Evidence for God from Science

Since "headship" is not a word found in the New Testament, how would you define it? Honest ask. I hear this word used an awful lot, I think sometimes it ends up being user-defined. What would you say it means, and how do you come by your definition?

I find in the relationship between a husband an wife there are two very similar words used, both include sacrifice and submision of a kind, one has the nuance of nurturing and leading, the other has the nuance of supporting. I can agree that these nuances also appear in the elder/church relationship.

That the husband is the head of the wife is expressly stated in Eph. 5:23. As to what it means, for all the theological talk of source/grounding, etc., it seems to me the head is that which directs the body. Just as in marriage, the two become one flesh (one body), and thus the husband directs that body, so Christ directs the Church as its head. Now, to my knowledge, the elders of the church are never called the "head," which we would not expect, since the "elder" is probably more of a function than an office. Yet when the function of the elder is to direct the affairs of the local church, I think the parallels are sufficient to warrant a comparison.

I think our real problem is with the definition of "authority." Jesus said all authority has been given to Him. Yet when was the last time He bossed you around? I'm willing to bet it was never. That's why I said before that authority, biblically speaking, is related to service. In other words, the world system seeks to impose its authority over others by exerting itself coercively; the biblical man seeks to practice his authority submissively. The funny thing about this is, psychologically, the biblical system works much better anyway (Dale Carnegie even recognized as much!).

But in the end, there still remains authority. There still remains a decision maker (or makers). When the husband and wife thoroughly discuss an issue, someone has to make a decision. When the elders and the congregation thoroughly discuss an issue, someone has to make a decision. It is easy to make that decision when everyone agrees, but in those times when everyone does not agree, there must be that one who has the authority to make these decisions. The man who does this, biblically, is one who does so always with the interest of the other first and foremost in his heart (Phil 2:3-5), just as Christ did (2:6-11). To the extent he does (or they do), they are following Christ's example. To the extent he does not (or they do not), he sins and is accountable to Christ.

Jac3510 wrote:Bart,

I do appreciate your take on the verses provided, but I expect we are going to come to an impasse here. With regard to Heb 13:17, allow me to offer the following:

1. Peitho is not middle. It is passive, so your rendering is probably not appropriate;
2. The meaning "to obey" is well attested to, both in secular literature and the NT. See, for example, Rom 2:8 and James 3:3. We have to be very careful here not to read our theology into our translation. In other words, we have to try very hard not to base our translation on our theology. What evidence, then, do we have in the text itself that the intended idea was either obedience or persuasion? Concerning the former, the meaning of obedience is never far from that of trust (which, by the way, is why the standard word for hierarchical obedience is not used--we are to trust our leaders; obedience flows from that). The context fits very nicely with an idea of trusting someone (and thus obeying), but there is nothing propositional that begs to be persuaded of. So, from a purely semantic perspective, there is little reason to take this as persuasion beyond, I think, a personal theology.
3. The word for "leader" means very much "to govern" or "to rule." In the immediate context, these "leaders" are the ones whom we are to imitate. They are the ones we are to peitho.
4. As for hupeiko, I'm not sure where you got the meaning "to yield, retire or withdraw like a surrender after a battle." All my lexicons simply have "obey" or "submit." The fact that it is prefaced with hupo is important in and of itself, as that preposition is used to connote being under something else (as in hupakuo).
5. These leaders "keep watch over" the church. The word here conveys the idea of sleepless nights as one watches out for dangers. Again, notice that these leaders are over the church, which is under them and to obey and submit to them.

Finally, a word about the entire context of Hebrews is in order. The book is written to warn Jewish Christians who were considering returning to Judaism so that they would continue to hold their faith. They were already persuaded. The issue was whether or not they would remain obedient to the faith. Their leaders, the ones who first proclaimed the gospel to them, had real, God-given authority that He expected them to obey.

Concerning 1 Tim. 5:17, my comments are much briefer.

I agree that the idea of the word is "to direct" and not "to rule." Yet pointing that out doesn't change the first thing I actually pointed out, which is simple: who is commanded to direct the affairs of the church: the elders or the church as a whole?

Plainly, it is the elders. Now, I fully agree that the submission the Bible demands towards these people is voluntary, but that doesn't change the fact that the flock is to allow the elders to direct the affairs and not claim that prerogative for themselves.

Now, Bart, I'll close by saying my own view of elders is far from what is practiced today in the modern church. I think the CEO-styled pastor is a terrible shame. I would not consider the proper view a "hierarchy" in any sense of the word. Is their a hierarchy of parts in your own body? Of course not, nor is there in the body of Christ. Yet that does not mean that there is no headship within your body. In the same way, there is headship in the church (and in the Trinity, and in marriage). The great irony, I see, in Viola's position is that he is doing the very thing he rails against: creating a caste of Christians. For him, leaders with authority are of a separate caste, which is a shame indeed, because that's not the biblical view. Our view is that authority is inseparable from service, and yet Frank's view disallows such service . . .

I'll say the same thing AGAIN which I have been saying all throughout this thread. This is the main area I disagree with Viola on. However, I am broadly sympathetic to his views on the sermon, on church buildings, on discipleship, on the meeting, on the Lord's Supper, etc. My interest in his ideas are strictly practical. Theologically, he makes, I believe, too many errors (considering the church the New Israel, his denial of dispensational truth, his views on the relationship between philosophy and theology, and his egalitarianism, just to name a few). But AGAIN--I cannot emphasize this enough--I am fundamentally in agreement with his "program" for the church. THAT is why I asked you to start this thread: not to decide if his views were RIGHT or not, but to find out how they worked out in practice. He can be wrong about elders and still have the right view about what the church is to do.

