Congregational Rule

1. "The nuance may have changed, but not the core mean," I believe this is the key to it all. Well said, John. :thumbs:

2. So how do we add up the etymological value of ek + klesia? Do we move toward a more classical naunce of this word and therefore come away with the meaning, "Called out for democratic purposes"?

3. BTW, isn't Democratic a transliteration of the Greek demokratia, demos, "the people" + kratos, "power." Why not use this one word instead of ekklesia?

4. I agree.

 

Well of course etymology is the last thing you use to determine meaning, though sometimes in single usage Greek words that's all you have. But the meaning "called out for democratic purposes" is not just a classical nuance, it is the actual secular core meaning of the word in 1st century Greek, as witness the use of the word by Josephus.

Because of course we are "a people of the Book," and that book used ekklesia instead of demokratia, which does not appear in the NT. It's kind of like the difference between the English words "democracy" and "legislature." Democracy describes the philosophy, but legislature describes the means of carrying it out. :type:

 

1. I got you.

2. Objection withdrawn. :thumbs:

 

That would seem to conflict with the method given by Jesus in Matt. 18, wouldn't it? Specifically, the final step of taking someone before the whole church?

peace to youraying:

 

I started to answer this, but I'll leave it first to canadayjd, who it was addressed to.

 

Okay, I'll give it a try.

There are many cases in the NT where the whole church is obviously meant but the term is not used: Rev. 2 & 3 with seven churches, Acts 2:47, 8:1, 11:26, etc. In fact, the term "whole church" only occurs three times out of 115 uses of the Greek ekklesia in the NT, making it a very rare usage.

Can you even give one single usage in the NT where "the church" clearly means only "the leaders/elders of the church"? I can't see where it is possible myself. Again, I have shown clearly that linguistically in 1st century secular usage, ekklesia commonly meant a democratic assembly. Thus, the burden of proof that in Matt. 18 the elders are meant is on you.

Edited in: In fact, in Acts 13:1 we find a clear statement that the elders were "in the church" rather than "the church" meaning "the elders."

 

True, you did not. However, canadyjd said in post #45:

And you answered in post #46:

You haven't proven this. In fact, I deny that you can prove it. How does the passage in Matt. 18 refer to only the elders and not the whole church? You have no context to prove that, and in light of the fact that Matt. 16:18 and 18:16 are the only places in the entire Gospels where ekklesia occurs, you cannot prove your statement that "at the time Jesus made this statement this was what was common practice."

Actually, I have not failed to recognize this. I simply haven't gotten into it yet, but I will now.

I was taught (and still believe) 31 years ago by a beloved Ph. D. theological mentor/missionary statesmen that throughout the Gospels Christ prepared the apostles to found the church at Jerusalem: evangelism, discipling, baptism, the Lord's supper and of course here, church discipline, using explicitly the term "church." Now, all of these things were taught before there were any local churches, but all of them are necessary to the church. Therefore, the Matthew 18 passage is Christ preparing the disciples to plant and pastor churches.

And again I say, you cannot prove that Christ in Matt. 18 meant anything other than the whole church, especially in light of His usage of ekklesia in Matt. 16:18 and other places. Church discipline is a task for the whole church, a congregational mandate.

I just finished reading an elegant presentation of how that worked in China by Roland Allen in his groundbreaking book on missions in 1912, Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours? He pointed out in several places in the book that indeed, the Holy Spirit could lead "ignorant" Chinese nationals in their church to do a better job of disciplining their members than the missionary/elder could do--and Allen was an Anglican! :type:

 

Do you have a scholarly source for this? None of my Greek-English lexicons have this. And who is Baker?

 

Everyone in the congregation is not that shepherd's sheep, that would make the pastor Lord over God's heritage.

Of course no pastor is ONLY accountable to God, it is the vote of the congregation that placed him in the pastoral position by and through the workings of God, hopefully that is!

I'm a pastor under our pastor, but if my pastor were in gross sin and neglected the church for his own personal gain, I would be first to approach him for that wrong. I have done exactly that very thing, but in a decent manner!

I once suggested that he do something I have seen work in making the church advance and become much closer in fellowship. He went on to tell me I didn't have the education he does and I was wrong.raying:

I only suggested it to him, I never said he had to do it. I won't answer to God for his refusal to try something that is proven to work for the betterment of the church and for God's glory!

 

In the discussion about the ekklesia , I have found it to be the most common case when the deacons have agreed with the pastor concerning any move in the church business to actually use social influence upon the congregation as if anyone disagreed with the motion that they were in discention.

That is probably where so many get the impression that all matters of business are exclusively the privilege of said, but then that would have produced a hierarchy in God's church where only an elite group could make decisions.

I find where Paul had much authority, but in the case of some encounters of disagreement, as the example, barnabus and Paul had to go their separate ways.

Certainly Barnabus was under the authority of Paul in eldership, but Barnabus is know to be "The Encourager" in the example given of John Mark. later we find that Paul said , "Send Mark, for he is profitable for the ministry" when before he had to "dismiss" him for whatever reason; Barnabus being the one who stood up for John Mark and encouraged his improvement in godliness.

Taking the "oversight" does not ever permit taking the position of lordship. Leadership? Yes.

 

While waiting for you to source this I was looking at the use of ekklesia in the LXX (Septuagint). Virtually always there it refers to an official assembly of Israel, whether or not the assembly decides anything. The first century Christian's primary source of information on the usage of ekklesia would be from the LXX.

I was not able to find any reference to the ekklesia as the leadership of Israel. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Does this usage occur anywhere in the LXX? If it does not, I stick to my guns that Matt. 18 cannot mean the elders of the church, but must mean the whole church deciding on church discipline. And with that the so-called "elder rule" popular nowadays (which gives the church people no say in their church life) goes out the Biblical window.

 

Maybe I missed it in reading through the posts but my understanding of congregational rule has always seen it as rooted in the priesthood of the believer. Just as we are each able and accountable to go directly to God, so we are able and accountable to be involved in church

That is not to say I believe elder rule is unbiblical, I understand the arguements for elder rule, I just don't desire to pastor such a congregation or be a member in such a congregation.

 

Paul writes "to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:" in Philippians 1:1.
The mention of officers in the salutations of Paul's letters to churches is unusual; usually, "(all) the saints" or merely "the church(es)" are the addressees.

 

This is good because you can't pastor a church if you are not the leader of it. A pastor does not let the sheep make all of the descisions! You must have mistaken "pastor" for "hireling!" The pastor is called and given special gifts for such a task! A fold run by the sheep (even a board of sheep) will end up in the wolves' bellies.

 

You are mistaking the business matters of the church (given to the congregation and deacons in Acts 6) for the spiritual matters of the church (led by the pastor, who is to concentrate on "prayer and the ministry of the Word" in Acts 6:4).