall looking this up during a convrsation on Romans 11, and found that the equivilent of THE does not appear in Greek, and it could be translated as 'an' apostle of the Gentiles. I may have come across such a translation. I don't know Greek, but I recognize that little particle that looks like 'o' and the Enlgish words underneath it in the translation.

Barnabas was also an apostle sent to the Gentiles (Acts 14:14, see also I Cor. 9:6 and Galatians 2:9.)

I don't see any evidence in scripture that one becomes an evangelist by elders laying hands on him. Apostles (Paul and Barnabas) had hands laid on them to set them apart. Apostles laid hands on elders ordained to minister. The apostles also laid handson deacons.

The apostles had laid hands on Philip the evangelist (and again I don't think it is wise to think of 'the' here in all capital letters.) But this laying on of hands was related to his appointment as deacon dealing with 'waiting tables,' and there is no evidence that it has anything to do with being an evangelist. The gift of evangelist started working in him. We read in Acts 8 of the saints preaching, but when Philip preached, the results sound a lot more dynamic. Evangelism was his gift.

I don't see any evidence in scripture that an evangelist becomes an evangelist necessarily by an elder laying hands on him.

I don't see good evidence fo rhte idea that it is the job of the evangelist, per se, to appoint elders. Philip, the man clearly called an evangelist, left church follow-up up to apostles, praching, doing miracles, and baptizing.

Paul, Peter, Timothy, and other apostles seem to have done the work of evangelists. The 12 were sent out on messages to preach. So were the 70. Perhaps all the apostles were evangelists.

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Continued from above-server problem

So does appointing elders belong to the relm of an evangelists ministry or an apostles ministry? Since Philip is not called an apostle, but he is called an evangelist, maybe he is a better model for the Biblical pattern for evangelist than timothy, who is also called an apostle. He didn't appoint any elders that we see in scripture.

Timothy was an apostle and was also instructed to do the work of an evangelist (work that other apostles did as well.) Paul was an apostle. He had hands laid on him. I don't see any reason to think that hands were laid on Timothy to be an evangelist per se. It seems more reasonable that hands were laid on him to be an apostle, if we are going to get really technical about it.

Perhaps appointing elders has more to do with being the father in Christ of the church. Paul didn't appoint elders in Jerusalem. He did appoint elders in the cities where he planted churches. He wrote ot the Corinthains that his realm of authority extended unto them because he had gone as far as them with the gospel.

Timothy may have been a spiritual father along with Paul in Ephesus, since he may have evangelized at an early stage of the churches growth. Or, he may ahve been functioning as a delegate of Paul, to whom God had given the responsibility to appoint elders- after all, paul was a father to the Ephesians in the Gospel.

Realistically, elders could lay hands on anyone with prophecy for anything the Lord chooses. I just don't think we should make a strict pattern for laying on of hands for something, aside from the Spirit's moving, unless scripture is clear onthe matter.

Something to notice about the evangelists ministry, especially Philip, is that it may stay in a place for a short period of time. Paul and Timothy stayed around a bit longer. They were apostles and not only preached and left work up to others, but worked as apostles, pastoring and laying foundations.

As far as the Ephesians 4:11 ministries are concerned, I see patterns for laying on of hands for apostles, but not for the other ministries necessarily (pastor included, unless one with the gift of pastor happens to be being appointed to the position of bishop.)

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Just a couple more comments to sum up previous posts:

Paul told Timothy toset the chruch in order AND to do the work of an evangelist.

Paul wanted Timothy to set the church in order AND preach the gospel to unbelievers. He didn't say that part of the work of an evangelist was setting the church in order.

Paul wrote to the Corinthgians that he was sent not to baptize but to preach- euangelizestha- the gospel. If Paul did not consider baptism to be a part of euangelizestha, why would setting the church in order be the special work of an evangelist?

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Link I appreciate the subject matter we are dealing with here, but by simply saying "I dont see it...." does not nulify the plain teaching in Timothy. Did you miss I Tim. 4:14, where it speaks of the Elders laying their hands on him??????? Again, Philip was "The Evangelist" specifying that that labor was set up as part of the important ministry of the Church and continues to this day. The blueprint of God is so clear, I dont see how one cannot "See it". I will endeavor to reply to your other "thinkings" as soon as I can print it off, and beable to more carefull analyse your thoughts. Keep on studying, Bro., Jack

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

In as much as Paul was commanded by The Lord to relate these things to Timothy Evangelist today obey the same commands as best they can according to their ability. By your reasoning there would be no commands for us today, I have heard this arguments before and still dont reckon I fathom them. By your reasoning The book of Ephesians was written to the Ephesians so it holds no authority for us today. What would Pauls comment on what you said about baptism have to do with Timothys commanded work. Granted that Much which the Apostles did was similar to Evangelist. In fact they paved the way. Regardless whether we can find some logical reason why God commanded The Evangelist to "Set things in order" it is Gods command. Just looking around in the Lords Church today, there are still a few congregations which need some things "set in order" I can see the wisdom of God in commanding this to the Evangelists. The same way I can see why God commanded the Evangelist "To ordain Elders" Someone has to do it, and God commanded. The beauty of Gods wonderful plan in all things related to His Church. Most of it is pretty simple, As I said before, Yes Timothy was an apostle in the generic sense of the word, and I thought I elaborated enough on that. To me the scripture speaks very clear on all these things. I reckon that I just took it for granted this was pretty elementary Scriptural teaching. I was honestly trying to respond to the initial post you set up which I took to be an honest inquiry. The only problem I have is that I am tied to what scripture teaches on it. If there are others in the Lords church which teaches differently. I am not aware of them. Often I have been asked to deal with certain situations in the Lords Church where there were no elders or the Elders had left. I am currently at one now, where much help was needed. We now have five Elders and another Brother is desiring the office. The Lord willing I pray God he will be ready to be ordained to the Work God has called him to. Keep studying Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, July 15, 2000