Thanks again for the discussion. I don't know about everyone else, but this is helping me quite a bit.

Jac,

As you expect, we do indeed disagree,

1. Heb 13:17 appears to me to be in middle-passive and you're welcome to disagree with me. Here's web references that indicate agreement with that position

http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_de ... p?PRKey=13

In Hebrews 13:17, believers are encouraged to “obey” church leaders. How does this square with congregational rule? The common word for obey is used with reference to children obeying their parents and slaves their masters (Ep 6:1, 5). It is significant that the Greek behind obey in Hebrews 13:17 is not the usual word. Instead, peitho is used, which Bauer's lexicon fundamentally defines as persuade or convince.6 (Other examples of peitho can be found in Luke 16:31, Acts 17:4, 21:14). Paul McReynolds' literal interlinear renders peitho in Hebrews 13:17 as “persuade.” Used in Hebrews 13:17 in the middle/passive form, it carries the idea of, “let yourselves be persuaded by” your leaders.

For those who want to take a more in depth look at the words and translations and see the greek and its transliterations, it can be looked at here:

http://scripturetext.com/hebrews/13-17.htm

There does indeed appear to be some disagreement over the exact form but I can't find any position that agrees with your assertion that it is passive, without the middle voice. The alternative appears to be present middle imperative. I believe the context supports the middle/passive but I'll not go as far as you to make a declarative statement beyond that anyone who wants to google it can find a great many references, formal and informal in that context that supports the assertion that it is indeed middle/passive.

I appreciate that you're broadly in agreement with many of Viola's positions and it is fine with me that you qualify those positions in the context of your belief that there is a hierarchical structure to the Trinity and also to leadership within the church. It seems to me that you're in agreement that most churches in the creation of the majority of modern day clergy and pastoral positions have no scriptural basis or model. If you believe that some form of plural elder based rule is what is implied in the NT (and I say implied because it certainly isn't modelled there) and that over the past 2,000 years of church history, we just haven't got it quite right yet then you're entitled to and welcome to that position.

I respectfully, without apology, disagree with your position and I believe in what it appears you've declared as a heretical view, namely that Jesus was only subordinate to the Father, in the context of his humanity as a direct result of the incarnation and those elements that Phil 2 indicates that Christ willingly set aside. Before and after that time I believe that there is no, and can be no disagreement between the members of the Godhead in terms of decision and will and the idea of hierarchical delineation is a religiously eisogeted position that is projected back on the text as a requirement for the then deriver position of a human hierarchy.

I concede that it is a difficult issue to come to a consensus and it appears to me to have more to do with where one starts in one's reasoning. I take heart that I think in practice, I hope that you agree that starting from a position such as yours you do not disagree that there is an element of mutual, two-way submission whereby any who would assume a position of leadership within the organic body of Christ do not simply wield authority capriciously or self-servingly. I also concede that starting from my assumption that there is no evidence of hierarchical headship within the organization or organism of the body of Christ, but that there are elders who are recognized by virtue of their gifts and functions who are to seek to lead by loving persuasion and that there is a call to the rest of the body to carefully (although not in any and all instances) listen to what they have to say and to sacrificially as part of the mutual submission the body, give deference to their leadings and allow ourselves to be open and willing to be persuaded and then follow.

In practice, I suspect that our positions would look similar. Where I think they differ is in the attitude and tone that we project upon God in His ministry through Christ's bride, the living organism that is called the church. I think it makes a huge difference in terms of how we see and hear God and whether we are to walk in grace or under some form of lawful compulsion.

I suspect that is as far as we will be able to come given our respective positions, and if you wish to thus categorize me as a heretic, then you're welcome to do so. I'll leave any such categorizations for either you or for me with God in this instance.

I'll note as well, that I think you're projecting more declaritively some positions on Viola that I believe he's pretty careful in his works to assert that he is not completely dogmatic as to how the practices or structures he teaches in his ministry. I hope you'll take the opportunity to at least read "Reinventing Church" as we've only touched on a very small part of all that he covers in the book.

I'll conclude on this by saying experiencially, which I realize is not the final word, that I've operated under the assumptions that your model presents both in positions of authority and submission and I've found both sides lacking not only in the practice of others but of myself and I have found in this present exposure to this understanding what I believe to be a more Biblical and more aligned with the nature of God model.

If all it is however, is a model, then neither you nor I will in the end derive any real benefit for our positions and teaching of it. The power is in the practice and resting in the center of a daily walk and relationship of love and submission to a God and Savior who has met our deepest needs and asks that we move forward in expressing to God and to one another the love He has so richly bestowed upon us. If we focus upon the structures and lose sight of that, neither of us has anything of any real significance to offer.

So, I appreciate you Jac, even when I diagree with you and my prayer is that both of us will come to the place where we're so overwhelmed with God's love and presence in our lives that others will catch that scent and move beyond dry intellectual models and into the fullness of a daily walk with God and our brothers and sisters that pleases Him.

blessings,

bart

Well, Jac, the use of the word "head" in the Ephesians passage, speaking of the husband to the wife, is more in the way of "head of the line," rather than the word for one's actual head. There is a Greek word for that, but it isn't the word Paul used. "Head of the line," has the more specific meaning of leading the way, two equals, one leading, one supporting.

At first glance, this would match your description of the husband making the decisions and the wife having to obey the decisions. But there is a catch. The way the husband leads in is the way of Christ. Since both the husband and the wife are following Jesus, there is consensus. Paul likens this consensus to Christ and His church, that beautiful union that you and I so often enjoy with our Lord when our hearts are so filled with Him we can think of nothing but to please Him and glorify Him, and we know that He is all for us, His purpose to fulfill us and complete us.

