An eye opener on church history and the pastorate.

[Paige]

Hi all,

As some of you know, I am vitally interested in church history, and in particular, what has influenced our beliefs and practices. I ran across this article today from a blog that linked to it. It is a real eye opener, and I feel the author, although his tone comes off rather strong, has done his homework.

Read this at your own risk:

http://www.ptmin.org/thepastor.htm

I'd be interested in your thoughts. I don't think the author shares our perspective on fulfillment, but when I read the historical account of why certain things were done and certain decisions made in history, I always wonder how a completed understanding of fulfillment would have changed things. Maybe a better question is not "how", but "if". (Hope that doesn't sound too negative, but people are people and always will be people.)

Paige

[jlv]

Paige,

The article has several errors. First of all, "the bishop" was elevated long before Ignatius wrote. Ignatius' instructions to the bishop would have made no sense if there had been a pluralty of bishops.

Second, Ignatius recognizes a pluralty of elders and counts the bishop as one of the elders of the congregation. Paul said that the church was to support one of the elders and give him double honor. This is the man Ignatius was addressing.

Third, there's no evidence of a persecution in AD 107, except by the common interpretation of the account of Ignatius' martyrdom. AD '68 actually fits the evidence better.

JL

[Paige]

JL,

From what I read, the words "shepherd", "elder", and "overseers" are used interchangeably throughout NT. This author quotes from F.F. Bruce:


“That the language of the New Testament does not allow us to press a distinction between the Greek word translated “bishop” (episkopos) and that translated “elder” (presbyteros) need not be argued at length. Paul could address the assembled elders of the church of Ephesus as those whom the Holy Spirit had made bishops. Later, in the Pastoral Epistles (those to Timothy and Titus), the two terms still appear to be used interchangeably” (The Spreading Flame, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958, p. 65).

I checked my strongs and Acts 20 shows that Paul calls the elders of Ephesus together in vs. 17 and later in vs. 28 calls them overseers. It is the same word in the Greek that is translated "bishops". I can't, as of now, find fault with the concept of a plurality of bishops.

What I have found of the issue of "double honor" is referred to in 1 Tim. 5:17, "Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine." That word for elders (plural) being the same one Paul uses in Acts 20:17. I see Paul calling for the support of more than one elder in 1 Tim. 5:17. Are you referring to another vs. that shows Paul singling out one particular elder?

As for who Ignatius is addressing and when, I haven't looked into that. I know you have asserted that the early church fathers have been inaccurately dated. I'd like to believe that, but haven't yet found the "nail in the coffin" that seals and settles the issue for good. What source(s) have settled it for you?

Paige

[Lou]

The point that was made of the relationship of God and man be personal sums it up for me. Our relationship with man should only be horizontal and our relationship with God should be vertical and direct.

Jer.31:34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD

[Paige]

The point that was made of the relationship of God and man be personal sums it up for me. Our relationship with man should only be horizontal and our relationship with God should be vertical and direct.

Jer.31:34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD


I agree wholeheartedly. How can someone else "do" relationship for me? I also thought his points about the stress and burnout that modern pastors are experiencing was very important. In our last church, the elderly population was greater than the "younsters". They would not go and visit each other because that was "the pastor's job" and what he was getting paid to do.

[jlv]

Paige,

But what is the reality? Timothy and Titus were told to appoint elders. Doesn't that put them above those they appoint? And were where these churches in which they appointed these men?

I'm quite familiar with the standard Church of Christ argument against a seperate bishop. It just doesn't quite hold up to reality. There is a difference both in Scripture and in the 1st century church. But it is not as big a difference as we see in every church from Nicea on that reconizes that difference.
JL

[Paige]

Yes, the article points out that there is no hierarchical structure set up among the elders of the NT church:


Among the flock were the elders (shepherds or overseers). These men all stood on an equal footing. There was no hierarchy among them.[21]Also present were extra-local workers who planted churches. These were called “sent-ones” or apostles. But they did not take up residency in the churches for which they cared. Nor did they control them.[22] The vocabulary of NT leadership allows no pyramidal structures. It is rather a language of horizontal relationships that includes exemplary action.[23]

What I get from the article is that the NT had a structure in place for accomplishing their ministry, but that structure was not about obtaining a position of power, but rather one of service. As I see the gap widen through history between laity and clergy, I see the power element grow stronger and stronger.

I'll always be grateful to the men and women who feel called to study and learn Greek and Hebrew. The knowledge that they have passed on has helped me get a grasp on what the bible is really speaking about. The problem was I never learned that from a pastor, it was from outside the church that I had to get, and still have to get, that learning.

Paige

[lynn]

The point that was made of the relationship of God and man be personal sums it up for me. Our relationship with man should only be horizontal and our relationship with God should be vertical and direct.

Jer.31:34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD
Exactly, Lou.

Frank Viola. "Permit me to get personal. The pastoral office has stolen your right to function as a member of Christ’s Body! It has shut your mouth and strapped you to a pew. It has distorted the reality of the Body, making the Pastor a giant mouth and transforming you into a tiny ear.[218] It has rendered you a mute spectator who is proficient at taking sermon notes and passing an offering plate!"
I liked the article, Paige. :clap2: Being a member of a house church for almost two years now, I am familiar with Frank Viola. IMO, house church minimizes many problems associated with typical churchianity: no pastor, no building, no budget, no tithe, and no one in charge of anyone else. All are equal.

As a result of the fulfilled view, I personally believe that the office of elder has passed. Again, all are equal.:)

[Paige]

Lynn,

We've been doing the home study fellowship for 3 years now (if I recall correctly). I agree with your take on house churches :)

Paige