Jack,

No I didn't miss the part about the elders laying hands on Timothy. I thought I made my points clear in the previous posts, but maybe the message got lost in all the words. I just think there is some eisegesis going on, or at least some assumption going on here in saying that appointing elders is a part of the Biblical pattern for evangelists. First, we don't see that teh elders laid hands on him to be an evangelist. Second, we don't see that he was told to appoint elders because he was an evangelist.

Timothy was: 1. an apostle 2. told to do the work of an evangelist.

We see that apostles were sent out after the assension with the laying on of hands (Paul and Barnabas Acts 13.)

Philip was clearly called an evangelist (not just told to do the work of an evangelist.) It seems the gift started working in him without the laying on of hands. (Hands were laid on him for deacon work, with no mention of being set apart as an evangelist.)

If we look at Philip as the proto-type for the Biblical pattern evangelist we see:

1. No laying on of hands mentioned for being made an evangelist. 2. He preached and left the setting up house and setting the house in order to other believers.

For apostles we see these things in scripture: 1. Set apart by laying on of hands. 2. 'Set the house in order.' 3. Appointed elders. 4. Preached the gospel to unbelievers (the work of an evangelist.)

Since Timothy was probably both an apostle and an evangelist, it doesn't make sense to say that Timothy was given the responsibility to appoint elders and set things straight BECAUSE HE WAS AN EVANGELIST. It makes more sense, imo, to say that he did these things, at least in part BECAUSE HE WAS AN APOSTLE.

When I see the command to 'do the work of an evangelist' in the epistle, I understand that to mean 'preach the gospel to unbelievers.' Evangelizing is preaching to unbelievers. 'Evangelist' means one who preaches to unbelievers, or has a ministry to do so from God.

I'm not saying an evangelist couldn't appoint elders. I don't see a clear Biblical pattern for it. I do see a clear Biblical pattern for apostles appointing elders- Timothy's pattern included. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that all the Ephesians 4 type apostles we see do the work of evangelists- by which I mean preach the gospel to unbelievers.

It may be that you can't see my point because 'evangelist' in your mind is defined by the ministry that you have seen in chruches all yoru life by men called 'evangelists.' Just like evangelicals, when they read Ephesians 4:11, sometimes think that 'pastor' means the head of an assembly that calls all the shots. If they came fromm that kind of church, they might read that idea into the verse, just because 'pastors' is mentioned there. But the Bible doesn't teach that a 'pastor' is the one-man CEO of a denomination. The fact that elders are commanded to pastor the church of God is often overlooked.

If you look at the model for 'evangelist' of many Evangelicals, the evangelist is seen as a travelling preacher who preaches the gospel to unbelievers, wins them to Christ, and leaves in the care of local churches.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2000

Cont from above

To me, this makes more sense, Biblically, than the CoC and ICC end of the RM's view that 'the work of an evangelist' involves appointing elders, etc. Paul told Timothy to set certain things straight in the church AND to do the work of an evangelist. He didn't say setting things in order WAS the work of an evangelist. Taken literally, doing the work of an evangelist involves proclaiming the gospel. From Philip's example, this proclaiming was done among those who do not believe.

If an evangelist spends his time always talking to believers and setting their churches in order without doing any evangelist, is he doing the work of an evangelist? 'Located evangelist,' in extreme cases could start to look a little like 'senior pastor' or 'bishop over the elders'- the religious denominational system with a different name.

As for appointing elders, Paul appointed elders in the churches he planted. This was probably a lot clearer back then because he had laid the foundation in many churches where he ministered. He went into areas that didn't have a manifestation of the Lord's church, and planted a church there. Nowadays, church planters may receive a large percentage of their congregation from other churches inthe area. They plant a church organization, but they don't plant the souls there, necessarily, by 100% evangelism. Some church planting is just drawing members from other churches.

Of course, here on the frontier, real foundation laying church planting is possible, as there are many unreached villages- that's an understatment. There are unreached people groups who have less than 2% who profess any form of Christianity.

Perhaps Paul and the other apostles authority to appoint elders (whom the Holy Ghost made overseers) came partly from the fact that they had planted the churches- not just because they were apostles. They were apostles to these particular churches. I'm thinking of the end of I Corinthains 3, II Corinthians 10, where Paul says their authority extended to the Corinthians because they had brought them the gospel, and I Corinthains 9, the first few verses. In fact Paul wrote to the church of Corinth that they were the seal of Paul's apostleship in the Lord.

About appointing elders, I read once in a book that one of the passages, in Greek, calls elders 'deacons' (servants) or uses a related verb to describe their ministry. In Jerusalem, we see that deacons were put forth by the church, and the apostles laid hadns on them. We also see that the people put forward Barsabas and Matthias. There is wisdom in the collective body,and sometimes it makes sense to let the people pray, look around them, and see who is already operating in pastoral gifts, and who the Holy Ghost is making overseers. (Paul wrote to the Ephesian elders that the Holy Ghost had made them overseers.)

