Friday, September 28, 2007

Response to the House-Church Movement: Part Four

What kind of authority – if any – do elders have in the churches?

When I first encountered the particular branch of the House-Church Movement (HCM) to which I have been responding in this series of posts, the issue of the authority of elders occupied much of the discussion. The HCM advocates I met seemed to be questioning whether elders were intended to have any real authority at all. They seemed to view them merely as enablers rather than genuine leaders. Seeing that I was puzzled by their views and desirous of a clearer understanding, they graciously referred me to House-Church.org (website of the Chigwell Christian Fellowship) and NTRF.org (website of the New Testament Reformation Foundation) for more information.

The website of the New Testament Reformation Foundation had the most detailed information dealing with the role of elders in the church, and I found much there with which I agreed. For example, they correctly hold to the concepts of plurality and parity of elders and also rightly understand that the terms elder, overseer, and pastor are used interchangeably in Scripture to refer to the same office. They also rightly understand that this office is to be held only by men. I was very pleased to find such a Biblical approach, but my enthusiasm soon began to wane as I discovered what I believe to be the source of the weak view of elder authority I had been encountering in my discussions with HCM advocates. I found at best a real lack of clarity on the issue and at worst a complete denial of elder authority – from Steve Atkerson to some extent in the former instance and from Hal Miller in the latter.

Where I began to encounter some difficulty was when I tried to understand more clearly what their doctrinal statements concerning elders as those who lead and govern really mean. For example, their webpage entitled “Our Beliefs” declares the First London Baptist Confession of 1644 to be their “favorite statement of faith.” This confession states regarding elders:

BEING thus joined, every church hath power given them from Christ, for their wellbeing, to choose among themselves meet persons for elders and deacons, being qualified according to the word, as those which Christ hath appointed in His testament, for the feeding, governing, serving, and building up of His Church; and that none have any power to impose either these or any other.
Without getting into much detail at this point, I observe that this statement says that elders are appointed by Christ for “governing... His Church.” This would seem to imply a ruling function with some degree of authority. However, I was then confronted with this statement on the “Our Beliefs” page itself:

Consensus decisions made by all the brothers, following Christ as Head of His church. Thus, elder-led more so than elder-ruled churches. Though elders are very important to the functioning of the church, decisions are generally to be made by the church corporately, not by its elders only (Mt 18:15-20, Lk 22:24-27, 1Pe 51-4).
Although I agree that the best way to lead a church in accordance with Scripture is through the building of consensus among the members, I confess that I have a hard time grasping the difference between “elder-led” and “elder-ruled” in this context. For example, I struggle to understand what it means that elders are those appointed by Christ to govern in the churches, but that they are not really supposed to rule. What, exactly, is the difference between governing and ruling? I think the distinction is being made in order to stress the importance of elders leading with humility and by example rather than in a domineering way. And if this is all that is intended by it, then I agree that elders should not be domineering or self-serving in their leadership (see, e.g., 1 Pet. 5:2-3). As we shall see, however, some HCM advocates seem to mean more than just this. In fact, they seem to question whether elders are intended to have the kind of authority implied by such terms as governing and ruling in the first place. This is especially clear when reading one of the online articles that seeks to explain the HCM point of view, an article by Hal Miller entitled “An Elder's Authority: That of Children and Slaves.” In this article Miller attempts to argue that “the New Testament does not say anything about one believer having authority over another. We have plenty of authority over things, even over spirits, but never over other Christians.” Miller obviously believes that this includes elders.

On the other hand, Steve Atkerson is more cautious at this point and does believe that elders have some degree of authority in the churches. For example, in an interesting article entitled “New Testament Church Leadership,” Atkerson states:

[E]lders that [Timothy and Titus] appointed could be expected to do the same types of things that the temporary apostolic workers did on the local level (1Ti 1:3, 4:11 , 5:17 , 6:17 , Tit 1:12 -13, 2:15 , 3:10). From this is it clear that it is proper for elders, in exercising leadership, to authoritatively reprove, speak, teach, and guide. Elders are to “rule well” and “oversee” the churches, taking the initiative in prompting and guarding. (Italics mine.)
Atkerson also later argues that “each elder is equal in authority to all the other elders in the city (there is to be no 'senior' pastor nor presiding bishop over a city). A leader’s primary authority is based on his ability to persuade with the truth” (Italics mine).