This is a system of checks and balances, as it were. Both have the Spirit, so when the husband errs, the wife is there to help him see it. If he insists on his own way, seeking to insist upon her obedience to his way (and not the Lord's), I would be hard pressed to find Biblical support for her following him. But she can still be his ezer (the word God used to describe Eve, and otherwise uses almost exclusively to describe Himself) by doing all she can to help him back onto the way they both should be following.

When Paul wrote to the churches, he wrote to every person in the church, he appealed to every person. The letters to Timothy and Titus were personal letters, more (as Bart pointed out) in a mentoring fashion. But the very fact that they are part of the canon shows that they were publicly read. If we really believe that every person who is born again has Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit living within them, if we really believe that God means for there to be unity, for all to share in the mind of Christ, for all to be flooded with His character and His ways (Ezekiel speaking of the time to come when God would right His way [Law] on every recreated heart), then we will have to believe that consensus is not only possible, it is necessary. Capitulation is not consensus. Making a decision when there is still no consensus and then insisting upon obedience is not the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17.

There is historical context for this -- throughout the millennia believers have, from time to time, lived just like this. It hasn't always lasted, but it has happened, and from the few simple gatherings I've interacted with, this is possible -- messy, inefficient, time consuming, sometimes even painful; but possible, and beautiful. The Quakers are famous examples. The Chinese simple churches, the Korean simple churches, the spreading movement of simple churches in the UK and USA, all are really practicing this and being blessed by God.

That's not to say God isn't blessing other practices. I have newly developed a real respect for Eastern Orthodox believers. They have a wonderful portion to share with the rest of us. I am particularly partial to the Brethren movement, much to love on their take on the scriptural church. American Evangelicals have been zealous for the orthodoxy of faith, God has preserved His word among them. Thank God for the Charismatics, who have jumped in with both feet into the River of Life. There are lots of ways to love God and worship Him.

Still, the form that Viola presents is like a key that unlocks the door for every person to participate fully in the body of Christ. I believe we have been yearning towards this, we believers. We grew big, now we need to grow small, while retaining certain insitutional structures to administrate beneficial programs. Those can be heirarchical, most efficient use of resources. But the Body of Christ must have only one Head, Him alone.

The discussion of the trinity, I think, should be tangential to this discussion. The eternal subordination of the Son to the Father is a teaching currently being used to support the hierarchical approach to human relationships (such as the family and the church), but it really is only about thirty years old, in its current iteration (it's actually pretty ancient, only was considered heretical, as Arianism. This current iteration tries to sidestep that).

The hierarchical structure of church was previously founded on other principles, but in recent decades, with the advent of a more democratic approach to both church and family (although the Pilgrims were proto-socialists, as were the Dissenters of every stripe, including the Quakers and Methodists), a doctrine founded upon the trinity has been sought to make the hierarchical structure firmer.

Hey Joanne,

I brought it up only because Jac and I have had that conversation in the past in another context and it was alluded to earlier. I think there is a tie here and I think one position or the other tends strongly to lead to a natural conclusion in terms of hierarchy within leadership as well.

I agree that it is a very volitile and potentially distracting subject to try and resolve or discuss productively in the context of this thread.

I also happen to believe that what Jac refers to as the egalatarian position of the trinity is an orthodox and longstanding position historically and key to understanding many things including the nature of God, what it means to enter into fellowship with the triune God, the place of substitutionary atonement and many other positions.

I'm not really all that inclined however to have an argument about it, as I believe it is something more caught in terms of the scent of God's love and not a purely intellectually approach using aristotilean logical structures.

If others wish to enter into the discussion however, I'd be happy to establish a separate thread for that purpose.

blessings,

bart

Jac,

As you expect, we do indeed disagree,

And I don't expect it to be resolved here, but iron sharpens iron, eh?

1. Heb 13:17 appears to me to be in middle-passive and you're welcome to disagree with me. Here's web references that indicate agreement with that position

http://www.ntrf.org/articles/article_de ... p?PRKey=13

Can you provide me with a lexicon or dictionary rather than a website that simply asserts that it is middle? Your source provided no argument or even references. Just the bald assertion. The TDNT takes it as active and expressly defines the meaning in this verse as "to obey" (VI:4). Further, the NIDNTT (abridged) notes:

• The original intrans. act. peitho (trust) became trans., to convince, to persuade, and the meaning of trust was taken over in the pass. peithomai. Only in the 2d perf. pepoitha retains in the act. the original intrans. meaning (strictly, to have taken hold of trust with the effect of continuing into the present) . . . the mid. pass. of the 1st perf. pepeismai means to be convinced (p. 446)

Again, this same lexicon specifically defines the word in Heb. 13:17 as "to obey or follow" (447), which, again, requires a passive if we are to follow the idea of trusting in the passive stem. Still further, Mounce's Analytical Lexicon specifically lists this as passive (362).

Still more, Louw and Nida list this under peithomai (not peitho), which is passive, and specifically define it as "to submit to authority or reason by obeying - 'to obey'" (I:467). Finally, here is a site that parses words that says the same. I could give more, but I think this makes the point. Now, I haven't checked Baur. Perhaps they are in your corner? But in any case, can you give me any lexical evidence that this word is middle, or is it just an interpretation you prefer because it fits with your theology?

The last question is pertinent. It is one I face all the time doing syntactical studies. I am willing to concede that the middle is a grammatical possibility. The question is what is our warrant for taking it as such? In the face of overwhelming lexical evidence against your view, why should we take it as middle?