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2000

I am not saying Ephesians isn't relevant for us today. I don't see how you get that.

My point about baptism-

Paul told Timothy to do the work of an evangelist.

Paul told the Corinthians that God sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. The word for preach here is a verb form related to 'evangelist.

Paul didn't even include baptism in the definition of 'evangelize' or preach. So why include appointing elders, etc. in 'the work of an evangelist.'

If evangelistic work can exclude doing the actual baptizing why would it include setting the house in order?

We see Philip's example of the work of an evangelist- preaching the gospel, though he did baptize (probably not because he was an evangelist per se, but because he was a believer. Baptism is something that can also be done by a regular 'disciple' like Ananias.)

If we want to see a pattern for the work of an evangelist, we can't just see anything that Timothy did and call it the work of an evangelist. Why? Because he was also an apostle. Apostles did the work of evangelist, but also did more (setting the churchin order and appointing elders.) We need to look at someone who was just an evangelist in scripture, and not also an apostle.

Well, Philip was a disciple, a deacon, and an evangelist. He preached, baptized (which is in the realm of the ministry of disciples) and left the follow up and appointing of elders to apostles.

Of course, if we get too set in having to have a pattern for everything, we can miss what the Lord is doing. Barnabas was sent out as an apostle after mere apostles and teachers laid hands on him. Where is his apostolic succession? Couldn't some elders, at least laid hands on him? Can mere 'organic' gifts like prophets and teachers can appoint apostles. Prophets probably didn't have to have hands laid on them to be made prophets. (If anyone considers himself to be a prophet or spiriitual, Paul wrote, indicating that it wasn't a matter that was always clearly settled by laying on of hands, perhaps.) The key factor in the Paul and Barnabas passage is that the Holy Ghost spoke. they were sent forth by God, who made use of the body.

Just think the trouble Paul endured because of his credentials. God sent him, but he didn't get to start out with nice credentials of Jesus picking him before the resurrection, or apostolic sucession for the 12. There is no record that elders evenhad laid hands on him. But God spoke and he went.

You wrote, "By your reasoning there would be no commands for us today,"

Just imagine a Pentecostal, when being presented with an argument that scripture is not conclusive that everyone who was baptized with the Holy Ghost in Acts spoke in tongues. Suppose he said, 'If that were the case, then how would we know if anyone had been baptized with the Holy Ghost. If he didn't speak in tongues, we would have no sign of his Holy Spirit baptism."

For some people, that type of reasoning is a reason not to accept an argument. 'If that is true, many things that I hold dear, and make deceision based on, are false. So that cannot be true.'

I realize that you have been in an environment where the label 'evangelist' carried with it the idea that an evangelist's work includes appointing elders and setting a church in order. Whether this is just an issue of semantics (and God still works through the system with wrong labels) or a core issue of doctrine, we still need to consider it.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2000

On another thread, I mentioned a booklet put out by an RM group, and I discovered that they have all of thrie issues on their website:

www.integrityjournal.org

The following article is from their Summer or Fall issue:

Naming the Wind Dan Cameron

My apologies to Langdon Gilkey for mimicking his book's title, Naming the Whirlwind, but my concern in this article is not the naming of God, but the naming of the preacher. The Restoration Movement has a history of confusion over what it calls the pulpit preacher, the earlier options being primarily evangelist or preacher. In more recent years in the independent Christian Churches, my locus, the name for the person in the pulpit has typically been minister, to some, more colloquially, preacher (this is rather unofficially determined from surveying my own experience and exposure to churches in the American Midwest, West, Northwest and the Canadian West). My sources tell me that minister is the overwhelming name of choice among the a cappella churches. But in the past decade in the independent Christian Churches there has been an increasing use of the term "pastor" as the title for the pulpit preacher--to the chagrin of some and the applause of others within the churches. What about this?

The identity crisis I remember my first class in seminary where we explored the issue of the identity of the preacher. The teachers asked the class to identify the correct title/role of the preacher. Almost every possible title was suggested and discussed in class. But the conclusion of the teachers as to which title was "right" was as frustrating as the discussion--they concluded that the preacher wears all of them at times! Though there is some truth in that idea, it begged the question. We preachers in the Restoration Movement have always had an identity crisis. I know, because I suffered this identity crisis for many years myself. I believe it stems, at least to some degree, from Alexander Campbell's personal dislike and mistrust of clergy (Campbell reveals his antipathy toward them in the very first installment of the Christian Baptist, August 3, 1823). Paid ministers were not accorded high praise from him and this attitude was inherited by later generations of Restoration leaders. I have heard this attitude toward preachers expressed in the ungracious word occasionally used of them, "hireling." This is not only unflattering, but may be explanatory as to why it has taken so long for our churches to consider if the word "pastor" is a viable name for the man in the pulpit, let alone the best name.

But is the term "pastor" justified or is it only a recent heresy, as some think? Are those who name the "wind" pastor merely "in error?" I want to explore this issue and make a case that the "preacher as pastor" has both strong Biblical and practical warrant. It is the assumption of this article that the proper title for the preacher should pass not only the "Biblical" test but also the "practical" test. The title should be both a viable, biblical one, and it should also reflect what the man does in ministry. Let's review the options for "Naming the Wind."