So, unlike Miller, Atkerson clearly does believe that elders have authority in the churches where they serve, even if he believes it must be exercised with great humility and caution and with due appreciation for the proper role of the congregation in making important decisions. He also rightly sees their authority as based on their “ability to persuade with the truth.” In this regard, Steve Atkerson seems to be on pretty much the same page as the typical Reformed Baptist on this issue. It is baffling to me, then, that Atkerson can go on to cite Miller's aforementioned article as approvingly as he does:

Jesus’ comments on leadership truly must be the starting point and final reference in our understanding of an elder’s authority. Hal Miller has insightfully observed, “Jesus’ disturbing teaching about authority among his followers contrasts their experience of it with every other society. The kings of the Gentiles, he said, lord it over their subjects and make that appear good by calling themselves 'benefactors.' They exercise their power and try (more or less successfully) to make people think that it is for their own good. But it should never be so in the church. There, on the contrary, the one who leads is as a slave and the one who rules is as the youngest (Lk 22:24 -27). Lest this lose its impact, you should stop to reflect that the youngest and the slaves are precisely those without authority in our normal sense of the word. Yet this is what leadership among Jesus’ people is like.”
Since Atkerson approvingly cites Miller's article as an insightful explanation of the Scriptural teaching on the authority of elders, I will turn my attention to it for the remainder of my examination. I will cite and respond to key passages from the article. All texts cited by me are from the New King James Version.

Response to Hal Miller on Elder Authority

Miller begins his Biblical discussion of the issue with an appeal to Jesus' teaching of the disciples in Luke 22:

Jesus’ disturbing teaching about authority among his followers contrasts their experience of it with every other society. The kings of the Gentiles, he said, lord it over their subjects and make that appear good by calling themselves "benefactors." They exercise their power and try (more or less successfully) to make people think that it is for their own good. But it should never be so in the church. There, on the contrary, the one who leads is as a slave and the one who rules is as the youngest (Lk 22:24-27). Lest this lose its impact, you should stop to reflect that the youngest and the slaves are precisely those without authority in our normal sense of the word. Yet this is what leadership among Jesus’ people is like.
What is interesting about this citation is what it leaves out. Let's have a look at the whole passage in order to see what I mean:

Luke 22:24-27 “24.Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. 25 And He said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called “benefactors.” 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.'”

Notice the final statement of Jesus, in which He gives His own practice as an example of what He means. He says, “Yet I am among you as the One who serves.” But the question that immediately comes to mind for me is, Did Jesus set aside His authority when He acted among them as One who serves? The answer to this question demonstrates the problem with Miller's view of the passage. Unless he wants to argue that Jesus had no authority or never exercised His authority as One who came to serve – a truly incredible position to have to take – then I fail to see how he can say that Jesus intended by this teaching that the disciples would have no authority as future leaders of the Church. After all, if He is the example they are to follow in leading the Church, and He did not set aside His authority when He acted as a servant to them, then why should we think that He intended that they have no authority? Now, of course, we shouldn't think that they would possess the same authority as Jesus in every way – there are degrees of authority, and they would always be under His authority – but the notion that His teaching here requires that they have no authority at all strikes me as going well beyond anything the text clearly asserts or even implies. But Miller's claims get even more outrageous:

The most obvious aspect of what the NT has to say about leadership and authority is its lack of interest in the subject. In all of Paul’s major letters, for instance, leaders only appear in Php 1:1, and there only in passing. For the most part, he ignores them, as do the other writers. Jesus’ immediate followers were strangely silent about leadership and authority. This silence, it turns out, is quite significant.
First, Miller apparently doesn't see either 1 Timothy or Titus as among the “major letters” of Paul. The problem is that they are definitely the major letters in which he addresses the role of elders in the churches. I guess you could say that Paul has a "lack of interest in the subject" if you only want to consider his “major letters” and if you first decide that the letters in which he discusses the subject most fully don't count as among his “major letters,” but it hardly amounts to a serious line of Biblical argument. One cannot just choose to count only the Biblical evidence that he thinks will suit his purpose and ignore the rest. At least he cannot do this if he accepts all of Scripture as his authority. But, then, Miller seems to have a problem with the very idea of authority, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

Second, I find it incredible that Miller can say that “Jesus' immediate followers were strangely silent about leadership and authority” when there is plenty of indication that they took the issue very seriously indeed. For example, there is the account in Acts of the appointment of elders by Paul and Barnabas in the churches they founded, which means that it obviously was an important issue for them (14:23). And there is the account of the elders' leadership in bringing the Church to a Biblical decision about the matter of circumcision and the role of the law in the early Church (Acts 15:6-29; 16:4). There is also the account of Paul's charge to the Ephesian elders, which shows how important he thought their leadership to the church there really was (Acts 20:17-35). Then there is the teaching of Paul in the Pastoral Epistles, which serve as handbooks to the proper leadership of the churches for Timothy and Titus, including the proper qualifications for those who would serve as leaders after them (see, .e.g., 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Tit. 1:5f.). As a matter of fact, he seems to regard churches as properly ordered only where elders have been appointed:

Titus 1:5 “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you....”

