LEADERSHIP ========== From: Barry Steinman <76326.3412@compuserve.com> Date: 07 Sep 95 11:05:19 EDT Subject: LEAD: schedule vs. unplanned meetings This post is a followup of a discussion thread from several months ago. At that time I shared how I preferred not to have a set meeting time each week for housechurch. That I felt housechurch should be relationship centered and not meeting cetners. That I felt we should meet when it was best time each week for everyone. In other words you had to be in relationship to know when the group was meeting. At that time I was also feeling frustration that my wife and I did most of the work for the house church, and it was becoming the same as non-participatory church that we left. Julia & Joann then shared how they use a sign up list to get everyone participating in the group. At first I was somewhat against the sign up list. But now several months later I must repent from my previous position. My concept and idea of not having a scheduled meeting only works the the house church is experienced and is experiencing a high level of community, spiritual family, love and laying down their lives for each other, a lack of self-centeredness and etc. That last sentence sounds very idealistic doesn't it. I guess that is the whole point. I am way to idealistic. I came to the conclusion that our house church was not in a place where the level of relationship would naturally just cause everyone to take a part and for meetings to occur without a set time. Having used a schedule for awhile, I must confess that it helps to build more community. get people more involved, and raise the level and commitment and involvement. and helps stir people to love and good works. My previous dislike of schedules was that they would be too mechanical and a substitute for true involvment and commitment. But I see my idealism blinded me to the facts. The schedule does help bring about love and community. Only downside, I am the one pushing the schedule and getting everyone to sign up, which I feared. But I guess I can live with that. If I end up in the leadership thing, at least my job doing the list, makes me a leader who's job is to get others to lead. Maybe someday our group will just naturally all participate without a list. (actually I suppose it might happen one week here or there) Weel I jsut thought I should come clean on my past perspectives and attitudes. ------------------------------ From: "Joann M. Hnat" Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 22:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: LEAD: schedule vs. unplanned meetings On 7 Sep 1995, Barry Steinman wrote: [snip] > At first I was somewhat against the sign up list. But now several months later I > must repent from my previous position. My concept and idea of not having a > scheduled meeting only works the the house church is experienced and is > experiencing a high level of community, spiritual family, love and laying down > their lives for each other, a lack of self-centeredness and etc. That last > sentence sounds very idealistic doesn't it. I guess that is the whole point. I > am way to idealistic. I came to the conclusion that our house church was not in > a place where the level of relationship would naturally just cause everyone to > take a part and for meetings to occur without a set time. [snip] Barry, I'm glad to hear that you and your wife aren't doing all the work anymore! I've been thinking about what you said, though, about the ideal that a house church that's really experiencing a high level of community will just naturally get together and participate without a set time. I guess I don't even think of that as a desirable thing, since, IMO, it could only be true in a vacuum, but not when we live in the real world, with commitments to family, jobs, school, etc. We'd have to all be divorced from the rest of the world, which I don't think is a good thing at all. It seems to me that even if a group *is* experiencing a high level of community, there will be some amount of artifice (i.e., scheduling) necessary to make sure that everyone happens to have the same time free so they can all be together. Otherwise, you end up with lots of little encounters, with two or three people who happened to be free at a particular time gathering together. While those times are precious, and often more delightful than planned times together, they can't take the place of having a time when everyone in the group can gather together. .. Joann ------------------------------ From: Bryan Vosseler Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 8:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: LEAD: schedule vs. unplanned meetings Just to add to what Joann said, we have found that it is too easy for people to "slip through the cracks" if we don't have some mutually agreed upon time to meet. Although there are lots of times when people bump into each other during the week (ie., down the street or going out to dinner together...) it seems to be a good idea to have a scheduled meeting where everyone (in theory at least) is involved.... Bryan ------------------------------ From: phorst@postoffice.ptd.net (Phil Horst) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 19:58:46 -0500 Subject: Lead: Question about church nurture Greetings all, Recently I had a discussion with another member of our house church which raised a question that I would like hear about from others. What started me when thinking about this issue was a comment made by my friend. She said what a blessing the church has been and is for her. My thoughts were that if we don't take proactive steps to nurture this life we may lose it. Our group has broken up many of the tasks that fall to a pastor in traditional" churches. But one area that we have not really given much attention to (at least in the last two years) is what I might call care and nurture of the congregation. This could mean a number of things. But I am trying to describe what might be someone (or some people) who pays attention to the "health" of the body and responds proactively as seen fit. I certainly believe this responsibility should not fall to one person. Our typical pattern is to identify tasks that are important for the functioning of the congregation and then encourage people to see that these get done in a variety of ways. But I sense that this kind of function