Preacher We begin our search for the "correct title" with the word preacher. Surely this is descriptive of a major task the person in the pulpit performs. He preaches often and is visibly recognized for so doing. While this is true, one still needs to ask if this title is properly descriptive.

Practically speaking, does the preacher spend most of his time preaching? No. Even if one includes the sermon preparation time, this title is still not the most descriptive name for him. Since ministers work 60+ hours a week on average, a realistic appraisal of his time spent in his church work would not be summarized by the title, preacher.

Does this term have good biblical warrant? Actually it has weak support when one considers the tiny New Testament evidence for this "office." The term preacher in Greek is kerux, a "herald, or preacher." In secular culture this would refer to the "Town Crier," the newsman of the day. This noun is found only three times in the NT, 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11 (both in self-reference to Paul) and 2 Peter 2:5 (in reference to Noah, "the preacher of righteousness"). While the verbal forms of "to preach" are found 60 times in the NT in various contexts, there seems to be no NT precedent for an office of "preacher" in these verses. Paul's reference to his "preacher identification" does not imply an office of preacher, but a function of proclaiming the gospel of Christ as part of his apostolic mission. No located minister was labeled preacher in the NT.

Evangelist The next title or office to consider is that of evangelist. This term has had long accepted usage in our fellowship and has the advantage of being named as an office/function in Ephesians 4:11 (along with Apostle, Prophet and pastor/Teacher). The Greek term is euangelistes and means "one who preaches (announces, proclaims) good news." The term is not religious in origin---but is used almost exclusively so in the NT. There are two other times this noun is used in the NT, the first is Acts 21:8 in reference to Philip. Philip was called "the evangelist" because he helped evangelize the Samaritans. Later, after Philip evangelized the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 8:40 says that he "traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea." Now, the reader is not told what his duties were (if any) in Caesarea--but until that time we see him evangelizing the lost. When Philip is called "the evangelist" in Acts 21:8 it may only be a reference to Philip's "evangelizing" past and not a reference to his status as the "evangelist" of the church in Caesarea. So, in Philip's case, the term evangelist definitely has reference to his vocation of preaching to the lost.

The second usage of the term evangelist is Paul's command to Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist" in 2 Timothy 4:5. Many believe that Paul is calling Timothy an "evangelist." But actually we have a command--without description--among the pastoral Epistles' 14 chapters of pastoral commands! These 14 chapters of commands regarding pastoral work surely do not fit well under the heading of "evangelist"--one who announces good news to the lost. Timothy is not titled as an evangelist, but simply told to do the work entailed by the term, in addition to all the other commands and expectations on him. The breadth of his pastoral ministry is being defined. Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus to set the church in order, train, preach, confront, and help evangelize, etc. To present the gospel to the lost is a part of every Christian's work, as well as the leader's work-- but not the defining title which summarizes his work.

There is an office/title of evangelist that Ephesians 4:11 identifies, but what is it evangelists do? The only clues come from the meaning of the term and Philip's example. Philip preached the gospel in a groundbreaking way to certain Samaritans (et al.), thus illustrating the term and defining the office. To preach the gospel to the lost would seem to be the work of an evangelist. preachers do this, yes. But how much time is spent each week by our preachers doing this? preachers speak to believers mostly--some almost exclusively. My experience and observation is that they spend little time pursuing this activity, sadly. At issue is that in order for this title to be descriptive of the preacher he ought to spend at least the majority of his time doing so. If a preacher does this regularly and mostly, then the title is appropriate. Perhaps certain Missionaries or Church Planters or ministers of Evangelism are evangelists by virtue of their schedule and work--and this is great! We need more. But my contention is that the typical preacher does not do this, so, merely naming him an evangelist does not make him one. No, this term is not the one most descriptive of the preacher's work.

Minister This has been the title that I have always had attached to me as a preacher in Restoration churches. The English term, minister, usually translates the Greek word, diakonos, and means "a servant." (Our term "deacon" is a transliteration of this Greek term, much like "baptize" is a transliteration of baptizo). But the word, minister, has an ancillary origin. The Latin term, minister, is the equivalent to the Greek term, diakonos, and appears to be the ancient root from which the English word minister was invented (transliterated). This being so, the term minister is technically a term defining a "deacon" or a "servant" in a local church (in the Church one can be an official Servant [deacon] or an unofficial servant--as all Christians are). Biblically, then, the office/function of minister is actually the office/function of deacon. There is the problem. How many preachers would call themselves a deacon? Or believe that they serve in the function of deacon? Granted, there are different perspectives on what deacons do, but this writer's belief is that this person carries out specific tasks within the local assembly on behalf of the elders and the Church (leaning on the Acts 6 model). The deacon is not assigned the care of souls, preaching the Word, or many other tasks that preachers do regularly--which are actually elders' jobs. The office/function of deacon is an honorable, important job in the church, it just is not equivalent to the office/function of the preacher.

I will not deal in detail with the biblical material on minister since it is actually material about deacons when referring to an office, or of servanthood when not. We are familiar with the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8--12 and the reference to those holding this office in Philippians 1:1 and Romans 16:1. Four other times Paul refers to people as faithful "servants" of Christ, though not meaning to call them deacons (Col. 1:7; 4:7; 2 Cor. 3:6; 1 Tim 4:6). It is interesting that our culture and our churches accept the title, minister, as the title of choice for the preacher, but there actually is no biblical support for the "preacher as deacon" and it has the least practical warrant of all the options we have discussed so far.