Paul must have thought proper leadership for the churches was pretty important! But to his testimony we could also add Peter's instruction to elders in 1 Peter 5:1-4, as well as the important teaching of the author of Hebrews (13:7, 17). Given all such evidence, how Miller could say that Jesus' immediate followers were “strangely silent about leadership and authority” is beyond me. But he has still more astounding claims to make. For example, after discussing the Greek word dúnamis as not indicating that Christians are to have power over each other, Miller then says:

Things become even more interesting when we turn to the other relevant Greek word: exousia. This word is usually translated as "power" or "authority" and is the closest equivalent to our English word "authority." The NT’s list of those who have exousia is essentially the same as those who have dunamis: God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, angels and demons. But now, the list extends to humans who are not merely energized by heavenly authority but have authority themselves.

Thus, kings have authority to rule (Ro 13:1-2) and Jesus’ disciples have authority over diseases and spirits (e.g., Mt 10:1). Believers have authority over the various facets of their lives – their possessions (Ac 5:4), and eating, drinking, and being married (1Co 11:10). What is striking, however, is that the NT does not say anything about one believer having authority over another.

The New Testament does not say anything about one believer having authority over another. We have plenty of authority over things, even over spirits, but never over other Christians....

We have plenty of authority over things, and even over spirits, but never over other Christians. Considering how much energy we put into discussions of who has authority in the church, that should be surprising. Kings have authority over their subjects; Paul had authority from the high priest to persecute Christians (Ac 9:14; 26:10-12). But in the church, one believer is never spoken of as having exousia over another, regardless of their position or prestige. The New Testament does not say anything about one believer having authority over another. We have plenty of authority over things, even over spirits, but never over other Christians. With the exception, that is, of 2Co 10:8 and 13:10. In these texts Paul speaks of having "authority" to build up, not tear down. It seems that he, at least, has exousia over other believers. Admittedly, one has to over-interpret the texts in order to make them a real exception since in both cases this is not an authority "over" anyone but rather an authority "for" a purpose.
First, I do not think it is an “over-interpretation” to say that Paul uses the term exousía to describe his Apostolic authority over the church at Corinth. In the context, he is clearly indicating that he has authority to correct them and to command them as he does. That this authority is given for the purpose of building rather than tearing down the churches does not in any way diminish the fact that it is an authority he clearly possesses.

Second, Miller has continued with his practice of selectivity in setting forth Biblical evidence. Why should we look only at the most common Greek word for authority – exousía – and ignore any other terms that might apply? For example, what about Paul's use of authentéō in 1 Timothy 2?

1 Timothy 2:12 “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority [authentéō] over a man, but to be in silence.”

To be sure, Paul here denies that women may teach or have authority over men in the churches, but does he not indicate by this very exclusion that there are some who may teach and have authority over men, namely other men? Does he not clearly assume a role of teaching and authority in the churches for at least some men here?

Also, what about Paul's use of kephalē to describe the husband as head of the wife and hupotássō to describe a wife's submission to her husband as an authority?

Ephesians 5:23-24 “23 For the husband is head [kephalē] of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject [hupotássō] to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.”

Wayne Grudem addresses the meaning of these two important terms in his “An Open Letter to Egalitarians”:

1. kephalē: Where the Bible says that the husband is the "head'' (kephalē) of the wife as Christ is the "head'' (kephalē) of the church (Eph. 5:23), and that the head of the woman is the man (1 Cor. 11:3), you tell us that "head'' here means "source'' and not "person in authority over (someone).'' In fact, as far as we can tell, your interpretation depends on the claim that kephalē means "source without the idea of authority.''

But we have never been able to find any text in ancient Greek literature that gives support to your interpretation. Wherever one person is said to be the "head'' of another person (or persons), the person who is called the "head'' is always the one in authority (such as the general of an army, the Roman emperor, Christ, the heads of the tribes of Israel, David as head of the nations, etc.) Specifically, we cannot find any text where person A is called the "head'' of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons. So we find no evidence for your claim that "head'' can mean "source without authority''....