has been neglected for us. I suppose a typical response for the house church model would be, "you see the need, you do something about it". Well, I intend to - the first thing I want to do is some "research" about the experience of others :-) I would like to know how other house churches see to the task or function. Do you have any formal or explicit methods, tasks, traditions... that encourage this kind of nurture to happen? Thanks for any thoughts you have to share. Blessings to you in Christ's name. Phil Horst ------------------------------ From: Salem Community Church Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 20:35:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Lead: Question about church nurture On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Phil Horst wrote: [snip] > Our group has broken up many of the tasks that fall to a pastor in > traditional" churches. But one area that we have not really given much > attention to (at least in the last two years) is what I might call care and > nurture of the congregation. This could mean a number of things. But I am > trying to describe what might be someone (or some people) who pays attention > to the "health" of the body and responds proactively as seen fit. [snip] > I would like to know how other house churches see to the task or function. > Do you have any formal or explicit methods, tasks, traditions... that > encourage this kind of nurture to happen? [snip] I think this is an excellent topic for discussion, Phil, and I really hope that other people respond. I don't have any words of wisdom, but I can share my experience with our network of house churches. About two years ago, after the home church conference in Virginia, several of the members of our network of home churches met to discuss the health of the body as a whole. There were three situations which had arisen and were problematic. Two involved church members who were "problem people." Please note that I do not use that term lightly, and I am fully aware that we need to examine ourselves before we go casting stones at others. But in both cases, the entire church recognized these people as being very disruptive to the life and health of the church as a whole. The third case involved a young woman who needed discipling. Always before, we had taken a more laissez-faire attitude to situations such as these, and it was difficult for several of us to actually decide to meet and discuss the situation as a whole. We ended up sort of "assigning" two of us to each of the individuals involved. However, the young woman who needed discipling moved out-of-state before anything of substance could really happen, so it ended up that we were left to deal with the two problem people. One of them, a man, was asked to meet with the two men who had agreed to work with him. They met once, to my knowledge. I do not know exactly what took place in that meeting. (Someone else on this list may wish to elaborate.) In the end, this man also moved away. I was one of the people who agreed to work with the third person, a woman. She and I met twice to discuss the issues involved. We also had several phone conversations. Unfortunately, this woman is far more likely to become defensive than to accept responsibility for her own actions, and we were not able to come to a good resolution of the situation. She is still a member of SCC. One thing that I, as the person "assigned" to help this woman, was very keenly aware of was the nebulous quality of my authority to do so. Because SCC does not have formal leadership, there is no mechanism by which someone (like me) can be formally commissioned to work on a problem like this. Because of this, I found it difficult to speak as a representative of the church. OTOH, it was not appropriate for me to speak only on my own behalf, since the whole reason I was talking to her at all was because she had become a problem for the whole church. Well, I suppose that doesn't shed much light, but I don't know that anyone really has a good answer to this one. Like Phil, I would very much like to hear other people's experiences. I hope that by listening to our saga of trials and errors, we may all learn something. .. Joann M. Hnat (writing from the SCC account only because I happened to be logged in here at the time. This post is my personal opinion, and does not represent the views of SCC.) ------------------------------ From: Hal Miller Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 14:44:46 -0500 Subject: LEAD: The way it seems (Re: Leaving list ...) Dear hcdl, While I hate to quote from other people's mail to respond to it, I think I need to violate my principle in this message because a quote points to something we all need to learn something about. So, with apologies to Randy (the Quoted) and to my own internal Miss Manners, here goes. This morning Randy wrote (among other things well worth discussing): "and I never received a response, not even a "no thank you." However I have learned through Chris Kirk that the political machine was hard at work behind the scenes with all the "hierarchy" or HCDL'ders as they are now called, discussing me and my "qualifications." Even though I was discussed, still no one has contacted me." Chris S. subsequently responded to the effect that (not quoting, here) one should expect this behind the scenes talking and it would be irresponsible not to do so. I could see the blinking and wrinkled up nose in between his words. Now the reason why I think this is important is that this difference of impressions seems to be endemic to non-hierarchical groups. I've seen it in SCC, and I've seen it in more functionally oriented groups I've been involved in. It seems that, as controversial things happen in groups that don't have explicit leadership structures (=, for our purposes, hierarchies), whatever implicit leadership exists in the group begins to work. In most cases, this takes the form of people talking to each other. It usually looks like people trying to thrash out in "private" discussions what they want to support or not support in the group's "public" discussions. And because that's the way it seems, it is subject to a number of different constructions (and Randy and Chris have conveniently given us examples of two common ones). Sometimes, in some groups, this problem can be highly flammable. It depends on the controversy