pastor - teacher - evangelist

[agedman]

1 Tim. 4:12-16
12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.

16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.


Sure looks like Timothy was a young "whippersnapper" and also a Pastor.

Nothing here that would contradict the statements I have made about the elders.

What the passage does point out is that Timothy was a aspiring preacher boy. There is NO indication that he was an elder. However, it wasn't until Paul was held in Rome by Nero a second time that the church of Ephesus selected Timotheus as a Bishop. He was certainly no longer a "youth" and if my memory serves me correctly this is the church that the Apostle John served as the head pastor. It was probably of the greatest and most influential churches of its time.

What I am questioning in this thread the use by Baptists of joining of office of bishop, pastor, elder into it being a single office.

 

[The Archangel]

I would agree with most of what you posted, however I am not in agreement about the use of the word zagen as you posted.

I don't have time to drag out this conversation but will point out that the word is used in the Old Testament over 170 times in the KJV to mean:
aged, ancient man, eldest, old man, old women.

The word itself is used 188 times. Of those times, 32 uses are "Elders of Israel" and in all of those passages, it is clear that the discussion is not of age, but of officership.

The same word is used for "Elders of Gilead" and other cities too.

The word itself, used in this context, does not speak to age, rather it speaks to function.

The New Testament does not change the meaning.

The writers of the New Testament understood context. When the context of the Hebrew required the translation of zaqen as elder as officer they used the Greek word presbuteros and the New Testament writers applied that word to an office just as the Old Testament writers did. The word presbuteros does have, roughly, the same semantic range as zaqen. And, as is the case with any language, context is king.

In NO case is it used to indicate merely a young man given the responsibility of leadership by a certain tribe.

I really think that frequency would put to light anything dealing with the spiritual and physical age requirements of the use of the term elder.

But you can disagree.

But, we're not discussing age of the elder. The age of one chosen to be an elder is not in view, either in the New Testament or the Old Testament.

It is a complete and total misunderstanding of the language to insist that zaqen mean or connotate "old" in ever instance. There is a semantic range to the word...that range does include "old." However, that is not the only meaning.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you, per se. I'm trying to educate you. You have a presupposition based on false information. I'm trying to show you where you have made mistakes in understanding the language, context, etc. and then your presuppositions will, hopefully, correct yourself.

If I were to simply "disagree" with you, that would imply that your position was in some sense tenable, which it isn't.

The Archangel

 

[Jerome]

Typically, a congregational vote is required for certain elements of church life. . .

So? Even Presbyterian polity allows for such:

PCA Book of Church Order:

When a congregation is convened for the election of a pastor it is important that they should elect a minister of the Presbyterian Church in
America to preside, but if this be impracticable, they may elect any male
member of that church. The Session shall appoint one of their number to call
the meeting to order and to preside until the congregation shall elect their
presiding officer. All communing members in good and regular standing, but
no others, are entitled to vote in the churches to which they are respectivelyattached.

20-4. Method of voting: The voters being convened, and prayer for divine
guidance having been offered, the moderator shall put the question:

Are you ready to proceed to the election of a pastor?

If they declare themselves ready, the moderator shall call for nominations, or
the election may proceed by ballot without nominations. In every case a
majority of all the voters present shall be required to elect.

 

[glfredrick]

So? Even Presbyterian polity allows for such:

PCA Book of Church Order:

So? Right back atcha...

You seem to think that you have discovered some new fount of information or something.

What you should have said is that the Presbyterian polity also elects another level above elders who go on to dictate policy back to the congregation via a counsel.

This explanation from wikipedia is succinct and to the point:

Many Reformed churches, notably those in the Presbyterian and Continental Reformed traditions, are governed by a hierarchy of councils. The lowest level council governs a single local church and is called the session or consistory; its members are called elders. The minister of the church (sometimes referred to as a teaching elder) is a member of and presides over the session; lay representatives (ruling elders or, informally, just elders) are elected by the congregation. The session sends representatives to the next level higher council, called the presbytery or classis. In some Presbyterian churches there are higher level councils (synods and/or general assemblies). Each council has authority over its constituents, and the representatives at each level are expected to use their own judgment. For example, each session approves and installs its own elders, and each presbytery approves the ministers serving within its territory and the connections between those ministers and particular congregations. Hence higher level councils act as courts of appeal for church trials and disputes, and it is not uncommon to see rulings and decisions overturned.

The big difference is that once elders are elected and sent up the ladder, the congregation has no recourse to their action, save to appeal to a higher yet authority.

There is NO similar polity in Baptist circles, yes, even the malighned SBC.