2. hypotassō [same word I have cited; different transliteration]: Where the Bible says that wives are to "be subject to'' to their husbands (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and implied in Eph. 5:22, 24), you tell us that the verb "be subject to'' (hypotassō, passive) is a requirement for both husbands and wives-that just as wives are to be subject to their husbands, so husbands are to be subject to their wives, and that there is no unique authority that belongs to the husband. Rather, the biblical ideal is "mutual submission'' according to Ephesians 5:21, "be subject to one another,'' and therefore there is no idea of one-directional submission to the husband's authority in these other verses (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5; and Eph. 5:22, 24).

But we have never been able to find any text in ancient Greek literature where hypotassō (passive) refers to a person or persons being "subject to'' another person, and where the idea of submission to that person's authority is absent. In every example we can find, when person A is said to "be subject to'' person B, person B has a unique authority which person A does not have. In other words, hypotassō always implies a one-directional submission to someone in authority....
So, as Grudem so clearly shows, Paul teaches that Christian husbands have authority over their wives, to which their wives are to submit. This will become even more relevant to the issue of elder authority later when I address the qualifications for elders. For now I would just add that Paul also clearly teaches that Christian masters have authority over their slaves and Christian parents have authority over their children. For example:

Ephesians 6:1 “Children, obey [hupakoúō] your parents in the Lord, for this is right.”

Ephesians 6:5 “Bondservants, be obedient [hupakoúō] to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ....”

In both cases Paul clearly sees those to whom obedience is commanded as being under the authority of those to be obeyed. What else could he possibly mean, especially since he tells the slave to be obedient to his master “as to Christ”? Would Miller seriously expect us to deny that this refers to a relationship of authority or to deny that parents have authority over their children?

Well, these are examples of ways in which Scripture can speak of authority relationships within the Church without ever using the word exousía. Miller appears to have committed the word-concept fallacy here. That is, he has assumed that because a particular word for “authority” isn't present in a text, that the concept is therefore not present. But my previous examples have shown the problem with this, namely that it assumes that there can be only one way that the Bible describes or discusses the concept of authority, and it ignores any other ways in which the Bible might speak to the issue. We will see just how problematic this is with regard to the role of elders in particular as I consider next the terms used to describe elders and their qualifications.

Terms Used For Elders and Their Qualifications

1. Elder (presbúteros): This is a term that was used in the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. This is important because the LXX was the common Bible for the Apostles and early Christians in the first century, and it provides the proper background for understanding much of the language in the New Testament. And the LXX uses presbúteros to refer to the leaders among the people of Israel. For example, Moses chose to delegate authority to these leaders to judge the people of Israel in many cases (Exod. 18:12-27; Num. 11:16-17). The elders of the people were already regarded as their leaders, but these special men chosen by Moses were also empowered by God to fulfill this ministry of judging the people. From that time onward their were elders who would judge matters among the people, commonly sitting at the city gates (Prov. 31:23). In the first century the elders of the people were still considered to be leaders among them and were commonly listed in this regard along with the other leaders, such as the chief priests (Matt. 21:23). Sadly, they even took part in the judgment of Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Matt.26:57). Although the term undoubtedly took on a slightly different nuance when used by the early Christians, there can be no doubt that it continued to be used by them as a title of respect and authority (See, e.g., 1 Timothy 5:17).

2. Overseer (epískopos): This term also had an established LXX usage. For example, it could refer to Eleazar the son of Aaron as the one in charge of the tabernacle (Num. 4:16), to leaders of the army (Num. 31:14), or to those in charge of public works such as the restoration of the temple in the time of Josiah (2 Chron. 34:12, 17 ). In each case it refers to a position of authority. This term was then taken up by the Apostles as a reference to leaders in the churches (See, e.g., Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:2). Can it be that they used the term with no intention of communicating a position of authority? Hardly.

3. Steward (oikonómos): This term was also used in the LXX to describe one who was in a position of authority over a household (Isa. 36:22). In the New testament it is used literally of one who was put in charge of an estate (Luke 12:42) or of an official in charge of public funds and properties (Rom. 16:23), but it was also used by Paul to describe the office of an elder or overseer (Tit. 1:7). The church can be described by Paul as a household (Gal. 6:10; Eph. 2:19), so it is not surprising that he would refer to overseers as stewards, or those in authority over this household.