Pastor/Shepherd/Bishop/Overseer/Elder: The final title we will discuss is that of pastor/shepherd. The Greek term is poimen and means "a shepherd." The Latin, pascere, means "one who feeds," and this word evolved into Middle English (AD 1150-1475) which eventually formed the background of the English word, pastor. While this noun is used primarily in the NT in reference to Jesus it is used one time in reference to church leaders

(Ephesians 4:11) where Paul refers to "evangelists and pastor/teachers." But the verb, "to shepherd," is used five times in reference to church leaders (John 21:16; Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Peter 5:2; and Jude 12). Though the use of this term is somewhat limited, the following paragraph may explain why.

There are 3 Greek terms (and, therefore, English) that are used interchangeably in the NT. These terms are 1. poimen, or pastor/Shepherd. 2. episkopes, or overseer/bishop (etymology is "one who looks over"). 3. presbuteros or elder. To survey the interchangeability of these terms the reader is directed to Acts 20:17-28, 1 Peter 5:1-5, and Titus 1:5-9. In Acts 20:17 Paul sends for the "elders" of Ephesus and charges them to be "shepherds" of the church of God. . . over whom the Holy Spirit had made them "overseers" (28). This is the classic text that equates these offices with each other. But also Peter tells the "elders" to "be shepherds" of God's flock . . . serving as "overseers" (1 Peter 5:1- 2). Then in Titus 1 Paul gave qualifications for "elders" but he calls them "overseers" midway through his list of qualifications.

These three passages establish the case that the terms elder, pastor and overseer are in fact different names for the same office/function. While elder emphasizes maturity (in the writer's view, spiritual maturity), pastor emphasizes the shepherding care of souls, and overseer emphasizes the managing, visiting, oversight of the church. If you think of these titles as describing the same office then a clearer picture begins to emerge. The elders/pastors/ overseers have the teaching, caring, oversight of the church--her people and programs. This is very distinct from the deacons who were given specific tasks & responsibilities in their area of expertise. The deaconal office is not a teaching office nor an authority-laden office, except for their specific assigned areas of ministry. With this breakdown of job function in the church (deacon and elder/shepherd), where would one fit in the preacher? Or the evangelist? Or the minister? Maybe this artificial squeezing in of a hypothetical office is part of our problem in the churches we know and love.

Resolution As I wrote earlier, I had an identity crisis for many years in ministry and my first seminary class didn't help resolve the issue. But one day in my study I reread 1 Timothy 5:17ff. and things finally clicked!

"The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." (NIV)

Paul goes on to explain that the "double honor" refers to paying the elder a wage for his work. The church laborer has a right to live by the means of his work. A paid elder? Or a paid pastor? As I remembered all the tasks native to the elder/pastor/overseer found in the pastoral Epistles, I added to this that he may be an employee of the church! The Lord finally resolved my identity crisis! As a minister I had always cared for souls, taught, counseled, preached, visited the flock, and lead and directed the affairs of the church in concert with my elders. It dawned upon me that I was one of them! I was not above them nor below them, I was just one of them.

This was "revelation" to me. Instead of using the term preacher, which was not representative of my full job, instead of using the term evangelist, which was descriptive of only a small part of my work, instead of using the term minister which was more illegitimate than the rest, I found the term that actually described what I, and most every other preacher I knew, did for a living--right there in my Bible all along! I am a vocational pastor/elder/overseer of the church, in league with the other paid and non-paid pastors/elders/overseers of the local assembly. We are a team, they are my boss, but we are the leaders of the church. No forcing of titles that don't properly fit or have biblical warrant, no inventing of offices not really in the Bible, just reveling in the fact that who I am and what I do is clearly defined in Scripture. What a relief and a joy!

Is this capitulating to other denominations? Is this copying other groups blindly? Is it the end of one of the planks of the old Restoration platform? No to all three questions! I believe it is a return to a biblical pattern that has been in Scripture all along, we just didn't utilize it. (In fairness, B. W. Stone titled himself "elder" rather than any other title.) I believe it just may be time we begin using this biblical name--or at least allow those who see this as biblical teaching to utilize what their biblical study says is right--without decrying it as "heresy!" The preacher is a pastor, it has both biblical and practical warrant! It is who he is and what he does, and it has been this way from the beginning, whatever we have called him.

Dan Cameron, who holds a D.Min from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, is a former Professor of Ministry at Boise Bible College. He is currently Professor of Ministry and Theology at Great Lakes Christian College. He and his wife, Donna, have been in the pastorate for 18 years.

Thought you might find it interesting.

Connie

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

Connie,

I think the root of the problem is not finding a name for the pulpit minister. It is the fact that the concept of a 'pulpit minister' in church is not rooted in scripture. There were elders who were commanded to pastor the church, and probably other teachers in the congregation besides the elders who acted as pastors, that is sheep tenders. Paul left a group of elders begind to tend churches. He didn't just leave one over the saints. Elders ahd to work together in mutual submission. They had to work with the congregations in mutual submission. Elders were to be apt to teach, but they weren't the only teachers in church. Speaking in meetings was not done by one man, but the saints would take turns speaking in church.