For those who want to take a more in depth look at the words and translations and see the greek and its transliterations, it can be looked at here:

http://scripturetext.com/hebrews/13-17.htm

There does indeed appear to be some disagreement over the exact form but I can't find any position that agrees with your assertion that it is passive, without the middle voice. The alternative appears to be present middle imperative. I believe the context supports the middle/passive but I'll not go as far as you to make a declarative statement beyond that anyone who wants to google it can find a great many references, formal and informal in that context that supports the assertion that it is indeed middle/passive.

I've provided many who take my position that it is passive. Minus two websites that don't site their source, can we please see something that takes your position? Besides, look at your own source. Out of the ten English Bibles presented, ALL of them take this as "to obey." The Hebrew translation uses the word shema ("to hear" or "obey"). The Latin, French, German, and Spanish versions all take this as "obey" as well. And then, after ALL THAT, the lexicon beneath defines peitho as "to persuade," without even noting the well-attested meaning of "to obey," which is extensively reflected in every translation provided?!?

So, I go back to my question: WHY should we take this as middle persuasion when all the lexical evidence points to obedience?

I appreciate that you're broadly in agreement with many of Viola's positions and it is fine with me that you qualify those positions in the context of your belief that there is a hierarchical structure to the Trinity

Did I use the word "hierarchy" with reference to the Trinity? No . . . in fact . . .

and also to leadership within the church.

I expressly denied this. I said:

• which, by the way, is why the standard word for hierarchical obedience is not used--we are to trust our leaders; obedience flows from that

Forgive me for having a nuanced position, but nothing is ever as simple as pure black and white, is it? I have every confidence in your exegetical abilities to appreciate such nuances, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So can we stick to a position I actually hold to, please? Thanks

It seems to me that you're in agreement that most churches in the creation of the majority of modern day clergy and pastoral positions have no scriptural basis or model. If you believe that some form of plural elder based rule is what is implied in the NT (and I say implied because it certainly isn't modelled there) and that over the past 2,000 years of church history, we just haven't got it quite right yet then you're entitled to and welcome to that position.

Actually, I do think it is modeled, to the extent that any particular ecclesiastical structure is so, in the NT, as do most people who hold to elder-rule rather than congregational rule.

I respectfully, without apology, disagree with your position and I believe in what it appears you've declared as a heretical view, namely that Jesus was only subordinate to the Father, in the context of his humanity as a direct result of the incarnation and those elements that Phil 2 indicates that Christ willingly set aside.

For what it is worth, I don't think the kenosis of Phil 2 means Jesus set aside anything. It should be rendered "poured Himself out." In any case, I certainly hope you disagree with my labeling egalitarian Trinitarianism heretical, respectfully or not, for if you didn't, you would be labeling yourself a heretic. Anyway, as you were saying . . .

Before and after that time I believe that there is no, and can be no disagreement between the members of the Godhead in terms of decision and will and the idea of hierarchical delineation is a religiously eisogeted position that is projected back on the text as a requirement for the then deriver position of a human hierarchy.

How can there be no disagreement over that? That is the very thing we disagree on! The Son is generated (eternally) from the Father, an idea which has its formulation all the way back in the Nicene Creed. The idea is virtually required by the terms Father and Son. So, no, we can have much disagreement on this, my good friend!

I concede that it is a difficult issue to come to a consensus and it appears to me to have more to do with where one starts in one's reasoning. I take heart that I think in practice, I hope that you agree that starting from a position such as yours you do not disagree that there is an element of mutual, two-way submission whereby any who would assume a position of leadership within the organic body of Christ do not simply wield authority capriciously or self-servingly. I also concede that starting from my assumption that there is no evidence of hierarchical headship within the organization or organism of the body of Christ, but that there are elders who are recognized by virtue of their gifts and functions who are to seek to lead by loving persuasion and that there is a call to the rest of the body to carefully (although not in any and all instances) listen to what they have to say and to sacrificially as part of the mutual submission the body, give deference to their leadings and allow ourselves to be open and willing to be persuaded and then follow.

In practice, I suspect that our positions would look similar. Where I think they differ is in the attitude and tone that we project upon God in His ministry through Christ's bride, the living organism that is called the church. I think it makes a huge difference in terms of how we see and hear God and whether we are to walk in grace or under some form of lawful compulsion.

I was with you until the last line. Do you at least recognize a "hierarchical" distinction between God and man, or do you take The Shacks extreme view that not even God has authority over men? Assuming the former, is it to walk "under some form of lawful compulsion" to obey Christ? Of course not! Even though He is hierarchically above us in every way? If not, you are forced to admit that "hierarchical" structures (which I still hold is a mischaracterization of my position, but I'm not going to continue quibbling over semantics) do not necessarily require legalism. I can and readily admit that the positions God has ordained can be abused, but that does not make them fundamentally legalistic. Please, sir, let's not make statements that do not accurately reflect one another's views. Fair enough?

I suspect that is as far as we will be able to come given our respective positions, and if you wish to thus categorize me as a heretic, then you're welcome to do so. I'll leave any such categorizations for either you or for me with God in this instance.

You, personally, a heretic? No. I reserve that lovely title for those who deny the Gospel. Egalitarian Trinitarianism? That's heresy, just as much as every other view of the person of Christ that distorts His nature. And, as you note, God will be the judge of both of us on that.

I'll note as well, that I think you're projecting more declaritively some positions on Viola that I believe he's pretty careful in his works to assert that he is not completely dogmatic as to how the practices or structures he teaches in his ministry. I hope you'll take the opportunity to at least read "Reinventing Church" as we've only touched on a very small part of all that he covers in the book.