4. Pastor (poimēn): Paul uses this term to describe the elder office in Ephesians 4:11, in which he refers to it as the office of pastor (or shepherd). This word is used “1) literally, [of] one who takes care of a group of animals shepherd, sheep herder (LU 2.8); (2) metaphorically, [of] one who assumes leadership over a group of believers; (a) as picturing Christ as the head of the church (HE 13.20); (b) as human leaders over a community of believers pastor, minister (EP 4.11)” (Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, by Timothy and Barbara Friberg, Bible Works #22408).

That pastor (poimēn) is another term used in reference to elders is clear when we see that the related verb meaning “to shepherd” (poimaínō) is also used to describe their ministry. For example:

Acts 20:28 “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [epískopos], to shepherd [poimaínō] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”

1 Peter 5:1-2 “The elders [presbúteros] who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder [sumpresbúteros] and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:[2] “Shepherd [poimaínō] the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers [episkopéō], not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly....”

This terminology also has a rich LXX background, being used to describe the leaders of Israel, such as David when he was inaugurated king of Israel (1 Chron. 11:2), the judges that God raised up for Israel (1 Chron. 17:6), or the leaders of Israel in the time of Ezekiel, who had failed as shepherds of the people (Ezek. 34:1-10). In all such cases it refers metaphorically to those who were in positions of authority in Israel. So, when the terminology is used of the leaders of the churches, the connotations of authority would not have been missed by the saints, especially since this terminology was combined with so many other terms indicating authority, as we have seen.

5. Leader (hēgéomai): This is actually a verb used as a participle, the plural form of which is employed as a substantive by the author of Hebrews to refer to “those who rule over you” (13:7, 17, 24). Not surprisingly, this term also has a LXX background, and was sometimes used to describe those who were made rulers (Deut. 1:13) or kings (1 Kings 1:35) over Israel. Again, the connotations of authority are clear.

6.“Those over you in the Lord” (proïstēmi): Paul uses this verb several times with reference to the leaders/elders of the churches. For example, he uses it to refer to the elders at Thessalonica:

1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 “12 And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you [proïstēmi] in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. Be at peace among yourselves.”

Paul also uses the word to teach that one of the qualifications of an elder is that he rule his own household well:

1 Timothy 3:4-5 “4 one who rules [proïstēmi] his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule [proïstēmi] his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)”

And that Paul sees such rule as indeed extended to the elder's role in the church is also clear:

1 Timothy 5:17 “Let the elders who rule [proïstēmi] well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.”

Paul uses the very same word for the elders' ruling of the churches as he has used of their ruling of their own homes.

An Elder's Authority: That of Husbands and Fathers

Elder leadership, then, involves the kind of authority that these men exercised in their homes as husbands and fathers. As we have already seen, the husband is the head of the wife, who must submit to his authority (Eph. 5:23-24). And his children must also submit to his authority by being obedient (Eph. 6:1; 1 Tim. 3:4). But if this is what it means for a man to rule his own house, and this is the analogy used by Paul to describe an elder's rule of the church (which he views as a household, e.g. Gal. 6:10 and Eph. 2:19), how can it be denied that he sees the elders as having similar authority in the church to that of husbands and fathers?

So, the New Testament consistently uses terminology to refer to the elders as those having a position of authority. But this doesn't mean that such authority is to be exercised as it was by the judges or kings of Israel, for example, for the exercise of authority in the churches is qualified in several ways.

First, as we have seen the authority of the elders is to be exercised in a way similar to that of a husband or father, not a judge or a king. This means, for example, that they will exercise their authority with love, “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Eph. 5:25). They will lead the church “with understanding,” honoring their brothers and sisters in Christ as those who are “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Pet. 3:7). They will never exercise their authority in such a way as to exasperate those under their charge, leading them to become discouraged (Col. 3:21).

Second, elders will exercise their authority as those who are mature and posses the fruit of the Spirit. They will exercise their authority with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22). This kind of self-restrained and caring exercise of authority is very different from that of the world.

Third, to sum up, Scriptural elders will exercise their authority as Christ taught and exemplified. When He was preparing the disciples for their future role of leadership in the Church, He said, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42b-45).

But, as I previously pointed out with regard to Miller's citation of Luke 22:24-27, Jesus did not set aside His authority, or the exercise thereof, when He came as the great Shepherd (Pastor) of the sheep (Heb. 13:20 ; see also John 10:1-30). So there is no reason to think that the elders who serve as His under-shepherds should exercise no authority, as Miller suggests. It only means that they will not lord their authority over the churches in a self-serving way, but instead will follow Christ's example and exercise their authority with self-sacrificing love, understanding, patience, and humility.