The article doesn't deal with this issue, but rather tries to put a bandade on the problem of clergy. Instead of getting rid of the clergy concept, ittries to pick a Biblical name to make the concept of clergy seem Biblical. The system needs an overhaul to go back to the original way it was set up. We don't need to make it sound more Biblical by putting more titles to it.

To Jack and everyone else

Below is perhaps a better explanation of my conclusions about the meaning of 'evangelist.'

In some churches, the evangelist act a lot like a Protestant pastor, doing preaching on Sunday, etc. Some have the idea that there is a Biblical pattern for evangelist, that elders lay hands on men to make them evangelists, and evangelists lay hands on men to make them elders of the church.

This seems to be based on the fact that Paul gave Timothy instructions to appoint elders, and also told him to do the work of an evangelist.

In many denominations 'the work of an evangelist' is taken to mean preaching the gospel to unbelievers- evangelizing, proclaiming the gospel. For some in the RM, 'do the work of an evangelist' refers to all the work assigned to Timothy.

Imo, this Restoration Movement view is not based purely on scripture, but there are some assumptions used to fill in the blanks.

A problem arises in that Timothy was also an apostle, and not just an evangelist. It seems that all the apostles of Christ in the New Testament 'did the work of an evangelist.' The 12 were sent out to evangelize, and Paul and Barnabas, called apostles in Acts 15:15 evangelized as well.

From I Thesalonians 1:1 and 2:6-7, we see that Timothy was an apostle.

Is there a Biblical pattern for evangelists appointing elders, or is the pattern for apostles to appoint elders.

Let us consider another man called an evangelist. Actually, Timothy was not called an evangelist per se in the epistle. He was told to do the work of an evangelist, but Philip is refered to in scripture as 'Philip the evangelist.'

Did Philip appoint elders? We see Philip's minsitry in Acts 8. He went to Saamaria, preached Christ, did signs and wonders, baptized, and left 'setting up house' int he churches there to the apostles. He did not set the house in order, etc. He preached, baptized, and left.

If we are to understand what Paul meant by 'do the work of an evangelist' we must study what evangelist means in scripture. Of course, it means a proclaimer of the gospel. But we can gain more insight by looking at the work of the man called 'evangelist' in scripture. His work was to proclaim the gospel to those who had not yet received it. From Philip, it would seem that the work of an evangelist does not necessarily include appointing elders.

What about Timothy's role as apostle. Did apostles appoint elders? How were men recognized as apostles in the New Testament period.

We see that Paul and Barnabas were sent forth on their first missionary journey after meeting with certain prophets and teachers in the church. The Holy Ghost spoke to separate Paul and Barnabas to the work to which He had called them. The prophets and teachers laid hands on Paul and Barnabas, and they were sent forth to do the work.

Later, we read that Timothy had a gift on him given through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders.

Some assume that this laying on of hands was for Timothy to be an evangelist, but does't it make more sense that this may have been associated with Timothy's ministry as an apostle.

Also consider the fact that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in the churches they appointed. If Timothy was to appoint elders, doesn't it make more sense that his authority to appoint elders was related to apostolic authority or the authority of a father int he gospel who had brought the gospel to them? Either he was acting on authority given to him that related his own labors in the gospel , or acting on the authority given to Paul that related to Paul's labor in the gospel.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians that his sphere of authority extended to them because he had gone as far as them with the gospel. He also told the Corinthain church that they were the 'seal of his apostleship int he Lord.' Paul did not appoint elders for the church in Jerusalem. He appointed elders in the churches he had planted by the grace of God.

What, then, should be the title for the pulpit minister? Biblically, is there any evidence for a pulpit or a pulpit minister. In the letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote that 'everyone of you has a psalm, has a teaching.' The commands of God he passed on for church meetings involved turn taking and mutual edification, not listening to a pulpit minister.

Evangelists preach the gospel to the lost. Teachers teach in the assembly of saints. Prophets edify with their utterances. Elders lead the Christian community, and may teach like the other teachers in the assembly. All have to learn to allow for mutual edification in the church meetings.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

Link:

I presume you got a lot of your training from your Christian grade and high school. They did a good job. Your parents got their money's worth. (I DO know how to spell 'their' even though I spelled it incorrectly in my last post).

Also, I imagine you applied yourself.

I think tradition sneaks up on all of us. When a good idea becomes a habit, it sometimes loses its reason for being, but we cling to it as to a life preserver.

Thank you for your teaching.