I have every intention on reading the book. I'll say AGAIN, that while I deeply disagree with some of his theology, I am keenly interested in the practical aspects of his views, for, in many ways, as you yourself note, the practical side is very similar. Remember when I started this thread, my questions to you were not theological. They were always practical. I was afraid that things would end up here . . .

I'll conclude on this by saying experiencially, which I realize is not the final word, that I've operated under the assumptions that your model presents both in positions of authority and submission and I've found both sides lacking not only in the practice of others but of myself and I have found in this present exposure to this understanding what I believe to be a more Biblical and more aligned with the nature of God model.

Forgive me, but I don't think you have operated under "my" model. Unless you can tell me you have been in an "organic" church (to use Frank's term)--practically speaking--that is based on a plural elder-rule, in which discipleship and teaching is done house to house on a near daily basis with the central aspect of the church being on fellowship, then no, you haven't tried "my model".

If all it is however, is a model, then neither you nor I will in the end derive any real benefit for our positions and teaching of it. The power is in the practice and resting in the center of a daily walk and relationship of love and submission to a God and Savior who has met our deepest needs and asks that we move forward in expressing to God and to one another the love He has so richly bestowed upon us. If we focus upon the structures and lose sight of that, neither of us has anything of any real significance to offer.

And with this, I completely agree, which is why, again, I asked you to start this thread with respect to the practical application of Viola's views. Theology aside, what happens "in church" and how it affects people is extremely important. I am deeply distressed this discussion has gone down the road it has. While I am aware that we have near irreconcilable differences in our theology proper, I still would like to think that our applied ecclesiology meets in enough places that I can genuinely learn from your experience and, dare I say, even expertise.

So, I appreciate you Jac, even when I diagree with you and my prayer is that both of us will come to the place where we're so overwhelmed with God's love and presence in our lives that others will catch that scent and move beyond dry intellectual models and into the fullness of a daily walk with God and our brothers and sisters that pleases Him.

I'm all for moving beyond dry intellectual models, so long as moving beyond them doesn't mean destroying them. In the end, our God is still a rational God, infinite and beyond exhaustive comprehension though He may be. We are to love Him not only with our heart, but also with our mind. So yes, let's move beyond the foundations and begin practicing what we preach (wherever we are to do that and whatever that means); yet let us not leave the foundations so far behind as we build our experiences on the sands. I prefer solid rock, myself.

God bless

Gotcha, Bart, makes sense. I actually would not be that interested in "getting into it" over this particular doctrine of the trinity, but I can see what you're saying, that the implications of the trinity (whatever view is held) has the potential to drive one's view in how human relationships are to be formed.

The Gospel according to John, chapter 5, gives a fascinating glimpse into the interaction between the Son and the Father that, I think, can be a lovely model for all those who consider themselves to be in authority somehow. Notice how the Father gives all that He has and is completey away to the Son. Notice how the Son respects completely not only what He has been given, but the Person Who has done the giving. There is no holding back on either side, and there is no disagreement either.

In fact, the only time we hear of the Son pleading with the Father to go another way is the garden, the eve of His crucifixion. But we can't take that time of prayer out of the context of prayer that, at least John, gives. That context is the "why" of Jesus praying out loud at all. Remember that He is teaching, even up to this last moment. Remember that He has invited His three closest disciples to Him to listen to His prayer and to pray with Him. He gives the purpose of His praying out loud in John 11:41.

So the context of Gethsamene is in the greater context of Jesus teaching His disciples how to pray, and how to relate to God the Father (and if you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father).

I actually think that there is another issue, perhaps more basic than the trinity, that enters into how simple church works, and that concerns the activity of God the Holy Spirit in our daily lives. Does He speak to believers, individually, or not? Can we sense His real, present, active guidance in our inward being, or not? Those who hold to a cessationist view will say "not."

If we don't have the Spirit's real, present, active guidance in each of our inward beings, then we have to have an outward form of relationship (hierarchy, or democratic vote, or something) that will keep the group together. If we do have this guidance, then we can be completely, serenely confident that we will reach consensus at the right time, and we will be able to act in conformity with the Father's desires. This was and is the Quaker position (they're the only ones I know of who insisted upon unanimity), but is also the way the simple/organic gatherings that I know of operate.

I thought this was a great quote that speaks to some of what we're talking about in terms of leadership:

"If you want to build a ship, don't herd people together to collect wood, and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery

joanne wrote:Well, Jac, the use of the word "head" in the Ephesians passage, speaking of the husband to the wife, is more in the way of "head of the line," rather than the word for one's actual head. There is a Greek word for that, but it isn't the word Paul used. "Head of the line," has the more specific meaning of leading the way, two equals, one leading, one supporting.

What is this Greek word for "head" in the "normal" sense? Are you aware that the word used in Eph 5:23 is κεφαλη (kephale), the normal word for head? It has everything to do with authority . . .

At first glance, this would match your description of the husband making the decisions and the wife having to obey the decisions. But there is a catch. The way the husband leads in is the way of Christ. Since both the husband and the wife are following Jesus, there is consensus. Paul likens this consensus to Christ and His church, that beautiful union that you and I so often enjoy with our Lord when our hearts are so filled with Him we can think of nothing but to please Him and glorify Him, and we know that He is all for us, His purpose to fulfill us and complete us.

Of course the husband is to lead in the way of Christ. That, however, is a matter of HOW authority is to be practiced; not whether it exists. THAT it exists in the husband is undeniable. Likewise, THAT it exists in Christ is undeniable. And I see no reason to deny it of elders in the church given the biblical evidence I have cited. Again, HOW they are to practice their authority is a different question of whether or not they have it.