But how might this look in practice? Well, we do have some examples of how the Apostles and their fellow-elders led the early Church when making some important decisions, so let's examine a couple of them.

First, when there was discord in the church at Jerusalem over the way that some of the widows were being neglected in the daily distribution for the poor, we find that the Apostles developed a plan of action that involved bringing the congregation along in the process. The Apostles determined that it would be good for the congregation to choose from among them seven qualified men that they themselves would appoint over the daily distribution (Acts 6:1-7). But notice that the Apostles themselves determined the plan of action and appointed the men for the task, even though they wisely sought the input of the congregation as to who would be the best men for the job. In other words, they exercised their authority with love and humility. But they did not set aside their authority. After all, the congregation did not come up with the plan or appoint the men to serve. This was a leadership role that the Apostles reserved for themselves. And the congregation clearly looked to them for such leadership, which is why they brought the problem to them in the first place.

Second, when there was a great division over the issue of circumcision, we are told that “the Apostles and elders came together to consider this matter” and that they had much debate about the issue (Acts 15:6-7). But we are also told that there was a “multitude” present that “kept silent and listened” as Paul and Barnabas reported to the them and then James responded with a plan to solve the problem (vs.12-21). Then we are told that James' plan “pleased the Apostles and elders, with the whole church” to send chosen men with a letter to the other churches describing the decision they had reached. But then later, in Acts 16, we are told that as Paul, Silas, and Timothy “went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the Apostles and elders” (vs.4). So, even though the members of the church at Jerusalem are said to have been present at the Apostles' and elders' discussion of the matter and were pleased with the outcome of the discussion, it is also clear that it is the Apostles and elders themselves that determined what was to be done. Thus we have a situation in which the leadership exercised their authority to determine what was to be done, but that they apparently did so in such a way as to establish a consensus on the matter among the brethren in Jerusalem.

What the example of the Apostles and elders shows us is that it is best for the leadership of the churches to lead in such a way as to seek peace and to establish a consensus on important matters, and that they should exercise their authority to that end. Where the elders have done their job and have communicated a wise, Scriptural answer to an issue, the response of the congregation should be that they submit to their leadership in such a way as to make their work a source of joy rather than grief. This is what the author of Hebrews commands, when he says, “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you” (13:17).

In conclusion, it can be said without reservation that Hal Miller is wrong when he tries to argue that “the New Testament does not say anything about one believer having authority over another.” Steve Atkerson is much closer to the Scriptural teaching here, which is why it is hard for me to see how he can recommend Miller's article as he does. It would seem that there is not a clear consensus between them on the issue. But this lack of clarity does, perhaps, explain why I keep running into HCM advocates that seem to have a hard time admitting that elders should have authority in the churches. It also helps to explain why I see among so many of them such a de-emphasis on the role of elders when compared with Scriptural teaching. Perhaps I will deal with another possible reason for this de-emphasis in a future blog post focusing on the misunderstanding of the word ekklēsía among some HCM advocates.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Geneva Bible Restoration Project

The Geneva Bible Restoration Project and Tolle Lege Press are offering the the 1599 Geneva Bible with updated spelling an typeset. I have been reading through this version since I purchased a hardback copy about two months ago, and I have really enjoyed it.

It is so much easier to read it with the updated spelling, but especially with the updated typeset. For example, many of the s's no longer look like f's and the u's like v's. It also contains all the original notes and cross-references, which have been enjoyable, enlightening, and sometimes intriguing, reading in my daily devotional study.

There is also a helpful glossary of antiquated words included in the back. For example, if you are like me, you would find it helpful to know that bounches refer to "camel's humps," a gaoler is a "jailer," or a habergeon refers to "a short medieval jacket of mail."

For other lovers of Bible study and translations, as well as Reformed theology and history, this is a welcome publication. Here is a brief description of the significance of the Geneva Bible from the website of the Geneva Bible Restoration Project:

When the Pilgrims arrived in the New World in 1620, they brought along supplies, a consuming passion to advance the Kingdom of Christ, and the Word of God. Clearly, their most precious cargo was the Bible—specifically, the 1599 Geneva Bible. All but forgotten in our day, this version of the Bible was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A superb translation, it was the product of the best Protestant scholars of the day and became the Bible of choice for many of the greatest writers and thinkers of that time. Men such as William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, and John Milton used the Geneva Bible in their writings. William Bradford also cited the Geneva Bible in his famous book Of Plymouth Plantation.

