On Sunday morning we began a look into the selection of Elders within the Church and what qualifications are needed to be selected. Our particular doctrine has always been a Godly man who is the husband of one wife and having believing children along with a multitude of other requirements. Truly, many churches today and in the recent past have split over this one undertaking. The question is, why? What makes this so difficult that our very existance as a unified body is in jeopardy over the selection of men to lead us? My question is, what does God think of our arguing and bickering over who gets to lead and who doesn't?
The discussion started with the class members talking about qualities of an Elder/Shepard. What does a shepard look like or what is our thoughts on a shepard? Was it intentional that Paul used the shepard as a method of discribing the Church Eldership? Well of course it was! Jesus used this analogy many times to talk about His own style of leadership. Even the authors of the bible were inspired to name Him 'the Good Shepard'. So if we think of Elders as shepards, what comes to mind? For me it is a flock of sheep with a man and perhaps a dog out in the open meadow watching over them. This man may be sitting playing a musical instrument or standing singing or talking quietly to them, but he is always vigilant. His vigilence is required to ensure that none of his flock wanders away into danger or is taken by a wild predator. He knows how many and where his sheep are. He has to lead them to water and ensure their safety while they drink. If one slips in the water, it may drown if he does not go to its aid, even in the shallows. Also, cowards need not aply as one thinks on the dangerous beasts that David overcame while tending his fathers sheep. He talks about killing lions and bears in the course of his duties caring for those sheep. The shepard sings and talks not only to sooth the sheep but so that they will know his voice. Then when he calls and starts walking to a new pasture or water, the sheep will follow him just by this sound.
All these things came out in the discussion in class, or at least a goodly portion of them. Yet, during class another thought came out that truly struck me harshly...and that was this; if Jesus and the Apostles were here today in our own congregation we would not allow them to shepard us. They do not have the qualifications. Say WHAT! Hold on a moment, my Lord and Master could not hold the 'office' of elder in my church? Then we truly NEED to rethink our paradigm of what is required to hold that position! How can the very one who initiated this whole change and save my soul not be eligible to sit in authority over the church? How can we be so sure that our own understanding of God's Word is correct and yet truly believe that the author of our salvation is not qualified to lead His earthly flock if he were present? And what of Peter, or Paul or John? Each noted in some extraordinary way for their Apostleship and leadership in the church, but today would be counted as not qualified to lead? I say that we have moved off course in our very theology if we hold this as indesputable by the Word. I believe that we have once again set boundaries where our own tradition has determined it should be. We have again in our need for order and rules to govern ourselves, defined a box so small that even our Messiah would laugh at us. I believe that Jesus is saddened and hurt by our own ineptitude in this area of HIS Church.
So let's get into the Word and find our stumbling block(s) and perhaps look for a better understanding of where we have gotten off course. The main biblical text that all look to for understanding on Elder's qualification is, 1 Timothy 3: "1 The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil."(NRSV) Of course this version uses the term Bishop and that in itself can generate a lengthy debate over the definition, but for this writing I am suggesting that we replace that term with Shepard or Elder. Starting in verse 2 we see that an Elder is to be married only once. Taken in the literal sense of this verse it would automatically exclude Jesus and most of the Apostles right away. Jesus was never married. Yet, is that what is truly meant by this verse? In the New Living Translation, this same verse is written,"must be faithful to his wife." Same thing right? NO! Read them again...Paul, who was also called an elder of the early church and never married, I believe is saying that 'IF' a man is married that he follows God's original plan of only having one wife. Remember, that Jesus told the Jewish leaders in God's original plan a man would leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the 2 would become one. We The People being stiff necked and rebellious have trouble following God's plan. We have determined that if I don't like the wife of my youth that I will divource her and marry another. Some places throughout history have just accepted polygamy as normal. Yet, any marriage that is not as God stated in the original plan is wrong, hense the words, "what God has joined together, let no man put assunder." Only through death or marrital unfaithfulness can a marriage be sundered in God's sight. In those instances, the man would be free to marry again. So, here is my thoughts on this...Paul, who was never married, was an example to us of the fact that an elder did not HAVE to be married. Perhaps, we misinterpreted what the author was saying and that threw us off course. I submit that the church today has excluded many very Godly men, who could and perhaps should have been accepted as elders, because we used the literal terms to define the qualification. When this very narrow understanding of the Word has limited our pool of eligible candidates. So today perhaps we should translate this verse to say,"...must be above reproach; if married, he must be married according to God's plan in the beginning; " I think that this would alleviate some of the misunderstanding surrounding this.