This is a system of checks and balances, as it were. Both have the Spirit, so when the husband errs, the wife is there to help him see it. If he insists on his own way, seeking to insist upon her obedience to his way (and not the Lord's), I would be hard pressed to find Biblical support for her following him. But she can still be his ezer (the word God used to describe Eve, and otherwise uses almost exclusively to describe Himself) by doing all she can to help him back onto the way they both should be following.

And the wife's response to the husband's authority is still yet another question . . . obviously, we are to obey God first and men second.

When Paul wrote to the churches, he wrote to every person in the church, he appealed to every person. The letters to Timothy and Titus were personal letters, more (as Bart pointed out) in a mentoring fashion. But the very fact that they are part of the canon shows that they were publicly read. If we really believe that every person who is born again has Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit living within them, if we really believe that God means for there to be unity, for all to share in the mind of Christ, for all to be flooded with His character and His ways (Ezekiel speaking of the time to come when God would right His way [Law] on every recreated heart), then we will have to believe that consensus is not only possible, it is necessary. Capitulation is not consensus. Making a decision when there is still no consensus and then insisting upon obedience is not the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17.

There is historical context for this -- throughout the millennia believers have, from time to time, lived just like this. It hasn't always lasted, but it has happened, and from the few simple gatherings I've interacted with, this is possible -- messy, inefficient, time consuming, sometimes even painful; but possible, and beautiful. The Quakers are famous examples. The Chinese simple churches, the Korean simple churches, the spreading movement of simple churches in the UK and USA, all are really practicing this and being blessed by God.

That's not to say God isn't blessing other practices. I have newly developed a real respect for Eastern Orthodox believers. They have a wonderful portion to share with the rest of us. I am particularly partial to the Brethren movement, much to love on their take on the scriptural church. American Evangelicals have been zealous for the orthodoxy of faith, God has preserved His word among them. Thank God for the Charismatics, who have jumped in with both feet into the River of Life. There are lots of ways to love God and worship Him.

Still, the form that Viola presents is like a key that unlocks the door for every person to participate fully in the body of Christ. I believe we have been yearning towards this, we believers. We grew big, now we need to grow small, while retaining certain insitutional structures to administrate beneficial programs. Those can be heirarchical, most efficient use of resources. But the Body of Christ must have only one Head, Him alone.

If the body of Christ can have only one head, how is it that each husband is the head of his family?

Christ is the head of the universal church. He has provided shepherds (elders) over each local church. That's not a hierarchy. As I asked before: is there a hierarchy in your human body? No. Likewise, the fact that there is authority in the church need not mean that there is hierarchy. It means that certain parts of the body have certain functions. We need ALL the functions to work properly, including those functions that heal, pray, exhort, help, and, yes, even administer and lead.

I'm not sure how to use the quote box in this forum, so will just quote you this old fashioned way, Jac:

"What is this Greek word for "head" in the "normal" sense? Are you aware that the word used in Eph 5:23 is κεφαλη (kephale), the normal word for head? It has everything to do with authority . . ."

yes, exactly. If Paul's intention were to teach the prevailing philosphy of his day, the Aristotelian husbnads-should-command-their-wives-and-rule-over-them, then he would have used Aristotle's language, making a pun out of the word "arche." He could have then, in one neat sentence, meant that husband rules wife, reminding the reader that Adam was the source for Eve, as "arche" means "ruler" and "point of origin."

Paul used "kephale," meaning "foremost" in terms of position (yes, you're right, it does also mean physical head, I misspoke on that part). But it's not used to connote "boss" or "chief" or "ruler" or even "leader," thought it can mean "one who leads" as in the "head of the line."

Interestingly, "rosh," the Hebrew word for "head" is like the English word, in that it can mean either "boss" or "head of the line" (among equals). So when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek, they translators were careful to make the distinction in the Greek.

I get nervous hearing the word "authority" being used. In my experience, when who has the authority/power/right to rule is the main topic, it is because the "haves" and the "have nots" are being sorted out. That seems to be exactly what the Lord Jesus was speaking against every time He caught His disciples arguing about it. It seems as though He was saying "If you really want to know who has authority, then look for the one who has given it entirely away and is serving everyone, who has willingly placed himself at the very bottom of the pile and is empowering everyone else at his own expense."

I think it's kind of like discussing humility. True humility is the absence of self-consciousness such that the person who has it is far more interested in the well-being of others, and delighting in the well-being of others, rather than spending mental energy concerning themselves with themselves. Ture authority would be very similar, in my opinion, and yet those who have it discover that people are willingly, happily, following them.

Therefore, authority can't be bestowed by any human insitution, not by seminary degree, not by ordination, not by vote, not by anything. It's given by God, and it's discovered by the group as the members of the body interact with each other.

Now this part, "Christ is the head of the universal church. He has provided shepherds (elders) over each local church. That's not a hierarchy. As I asked before: is there a hierarchy in your human body? No. Likewise, the fact that there is authority in the church need not mean that there is hierarchy. It means that certain parts of the body have certain functions. We need ALL the functions to work properly, including those functions that heal, pray, exhort, help, and, yes, even administer and lead."

I think I could agree to, but I would change one word: "over." The Lord has provided shepherds to be "among" the flock, as the Lord alone is "over" the flock.

A hierarchy looks like a pyramid. At the top is the "arche" and filtered down are the lesser "arches" (who all report to the top) and then finally those, the majority, who are plainly at the bottom, whose sole purpose is to serve all the "arches" above them. I believe that this model works with ruthless efficiency, and is our favorite form of human governance, with many variants.

But the church is founded upon one capstone (the "kephale") of Christ, as well as is ruled by one "arche" Who is Christ. There are no other "arches." However, within the structure of the church, to keep the building motif, there can be other supports -- just look at any cathedral to see how all is squared to the one capstone, yet every arch, every pillar, every corner also has foundational stones (Paul actually, at one point, named the apostles as foundational blocks). All are squared to the One Stone.

Since the husband leads the way for his family, with his wife as his equal foot soldier, the two of them equally following their general, the Lord, both are squared to the One Stone, and there is no issue of who gets to tbe the ruler. Both are ruled by the same Ruler, though positionally they are husband: leading, nurturing; wife: supporting. That makes me, I recently discovered, a "soft egalitarian" rather than a "soft complementarian," if labels are worth anything (which they only sort of are).

The same is true in the church, just on a larger scale, as the elders lead the way and nurture, and the rest of the church supports them in this. Note that the elders support and follow the prophets among them, just as the prophets support and follow the elders. In fact, in each area of giftedness, the rest of the church supports and follows, so that ultimately everyone is nurturing, leading, supporting and following in some way.

yes, exactly. If Paul's intention were to teach the prevailing philosphy of his day, the Aristotelian husbnads-should-command-their-wives-and-rule-over-them, then he would have used Aristotle's language, making a pun out of the word "arche." He could have then, in one neat sentence, meant that husband rules wife, reminding the reader that Adam was the source for Eve, as "arche" means "ruler" and "point of origin."

First, you have to be very careful in arguing what Paul meant because he DIDN'T use a word. That is called an argument from silence. Second, you are on less sure footing of your position when you insist that Paul would have used a figure of speech . . . in this case, a pun on arche. In the third place, while the word arche CAN being a ruler, it has a far more common meaning of "beginning" or "first in line." I have a feeling that even if Paul had used that word, you would have argued that Paul clearly was talking about the first in line, yet first among equals . . .

Fourth, right after the husband is said to be the "head" of the wife, he is compared to Christ who is the head of the Church. I assume you recognize the authority that Christ has over the church? And if that were not enough, he goes on to say that just as the church is subject to (hupotasso) Christ, so also the wife is subject to her husband. So I think Paul very strongly paints a picture of authority . . .

Paul used "kephale," meaning "foremost" in terms of position (yes, you're right, it does also mean physical head, I misspoke on that part). But it's not used to connote "boss" or "chief" or "ruler" or even "leader," thought it can mean "one who leads" as in the "head of the line."

Kephale can't mean "foremost," for the simple reason that it is a noun, whereas your rendering is an adjective. And if you were to say "the foremost one," you have an idea closer to arche. Beyond that, can you quote me a particular verse in which the word kephale means "foremost" as in "first in line"? Do you see Christ as only the first in line in the Church? Do you have any lexical evidence to support your claim?

Interestingly, "rosh," the Hebrew word for "head" is like the English word, in that it can mean either "boss" or "head of the line" (among equals). So when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek, they translators were careful to make the distinction in the Greek.

I'm assuming you got this from a source somewhere. Would you mind citing it and providing a few examples where the LXX carefully distinguishes between . . . well, whatever you are saying it distinguishes between?

I get nervous hearing the word "authority" being used. In my experience, when who has the authority/power/right to rule is the main topic, it is because the "haves" and the "have nots" are being sorted out. That seems to be exactly what the Lord Jesus was speaking against every time He caught His disciples arguing about it. It seems as though He was saying "If you really want to know who has authority, then look for the one who has given it entirely away and is serving everyone, who has willingly placed himself at the very bottom of the pile and is empowering everyone else at his own expense."

I think it's kind of like discussing humility. True humility is the absence of self-consciousness such that the person who has it is far more interested in the well-being of others, and delighting in the well-being of others, rather than spending mental energy concerning themselves with themselves. Ture authority would be very similar, in my opinion, and yet those who have it discover that people are willingly, happily, following them.

This is all a discussion on how authority ought to be practiced, not whether or not one has it. Paul clearly says that authority should be practiced selflessly.

Therefore, authority can't be bestowed by any human insitution, not by seminary degree, not by ordination, not by vote, not by anything. It's given by God, and it's discovered by the group as the members of the body interact with each other.

"Therefore" is a word that introduces a logical conclusion. How does your conclusion that "authority can't be bestowed by any human institution" follow from your view on how it ought to be practiced? I'd submit to you, respectfully, that your conclusion doesn't follow at all, and that your conclusion is nothing more than an assertion. Further, it seems your conclusion begs the question. If the eldership is a position of authority that is granted to someone by the church body, then you are simply mistaken. Your conclusion, then, assumes what you are trying to prove about the very discussion at hand. Maybe your conclusion is right and maybe it is not, but either way, this is not good form.

I think I could agree to, but I would change one word: "over." The Lord has provided shepherds to be "among" the flock, as the Lord alone is "over" the flock.

I am just using the word God does:

• Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over (huper) your souls as those who will give an account. (Heb. 13:17, NASB)
  
  Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over (proistemi) you in the Lord and who admonish you. (1 Thess. 5:12)

I know that in our fallen state we have a problem with authority, but there is a biblical authority, jo . . . and those who serve in that capacity are expected to do so with complete and total devotion to their flocks, for it is the other who comes first, never the self.

A hierarchy looks like a pyramid. At the top is the "arche" and filtered down are the lesser "arches" (who all report to the top) and then finally those, the majority, who are plainly at the bottom, whose sole purpose is to serve all the "arches" above them. I believe that this model works with ruthless efficiency, and is our favorite form of human governance, with many variants.

But the church is founded upon one capstone (the "kephale") of Christ, as well as is ruled by one "arche" Who is Christ. There are no other "arches." However, within the structure of the church, to keep the building motif, there can be other supports -- just look at any cathedral to see how all is squared to the one capstone, yet every arch, every pillar, every corner also has foundational stones (Paul actually, at one point, named the apostles as foundational blocks). All are squared to the One Stone.

Since the husband leads the way for his family, with his wife as his equal foot soldier, the two of them equally following their general, the Lord, both are squared to the One Stone, and there is no issue of who gets to tbe the ruler. Both are ruled by the same Ruler, though positionally they are husband: leading, nurturing; wife: supporting. That makes me, I recently discovered, a "soft egalitarian" rather than a "soft complementarian," if labels are worth anything (which they only sort of are).

The same is true in the church, just on a larger scale, as the elders lead the way and nurture, and the rest of the church supports them in this. Note that the elders support and follow the prophets among them, just as the prophets support and follow the elders. In fact, in each area of giftedness, the rest of the church supports and follows, so that ultimately everyone is nurturing, leading, supporting and following in some way.

Sorry, I just don't see Christ as an equal footsoldier. He is more than the first in line. As the husband is to the wife, Christ is to the church. Why do you think husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church? What did He do for us? Yes, He died for us, but more, He served our needs above His own. He put us first. He did for us what we could not do for ourselves. Why is the husband given that high responsibility? Because he is the head! Yet, if the head is only "the first in line," why such a strong command, and why the follow up command to the wife to be subjected to her husband just as the church is to Christ? I am sure you have NO problem calling yourself Jesus' slave, and that, because you KNOW He is good. You have no problem subjecting yourself to Him, and yet, how many women will not subject themselves to their husbands? They won't because they know that he is NOT good. I, though, am trying to get you to see that the great responsibility of the goodness of the husband and the wife's subjection to him based on his adherence to that impossible standard points to a very real authority--it is the authority of Christ Himself.

Here's an interesting article for those who have followed this thread. This is a Newsweek article that looks at a recent Pew Foundation poll with some input from the Barna Research group (Barna didn't do this particular poll).

http://www.newsweek.com/id/228722

According to the poll, 7% of all americans are currently meeting in home based worship and fellowship groups outside of the institutional church.

This, to me, is an indication of the growing strength and momentum of this trend. Organic church is mentioned (although House Church, Simple Church and organic church are pretty much used synonomously outside the movements themselves.) Whether this trend is going to result in a sea change in terms of the organizational dynamics of the working of these smaller bodies will be interesting. Many Home Churches equate to what some refer to as "Honey, I shrank the church". In other words the same dynamics but just a different, maybe more intimate, location.

Part of organic church the way I'm seeing it, is about unlearning and then relearning what it means to function as a whole as a church in community instead of what institutional church in general has done to lower people's expectations, lower their participation and then leave things to "the professionals" as in clergy or an oligarchical lay board or "elders" (at least as the church defines them organizationally).

We're still very much, I believe in the early stages of this revolution (as Barna calls it.) How it's going to develop and what it is going to look like though is very much still something of an unknown to me.

Thanks Bart, am going to read that Newsweek article as soon as I finish this reply.

To Jac, my main source is a pastor and author named John Temple Bristol. I could certainly bring other theologians to the table, but am actually not all that interested, to tell the truth. I've been in these discussions enough times to know that as firmly planted as I am in my own understanding, I recognize that you are firmly planted in yours. The theologians I've read on this subject have both presented their arguments in sound reasoning, coming from both sides of these udnerstanding, as you, I suspect, well know. My presentation of their arguments are necessarily second hand because I am not a Ph.D. Boble scholar. However, I have listened with both my heart and my spirit, as well as my mind, and I have to say, as best as I can quote Acts 15, it does seem right to me as I ask for the Spirit's testimony to my inward being - "testing the spirits" as the apostle John would say - concerning the right understanding of Ephesians 5 and other texts that discuss human relationships.

As to discussing the hypothetical case of Paul's use of puns on words....he did this in his writing, and this would have presented a wonderful opportunity, but he didn'd take it. It's not the only, or the strongest, argument, but it is certainly a compelling aside.

As to the definitions of words -- you and I have both visited Greek scholars who differe with each other on not just these but practically all the other Greek and Hebrew words, and grammatical contexts, throughout the entire Bible. What it really comes down to is (a) pick your favorite scholar and (b) who makes sense to your overall understanding of God and His way.

The parallel Paul makes is in terms of how changed the husband is to see himself in relationship to his wife (from the prevailing Hellenistic view of that day, and from, indeed, the day of the Fall). The same thing Jesus was consistently teaching the disciples. Their understanding of what leadership meant was entirely off, and it started with their worldly, fallen view of authority. To make any other parallel between a husband and Christ Himself is to fall into the same error that institutional church has fallen into lo these many centuries, that Ignatius started, to view the bishop "as God." No. Wrong.

I'll say it again. To argue over who gets to have the power is to fall into the same trap the disciples fell into -- who gets to be at the right hand of Jesus. It misses one of the core points of simple/organic church, which is the living, breathing cooperation of all the members of the body with each other, without regard to who gets to be the boss, because the Lord Himself is actively directing the Body in His Own supernatural way.

Human institutions give power and ordain authority. Paul makes it clear that the Lord allows all this, and in fact we are to be respectful and cooperative with these authorities as, in some mysetrious way, God is working through them for His Own purposes. But that does not mean that God necessarily "approves," or that He has ordained this to be so. God allows and works through the sins of people without "approving" the sin. God's permitting does not mean God's permission.

Just read the Newsweek article and...hmmmm. A little bit cynical. Micro churches (like micro brews) are not, I am thinking, what Viola had in mind when he began writing.