Point is, elders are a biblical office, largely ignored because many Baptist congregations began following the American system of government rather than the Bible. Congregational church polity does not mean that the congregation has to "vote" on every issue. Nor does it eliminate the need to be scriptural. Rather, it is, as early Baptists saw, THE single best way to fulfill the mandates of Scripture, with God as the Head, elders as His leaders of the flock, deacons as those who minister alongside the leaders, and a complete congregational system built on a relational regenerated membership.

 

[Jerome]

Sigh.

The point is that even presbyterian polity allows for limited congregational participation in its governance.

Refreshing forthrightness:

We definitely are presbyterial [rather than congregational]. . .The only thing that gets voted on by the congregation is new members and the budget. That's all.

 

[agedman]

What happens in the Presbyterian type church when a bishop or whatever they call the preacher has a moral failure that would violate the scriptural ability to hold such a position?

I know of two larger bible churches that recently faced that situation, and the elders met with the leader and his wife, and the man was removed from the position.

The neat part of watching from the outside this process was that the church didn't go through a huge uproar with camp followers staking out positions and allegiances being thrown about in various power plays. The church, trusting the "old men" by remembering the long history of wise counsel and dedication that had been shown in the past, knew that the action taken (though the why was never told) was both correct and biblical.

Is this typical in the elder rule type churches?

 

[glfredrick]

What happens in the Presbyterian type church when a bishop or whatever they call the preacher has a moral failure that would violate the scriptural ability to hold such a position?

I know of two larger bible churches that recently faced that situation, and the elders met with the leader and his wife, and the man was removed from the position.

The neat part of watching from the outside this process was that the church didn't go through a huge uproar with camp followers staking out positions and allegiances being thrown about in various power plays. The church, trusting the "old men" by remembering the long history of wise counsel and dedication that had been shown in the past, knew that the action taken (though the why was never told) was both correct and biblical.

Is this typical in the elder rule type churches?

Yes... At least the ones I've been affiliated with.

Often, the congregational phase of such an action is a voting card that is handed out to members. These choices are typical:

1. I am prayerfully in agreement with the actions (budget, calling of a new elder, taking of a mortgage, etc.) of the Elders.

2. I am prayerfully in disagreement with the actions of the Elders and would like the chance to further discuss the issue with the Elders.

3. I have not prayerfully considered this issue and so I have no vote on the issue.

 

[agedman]

I didn't know about the voting card.

What I did notice was that the care and love of the fellowship was actually enhanced.

 

[Jerome]

What happens in the Presbyterian type church. . .

Good explanation from the Puritan Board:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/voting-congregational-meeting-58107/

Voting in Presbyterian churches (Session has authority) is different from voting in Congregational churches (congregational majority has authority). My understanding is that the voting taking place in Presbyterian churches is to make known to the Session (local ministers & elders) the desire/preference of the congregation. Strictly speaking, in presbyterianism the Session makes the decision in matters, not the will of the majority. So it makes sense to have all communicant members in good standing make their thoughts known to the governing body of the congregation.

As Fred illustrated, the saints' participation is severly limited, usually just an affirmation vote for what the "ruling elders" have already decided is to be done.

 

[glfredrick]

Good explanation from the Puritan Board:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/voting-congregational-meeting-58107/


As Fred illustrated, the saints' participation is severly limited, usually just an affirmation vote for what the "ruling elders" have already decided is to be done.

With one essential difference in Baptist congregations...

The PEOPLE can always over rule the elders if that is what they wish. The deal, however, is that seldom do the people wish to do that in elder led congregations. And that largely because a good many of the people came from churches where everything was a battleground and they tend to relish the opportunity to conduct the business of the church in fellowship and love, moving forward with every step instead of backward while wounds heal.

People are literally waiting in line to join Sojourn. We have close to 1000 visitors or persons awaiting completion of their covenant for membership at any given time. And that is not because we are a "Joel Olsteen" sort of church. Far from it. We have strict church discipline, a covenant agreement, giving, working in the church, marital and dating fidelity, abstinence from gossip and bickering, and no real programatic content that is typically blamed for rapid growth (the feel good stuff), required home group involvement where ministry, fellowship, outreach, and counseling occur, and a strict adherence to the Scriptures OT and NT. We have very few bells and whistles, just worship of Almighty God, and the people are being drawn, lives are changed, and communities transformed! Weird, huh? :saint:

 

[agedman]

Has anyone done a thread on past battle ground issues that split and divided the congregation of a church and the resulting impact of the body(ies)?

I would not want a thread to degenerate into be a gossip and blame session, but rather a study of the cause of the split and the long term spiritual impact.

Something that leaders can get insight and understanding from to guide and inspire.