The Geneva Bible is unique among all other Bibles. It was the first Bible to use chapters and numbered verses and became the most popular version of its time because of the extensive marginal notes. These notes, written by Reformation leaders such as John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Anthony Gilby, and others, were included to explain and interpret the scriptures for the common people.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Vote on the Fate of Bonds 756th Home Run Ball

Mark Eckō, founder of Mark Eckō Enterprises and the clothing brand that bears his name, was the winning bidder for Barry Bond's record-setting 756th home run ball, and he has left it up to the public what to do with it. At Vote756.com anyone can vote for one of three options for what to do with the ball:

1) "Bestow it. Give the ball to Cooperstown. the ball that broke Hank Aaron's career home run record belongs in the Hall of Fame."

2) "Brand it. Burn an asterisk in the ball with a branding iron, adding a permanent footnote to the record. then, send it to Cooperstown."

3) "Banish it. Put the ball on a rocket ship and launch it into orbit, a moon shot for the ages. Out of sight, out of mind."

Personally, I voted to brand it and send it to Cooperstown with a permanent asterisk on it. In an ESPN interview, Eckō reported that Cooperstown has assured him that they will receive the ball in that condition. In my opinion, the ball does belong in the Hall of Fame, but it also should be there with an asterisk. Although I have to admit that sending it into space also has some appeal for me, I fear it would only make Bond's 756th home run even more famous, and I wouldn't want to see that happen.

Anyway, for all of my fellow baseball fans that read the blog, you may want to cast your vote soon. The deadline for the vote is September 25.


P.S. Go Cubs!

Monday, September 10, 2007

"What is a Reformed Baptist?" Poll Update

After almost two months running this poll, well over half of those responding thus far (59%) do not think strict adherence to the Baptist Confession of 1689 is necessary to being a Reformed Baptist. Here is the breakdown thus far (found at the bottom of the page):

15% thought that one only had to be a Baptist who held to Calvinistic soteriology.

35% thought that one must be a Baptist who holds to Calvinism and Covenant Theology.

41% thought that one must be a Baptist who holds to the 1689 Confession.

7% thought that one must hold to the 1689 Confession for the most part, but thought that this should not have to include adherence to the Sabbath requirement.

The sample from which this is taken is still pretty small at this point, but I hope that there will be many other respondents to the poll over the coming year. There are 312 days left to vote, so if you haven't responded yet, scroll down to the bottom of the page and weigh in.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

The "God of Calvinism" is the God of the Bible

In an August 28 article entitled Calvinist View of Bridge Collapse Distorts God's Character, Roger Olson, professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, discussed the tragic bridge collapse this year in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In the article, Olson criticizes the Calvinist view of God that sees Him as sovereign even over such terrible calamities. I would like to take a few minutes today to offer a brief response to Olson. I will cite a few portions of the article and offer my own reflections along the way.
Olson: A well-known Christian author and speaker pastors a church within a mile of the collapsed bridge [John Piper?]. To him and his followers, God foreordained, planned and indirectly (if not directly) caused the event.
A popular Christian band sings "There is a reason" for everything. They mean God renders everything certain and has a good purpose for whatever happens. The pastor and the band are Christian determinists. Both happen to adhere to a form of Protestant theology called Calvinism.

This theology is sweeping up thousands of impressionable young Christians. It provides a seemingly simple answer to the problem of evil. Even what we call evil is planned and rendered certain by God because it is necessary for a greater good.
I don't remember many — if any — prominent Calvinist theologians ever offering a "greater good" defense for the problem of evil. I know I wouldn't. But, then, as a Reformed Baptist — and thus also a committed Calvinist — I do not think we can give an answer to the problem of evil. To be sure, there is an answer, but I do not think that God has revealed it to us in Scripture. He has just assured us that, whatever the answer ultimately is, we can be certain that evil is not outside His plan or control. I, along with most Calvinists I know of, believe that we have to accept a mystery here, as we do with so many issues involving an infinite and sovereign God.
NKJ Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
As I see it, the ultimate answer to the problem of evil belongs to those secret things that God has chosen not to reveal to us. The most He has given us is a framework within which to understand the problem, and that framework consists of the existence of evil within a universe governed by His sovereign will.
Olson: But wait. What about God's character? Is God, then, the author of evil? Most Calvinists don't want to say it. But logic seems to demand it. If God plans something and renders it certain, how is he not culpable for it? Here is where things get murky.
Logic only demands it if we refuse to submit our minds to the truth of Scripture. Consider, for example, the teaching of the Book of Job. After Satan has received permission from God to attack Job and has destroyed all of Job's possessions and killed all of his family (except for his wife), we are told:
NKJ Job 1:20-22 Then Job arose, tore his robe, and shaved his head; and he fell to the ground and worshiped. 21 And he said: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked shall I return there. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; Blessed be the name of the LORD." 22 In all this Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong.
Now, we the readers have been informed that it was Satan who worked through the Sabeans and through natural means, having been given permission to do so by God, who had also drawn Satan's attention to Job. Since we know all this, we also know that Job is correct when he says that, "the LORD has given and the LORD has taken away," because it all clearly did happen as a part of God's plan for Job. But, was Job sinning, or was he accusing God of sinning, when he said this? Was his acknowledgment of God as in sovereign control of all these events also an assertion that God was the author of the evil behind them? Absolutely not! For the inspired author of the book immediately tells us that "in all this Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong."