Connie

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

I appreciate your challenging thoughts relative to this entire subject. I wish we would have numbered them from the beginning, for people like me who are slow. Anyway, let me attend to several points you keep repeating. l. The utilization of the word "Apostle" relative to Barnabus and Timothy. As I tried, but evidently was not clear, another of my handicaps. There are a number of words that are used in a generic sense and in a singular sense. Timothy was not an apostle in the sense that the 12 to the jews and Paul to the gentiles were. No evidence is produced in scripture that he fulfilled the qualification of an Apostles which I illuded to previously. He became a convert as the result of Pauls preaching evidently, on Pauls missionary Journey. Generically, yes, he was an apostle (one sent forth) He was evidently sent forth as the result of prophecy to effect that. Let us visit again the passage you refered to with the laying on of hands of the Elders in I Timothy 4:14. A close examination of this scripture coordinate with II Tim.l:6 reveals even more. First II Tim.l:6 uses a similarity from the word carisma, as in found in II Tim. 1:6. Be that as it may, I Tim.1:6 in speaking about the laying on of the hand of the Elders (Ordaining Timothy)which was in accompanyment with the laying on of Pauls hands to recieve this carisma. It is interesting that Paul here encourages Timothy to not neglect this gift and then again in II Tim. has to remeind him to stir it up. (Thats another whole subject worthy of investigation. 2. Speaking of Philip as a starting point regarding the evangelist, The argument from silence that scripture does not speak of him doing the work of an evangelist as Paul did to Timothy, does not mean he didnt. We do know that the main emphasis was on proclaiming the good news, which every evangelist if basically called to do, and yes primarily to the lost. However, a closer look at Pauls admonition to Timothy would indicate that he left Timothy at Ephesus because there was alot of teaching/preaching to do, and setting in order. I agree with you on the clergy-bird concept that has permeated the Lords church in many places. I am with you, on let us return to learn what the Biblical Motif is for setting the church in order, having and maintaining leadership, and the outreach. The system doesnt need to be overhauled, it merely needs to be restored in action, not just words. 3. Pulpit minister: An unfortunate use of terms, because it is of man and misleading. The Evangelist, is constantly trying to so teach and train, that he can move on. Your right my friend mutual edification is what it is all about in the Lords Church. Let us all go and do likewise. keep on studying Bo Jack

-- Anonymous, July 18, 2000

Brothers: I have just logged on and read the various comments about the evangelist. While I have always appreciated our movement's efforts to call Bible things by Bible names, I think that we sometimes try to impress a form or pattern onto the New Testament that may not be there. In our efforts to try to find the "New Testament Pattern" (whatever that is) we have often tried to systematize something that was very spontaneous. YOu see this in "patterns" of leadership and titles. Timothy is told to look for elders and servants who fit the qualifications. On the other hand, Titus is told to ordain elders, but deacons are never mentioned at all in the epistle to him. Timothy is told to "Do the work of an evangelist" and to stir up his gift but we are never told if his spiritual gift is that of "evangelist." Does this mean he held a "position of Evangelist?" Or that he had the gift of "evangelist"? Or that Paul was simply telling him to be evangelistic? I'm not sure we can say absolutely either way, based onthe text. In our present use an Evangelist is a traveling preacher but Timothy was stationed at Ephesus at the time Paul wrote those words. Titus is not called by any title and is told to "Complete what is lacking and ordain Elders" but no other Epistle carries this same directive to the "Evangelist." Timothy is told not to lay hands suddenly on anyone but we are never told the purpose for which he would do this. Neither Elders nor Servants are mentioned in any of the Corinthian correspondence and Apollos, Cephas, and Paul are given no titles at all. As has already been pointed out, the book of Acts calls only Phillip an evangelist and he is only mentioned two times. He was one of the Seven, converted the Ethiopian, and raised prophetic daughters. Is that really enough to create a job description?

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Continuing comments after pushing the wrong button

It would seem to me that the New Testament doesn't contain a nice neat pattern for some things as much as we would like. The structure of the church seems to have been somewhat culturally-derived as the Gospel moved out into the Gentile world and was also evolutionary as the needs changed. I think we are the ones who feel compelled to find a pattern, not Paul or Timothy.

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Leroy, I agree with you in part, as regards the evolutionary part if you mean by that that, the church in its infancy had the seed planted as regards what the church was and was to become. The Holy Spirit working through the Apostles and gifted leaders made known the progressive steps needed to arrive at maturity.Just as a baby is not full grown when born, but has the basics to become what God intended. I guess we have a choice to believe that God has given a pattern for the church in Holy Writ or its up to man to create his own. Even tho God has allow us certain liberties in how we carry out his plan does not negate the basics. There were certain things the church needed to grow as a child, and as the child got older, they were put away. Some things of course would never pass away, like love. The need to carry the gospel into all the world and maintain leadership in the Lords church seem to me to be on going. Just some thoughts. Keep on studying. Bro. Jack

-- Anonymous, July 19, 2000

Jack, Paul didn't meet the qualifications that Peter mentioned in Acts. But that doesn't matter, because he himself recognized that he wasnt' wone of the twelve.

There do seem to be generic uses of 'apostle' in the scriptures. Paul spoke of certain men sent forth by churches to do certain tasks as apostles of the churches. But then there were also Ephesians 4:11 apostles.

Paul, Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy were of the type of apostle that planted churches. I see these as Ephesians 4:11 apostles. Would you consider Timothy to have been an Ephesians 4:11 type of apostle? He sure seems to fit the description to me.

Let's talk about it in another thread.

Leroy,

I don't see that church government evolved into a Gentile system in the first century. Jesus told the apostles that they were not to be like the Gentile rulers that lorded it over their subjects, but were to be servants. The leadership the apostles set up included elders, an Old Testament concept, not soming taken from the Greeks.

Paul warned the Ephesian elders that from among their own number, men would draw men unto themselves. John wrote of a man Diotrephes, who lvoed to be first, who kicked people out of the church. The fleshly Gentile heirarchical system of authority seems to have been working its way into Christian communities when it had the chance, but the apostles didn't set up the system that way.