Next the verse speaks to 'temperate' and we have sometimes used this to mean not a drunkard. But I do not believe that is the correct version. In this instance I believe that we could more closely associate the term to vigilant or watchful. As we look back at the thoughts on what it means to be a Shepard we know that the man must be always looking out for the flock of sheep. He must be vigilant or wolves will enter the flock and kill his sheep, or perhaps one will stray. Then comes 'Sensible' and I like this translation, perhaps the only other way to look at it would be uses 'common sense', or 'wisdom' for the meaning. Respectable means just that...however, we sometimes forget as leaders that to receive respect we must give respect. If you truly need another word for this, then perhaps 'honorable' would be a good word to substitute. Now we come to the next word that causes much debate and consternation...hospitable. Does that mean that he must give parties and open his home to all? What does this word truly mean? Well, let's look at the author of hospitality...our heavenly Father. He is our host and benefactor. He LOVES us and shows that love through his actions with regards to saving us. He has even prepared a home for us when we have finished with this world. Jesus showed us hospitality when he washed his disciples feet. Hospitality, then is a verb. It requires action on our part and the part of the man aspiring to Shepard the flock. He must exhibit love for others through his deeds.
The next misconception is that all elders need to be able to preach. Preaching and teaching are not one and the same. Jesus was known as the 'Great Teacher' not the Great Preacher. A preacher is an orator and motivational speaker. However, a teacher may not ever even give a lecture. Some of the best teachers I have known were doers and taught by their example. Jesus taught His chosen how to act by washing their feet. One of the best leasons on humility and service that has ever been taught.
Verse 3 is pretty self explanitory, yet some use the very first part to say that an elder cannot drink alcoholic beverages. That is not what is stated here. This translation puts this in a more appropriate light as not a drunkard. Then verse 4 leads to the second part that would tend to exclude our Savior and his apostles. In most versions this reads, "must have believing children." If this truly meant that every elder HAD to have believing biological children then truthfully Jesus would not be able to lead a church today as an elder. Yet, look at this verse again...It is talking about the whole of the house. How this man manages everything in his care. His money, his posessions, his time, his servants, etc., etc. Paul did not have biological children, so how then was he an elder? No this is more about the man's ability to love and care for everything God has blessed him with than just does he have children. I would also submit that Paul, though not related to Timothy or Titus, calls them his children. How is that so? Was he not instrumental in their conversion? So here is food for thought...we each say that upon our baptism we die and are reborn. If this is so, then are we not creating children through baptism? Are we not birthing new babies in Christ through our own testemonies and discipling? Paul claims this very thing as he speaks to both Timothy and Titus. So perhaps another and better rendering of this verse would be for us to examine how many new birth christians each man has and which has maturing christians still attending? Wait...yes, I said which ones new birth children are still attending. You see we are in such a hurry to get people wet and into the church that we totally forget that they are babies. But what happens when a baby is born and then left on it's own to survive? It will soon enough perish. Too often we do the same to our own newly born christian children. We get them wet and then hurry on to get the next convert. This is not discipleship nor teaching.
Now, I know that I may have stepped over a few boundaries here and if you disagree with this, I will not be angry nor hurt. I write this to open new thoughts on old traditions in the hope that we can bring to light a clearer understanding of what was written so long ago. I pray that each of us looks into the Word and with prayer and fasting allow the Spirit to guide our minds to an understanding of what God was trying to bring into our limited wisdom as His purpose and perfect way to select our leadership here on earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment