Congregational Rule

[TCGreek]

No Greek word changed in core meaning simply because it was used in the NT. The nuance may have changed, but not the core meaning. (I believe agape is an example of this.) So in my thinking I don't distinguish between the secular use of a word and the sacred. The secular use defines the sacred, or else we are stuck back in the days when people thought koine Greek was some special heavenly language.

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

Therefore, people need to know that when they use the word church/ekklesia from the NT they are using a democratic term. If they want their church to be strictly elder run with no interference from the congregation (who the elders think cannot possibly be mature enough to be led by the Holy Spirit--what paternalism), then they should call it something else, not a church.

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?

In Japan there is a famous movement started by Uchimura Kanzo called the Mukyokai, or "non-church" movement. (Maybe the "unchurch"? :smilewinkgrin: ) It's more like a Bible club that usually meets on Sunday. That is what I think of when I hear about "elder rule" churches, though there are churches that go by "elder rule" where the people are allowed to vote for the elders.

I agree here. The Biblical congregation chooses the pastors/elders/deacons. Then they allow themselves to be led by them, especially in the area of "prayer and the ministry of the Word."

4. I agree.

 

[John of Japan]

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"?

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.

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?

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:

 

[TCGreek]

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.

1. I got you.

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:

2. Objection withdrawn. :thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

IN an elder lead church where their are multiple elders church discipline on an elder would be handled by the elders.

 

[canadyjd]

IN an elder lead church where their are multiple elders church discipline on an elder would be handled by the elders.

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:

 

[Revmitchell]

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:

The term "whole church' is not found in the passage you quote. The use of the word "church" can also mean those that represent the church in the form of leadership. At the time Jesus made this statement this was what was common practice.

 

[John of Japan]

The term "whole church' is not found in the passage you quote. The use of the word "church" can also mean those that represent the church in the form of leadership. At the time Jesus made this statement this was what was common practice.

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

 

[Revmitchell]

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

You are more than welcome to address it.

 

[John of Japan]

The term "whole church' is not found in the passage you quote. The use of the word "church" can also mean those that represent the church in the form of leadership. At the time Jesus made this statement this was what was common practice.

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."

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

And I never once sugested it could never be used in this context.

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.

What you have failed to recognize here is that in Matthew 18 the first century church has yet to be organized. At the time Jesus spoke of this He spoke to the Jews who still used the Pharisees and Sanhedrin. There certainly was not a democratic rule at the time Jesus spoke on this even if your assertion on the secular use of Ekklesia is appropriate.

 

[John of Japan]

And I never once sugested it could never be used in this context.

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

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?

And you answered in post #46:

The term "whole church' is not found in the passage you quote. The use of the word "church" can also mean those that represent the church in the form of leadership. At the time Jesus made this statement this was what was common practice.

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."

What you have failed to recognize here is that in Matthew 18 the first century church has yet to be organized. At the time Jesus spoke of this He spoke to the Jews who still used the Pharisees and Sanhedrin. There certainly was not a democratic rule at the time Jesus spoke on this even if your assertion on the secular use of Ekklesia is appropriate.

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:

 

[Revmitchell]

Actually, the use of the term "church" (Gr. ekklesia) necessitates democracy. The ekklesia was the legislative body of a Greek city-state. We know this from Thucydides and other classical Greek sources (Plato, Aristotle, et al). According to the Liddel-Scott lexicon of classical Greek, it was: "an assembly of the citizens regularly summoned, the legislative assembly." So the male citizens (excluding slaves and women, unfortunately) were summoned to appear in the assembly to make decisions by a democratic vote after discussion.

Any educated first century citizen would have known this. (Not to say that an educated 21st century citizen would know it. :smilewinkgrin: ) This is evident from the fact that according to BAGD Josephus uses the term this way in the first century. One may object that Liddel-Scott quoted above is a classical lexicon. However, koine Greek lexicons agree. BAGD: "assembly, as a regularly summoned political body." Abbot-Smith: "an assembly of citizens regularly convened." Louw-Nida: "a group of citizens assembled for socio-political activities."

It is no accident that God chose to have His church be communicated by this democratic term. God meant the church to be a democracy with an elected leader. Otherwise, episunagoge (a gathering) would be the normal NT term for church. It is not, since it only occurs for the church in 2 Thess. 2:1 and Heb. 10:25.

What you have failed to include here is that Romans Assyria villages were often governed by a local counsel of the same name during this same period. So the use of this word even in the secular context was diverse. Understanding this makes clear Bakers assertion that ecclesia refers to the meeting alone and not the process in the meeting nor the people. Democracy is not in view with the word ecclesia.

So as we now see the word ecclesia can mean both an assembly as a whole or a counsel of leaders as it was used in both contexts in the secular.

 

[John of Japan]

What you have failed to include here is that Romans Assyria villages were often governed by a local counsel of the same name during this same period. So the use of this word even in the secular context was diverse. Understanding this makes clear Bakers assertion that ecclesia refers to the meeting alone and not the process in the meeting nor the people. Democracy is not in view with the word ecclesia.

So as we now see the word ecclesia can mean both an assembly as a whole or a counsel of leaders as it was used in both contexts in the secular.

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

 

[Salamander]

I don't recall sheep having any authority over shepherds...

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!

 

[Salamander]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

What you have failed to include here is that Romans Assyria villages were often governed by a local counsel of the same name during this same period. So the use of this word even in the secular context was diverse. Understanding this makes clear Bakers assertion that ecclesia refers to the meeting alone and not the process in the meeting nor the people. Democracy is not in view with the word ecclesia.

So as we now see the word ecclesia can mean both an assembly as a whole or a counsel of leaders as it was used in both contexts in the secular.

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.

 

[go2church]

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.

 

[Jerome]

5. Paul writing to the Philippians speak of overseers and deacons, singling out these functions (1:1).

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.

 

[Rubato 1]

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.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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).