Link

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

TO Jack and Link:

Thanks for your comments guys. It's nice to know that someone actually reads the stuff we take the time to write isn't it? My comment about the evolution of the church's polity seems to have raised the biggest concern. I did not say or imply that the organization that developed was man-made. I said it was based somewhat on situations. The Seven selected in Acts 6 were chosen to do benevolence work but there is no mention of them ever doing it. IN every Jewish community there were 7 men who were the "almoners" whose job it was to go out into the community to request donations for the poor. It appears that the Apostles were adopting a pattern that was known in their community and cultural heritage. Where SPECIFICALLY does it say in the text that they did it under the direct leadership of the Holy Spirit? Or are we to assume that every single thing the apostles did was under the leadership of the Spirit? If that be the case, then we had better make a number of changes in our approach to women, tongues, public worship, worship times, and many other matters. In fact, the only two of the original Seven that we know anything about were evangelizing (Philip) and refuting those who contradicted (Stephen). That's elder work. Is it possibel tha the Seven were appointed to take care of benevolence but when the needs of the church grew they were given more reponsibility? In addition, by the time we get to chapter 11 of Acts, the offering for the poor saints in Jerusalem was given to the Elders...not the Seven. Where did those guys come from? Who appointed them? Elders were the norm in every Jewish community. The Apostles did was natural and normal in their communith. Further, if they are a requirement in every church, why are they not mentioned at all in the Corinthian Correspondence? Considering that careful instructions that Paul gave to Timothy regarding doctrine and discipline, it is amazing that he did not tell the Elders to discipline the immoral brother or correct those who denied the resurrection. It appears that the leadership pattern was being hammered out day by day as the church grew and its needs changed. The first formal mention of the "Overseers and Servants" is in Philippi in a Gentile church, not in Jerusalem in the Jewish communnity. Just some things to think about.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

One further comment just for clarification. I didn't say that the church evolved a Gentile system. I said that as the church moved out into the Gentile world it evolved to meet the cultural needs of that setting.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

Leroy, Sorry if I misrepresented your ideas.

Elders, a New Testament function seem to be a carry-over from the Old Testament. They were just kind of their. I see elders in the OT as something similar to patriarchs in an extended family, except on the community level. Lots of cultures have had an elder system.

Christ is present when two or three are gathered in His name. christ taught that when he talked about the chruch disfellowshipping the unrepentant rbother. There is authority in Christ's assembly (not just ina few members thereof.)

The deacons, Philip and Stephen, evangelized and refuted those who spoke against the truth. Is that hte work of elders? Yes. But it is also 'brother work.' elders do the work that other brothers do. They are just community leaders. In fact, they are to be 'ensamples to the flock.' Elders teach, giving the flock a model for teaching. Other members of the flock teach as well. Elders evangelize, providing an example for others, etc.

Peter said for the younger to submit themselves unto the elder (hint at age of elders), and Paul said to submit to them that labor among you. Not all ministers in a local body are elders. Some young people who are gifts of pastor-teacher to the body may not be at the stage of life where they have a family, much less one that is well ruled. They aren't ready to be elders, but teach nonetheless.

James said to call for the elders of the church to annoint the sick with oil, and the prayer of faith would save the sick and if he had committed sins, the sins would be forgiven. The passage continues to tell the regular believers to confess their faults one to another and pray one for another that they may be healed. Here we see elders being used in healing and regular believers being used in healing.

Elders aren't to be the only ones doing ministry in the body. They are to be examples o flife and ministry to the flock. Elders must be good fathers, ruling their houses well so they can rule the house of God well. Elders are to be like fathers.

Think about a father a hundred years ago, back when people passed on family businesses to the next generation. The father in a family owns a store. He teaches his children how to run the store and do math. When they are smal, the children don't do the count the money. They may clean the floor. But as they mature, the learn to do more and more. Eventually, all the kids can count the money, and some of the children may be eventually qualified.

In a church situation, elders should train up other people to do the ministry they do. Evenytually, churches can produce elders.

Why are there no elders mentioned inthe Corinthian situation? I don't believe it is because the apostles set up different church government for each place. I believe a key truth here is that churches can be established without elders. Paul and Barnabas planted churches onthe first missioanry journey. Perhaps because it was the practice of the early church to have the congregation speak, not just one man, they could meet, and be the church. Regular disciples like Ananias could baptize. We know that Paul did not want novices in the faith appointed as elders. So when Paul and Barnabas returned after many months or a year or two, they appointed elders. The Lord had raised men up to be overseers in these churches.

There are no elders mentioned in the Antioch situation when Paul and Barnabas were there. I tmay be that htey worked together so well, that appointing elders was not a big necessity. I believe appointing elders was the pattern the apostles followed, but they weren't in a hurry to do it. You have to let fruit mature before you pick it off the vine. Churches can function without elders, provided they are led by the Spirit and learn to submit one to another.

Elders also need to realize that they are not to lord it over God's heritage. The congregation must be of one heart and one mind, as Paul writes.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 2000

Link

Some good thoughts. Thanks for the mental and Scriptural stimulation. If a church does not have Elders, how is it to be led and what is the Biblical model for that?

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000

another thought just occurred. Quite honestly it's one that I had not thought of. If the only mention of the selection of Elders is Apostolic appointment why do we have congregational selection now? If the answer is based on Acts 6, why is that the case? That appears to be people whose task was to "Diakonein"

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000

Leroy,

Good questions. I'll post a comment in the 'elders' thread higher up ont he board, if the Lord permits.

-- Anonymous, July 21, 2000