In other words, the book of Job teaches us that we must acknowledge that evil is ultimately a part of God's plan and not outside of His sovereign control, but that we must never accuse Him of any evil Himself. However evil fits into God's sovereign plan, it does so in such a way that God Himself cannot be accused of any evil. This is the framework within which we must understand the problem of evil. We should humbly submit our minds to Scripture in this matter and admit that, although we do not and cannot understand how this can be so, it is so.

This reminds me of the word the LORD spoken through the prophet Isaiah, when He said, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts'" (55:8-9, NKJ). This is something the good Calvinist never forgets!
Olson: Some Calvinists will say he's not guilty because he has a good intention for the event -- to bring good out of it, but the Bible expressly forbids doing evil for the sake of good.
No, we do not say that God does evil for the sake of good. We say that God does no evil at all! As has been shown above, we simply agree with Job that God is sovereign even over evil, but in such a way that He is not guilty of any evil.

But we would say that God can and does have "a good intention" for any evil events in spite of the evil intentions of Satan or other evil doers in those very same events. This was definitely the case in God's dealings with Job described above, but I would like to offer an additional example for your consideration, which comes from the life of Joseph.

After Jacob died, Joseph's brothers feared that he had not truly forgiven them after all and might seek vengeance on them for having sold him into slavery as a young man. Here is the account of their conversation about the matter:
NKJ Genesis 50:15-21 When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, "Perhaps Joseph will hate us, and may actually repay us for all the evil which we did to him." 16 So they sent messengers to Joseph, saying, "Before your father died he commanded, saying, 17 Thus you shall say to Joseph: 'I beg you, please forgive the trespass of your brothers and their sin; for they did evil to you. Now, please, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of your father.'" And Joseph wept when they spoke to him. 18 Then his brothers also went and fell down before his face, and they said, "Behold, we are your servants." 19 Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God? 20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. 21 Now therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.' And he comforted them and spoke kindly to them."
Notice that Joseph saw God as having a good intention in the very same actions that were intended for evil by his brothers (vs. 20). This is not the same thing as saying that God does evil for the sake of good, since it is affirmed that God was only doing good the whole time. So, contra Olson, to say that God can have a sovereign plan that includes evil while His own intentions are only ever good does not not entail saying that God Himself does evil that good may come. Such a notion is foreign to Scripture and is expressly denied by Calvinists as well. The reason we say the things we do about God's sovereignty over evil is because we find these things taught in Scripture. And, even if we cannot ultimately explain such mysteries in a way that would satisfy Olson — or any others that appear to think that God's ways should be so easily understood by us — we nevertheless assert these things as true because Scripture clearly teaches them.
Olson: The God of Calvinism scares me; I'm not sure how to distinguish him from the devil. If you've come under the influence of Calvinism, think about its ramifications for the character of God. God is great but also good. In light of all the evil and innocent suffering in the world, he must have limited himself.
I do not doubt that the "God of Calvinism" scares Olson, but I would assert that it is really the God of the Bible that scares Him, a God who cannot be so easily put in the "limited" box in which Olson wishes to place Him. And if Olson can't seem to distinguish Him from the devil, it is an indictment on Olson rather than on God (or on Calvinists who are simply repeating what God has said about Himself). Many believers throughout the history of God's dealings with mankind have had no problem at all making such a distinction, believers such as Job and Joseph... and the Calvinists who believe their word over that of men such as Olson.

To all those who would say that God has to be limited in some way because that is the only way we can fully understand what He is doing — which seems to be Olson's point of view — I would remind you that it is idolatry to reshape God into our image, into someone who can fit into our understanding, rather than to humbly accept Him for who He says that He is.