and the people involved, I suppose. But I think it's worth trying to talk about: ??? how should a group govern itself without explicit leadership ??? I have a feeling I'm not being clear. Let me try a few stabs at clarity. If there really were some HCDLders, they would have authority to say yea or nay when someone like Randy took initiatives like he did. And that would be that. But since there are not really any HCDLders, how does the group respond to its good fortune? No one really has "authority" to say yes or no to it, so what happens (this is an observation, not an approval) is that people begin to talk to each other "off line" trying to sort out if they have similar responses. Then as they sort that out, they gradually broaden the circle of discussion, and so on. Now, remember, this is an observation. In this case we had the happy offer of someone willing to do work on the group's behalf. More often, however, the reason this thrashing about in "off line" conversation happens because some negative event has precipitated it. And under those conditions, the kinds of divergent takes that Randy and Chris had are _very_ emotionally laden. And then, as I said, it can be pretty flammable. For my part, I don't really see how else a group can act in the absence of explicit leaders. I don't really see how it can avoid this "off line" process of consensus building. On the other hand, I see clearly that such a process is prone to abuse at worst and misunderstanding at best. So, what I'm looking for is any insight out there about how groups can carry these things off well. Here's one idea. It looks to me like misunderstanding (at best) becomes more likely when the "off line" process doesn't have a feedback that includes the person who, like Randy, made the offer or, like others, "caused the problem." Keeping the circle broad is, I think, one way to minimize the problems. Or, maybe someone knows a better way altogether. For my part, I'm not at all satisfied with they way the "off line" approach works in practice. Not in HCDL and not in SCC or any other place I've tried to practice it well. It's a very brittle approach and I'm definitely in the market for another one. And, for the history books, I coined the term "HCDLders" and I meant it in a thoroughly tongue-in-cheek way. Any other use is a violation of domestic and international copyrights. Regards, Hal ------------------------------ From: Christian S Smith Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 09:13:36 -0500 Subject: Re: LEAD: The way it seems (Re: Leaving list ...) Hal: Nice question. Thanks for posing it. Always able to rise above the fray and impassionately see the larger issue. I tend to think that the implication of Dan Mahew's post is correct. I think we're pretty well stuck with two options: 1) designate labeled leaders (elders), acknowledge the functional authority they probably already do have, thereby giving them the right to carry on discussions without provoking as much paranoia, and live with the downsides of labeling them. OR 2) don't designate leaders, have those who function that way continue to do so, hope they don't get carried away, try to create a culture which appreciates leadership without absolutizing it, and live with the inevitable paranoia that some will generate about "behind the scenes" deals, hierarchy, whatever... I doubt there's an alternative, though I would love to hear it if someone has one. In the case of the now infamous HCDLers, isn't there a designated structure acknowledging certain people as coordinating this list, who rotate in and out? Or am I confused? If so, perhaps that should be more clearly publicized, so everyone's clear as to how this works? Sorry to be without a creative "3rd way." Would love to hear one. - - Chris ------------------------------ From: trd@petsparc.mc.duke.edu (Tim DeGrado) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 09:58:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: LEAD: The way it seems (Re: Leaving list ...) Chris, >I tend to think that the implication of Dan Mahew's post is correct. I >think we're pretty well stuck with two options: > 1) designate labeled leaders (elders), acknowledge the functional >authority they probably already do have, thereby giving them the right to >carry on discussions without provoking as much paranoia, and live with the >downsides of labeling them. What's being discussed? Seems like an appropriate question. Why are these people talking about the other people? Doesn't seem all that important if the home fellowships function autonimously (sp?). Issues of leadership would be discussed and agreed upon within each home fellowship. Here's what I think. You can take it with a grain of salt 'cause I have no experience (yet) of house church. If two or more fellowships agree to work together (or fellowship together) toward a common purpose, then fine. People may be designated from each of the groups to lead forth (or serve forth) for the commonly supported work. There's always going to be the risk of the common work taking on an identity of its own and becoming a centralized beast of some sort. Maybe there could be some safeguards put in place as a check against that. Maybe not. > OR > 2) don't designate leaders, have those who function that way >continue to do so, hope they don't get carried away, try to create a >culture which appreciates leadership without absolutizing it, and live >with the inevitable paranoia that some will generate about "behind the >scenes" deals, hierarchy, whatever... > >I doubt there's an alternative, though I would love to hear it if someone >has one. > >In the case of the now infamous HCDLers, isn't there a designated structure >acknowledging certain people as coordinating this list, who rotate in and >out? Or am I confused? If so, perhaps that should be more clearly >publicized, so everyone's clear as to how this works? What is the function of this "list" or "directory"? Does it somehow demark people into a camp? Please help me to understand the seeming importance of this list and how it relates to leadership of home churches. - -Tim ------------------------------ From: Christian S Smith Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:03:03 -0500 Subject: Re: LEAD: The way it seems (Re: Leaving list ...) Tim: Quick reply: On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, Tim DeGrado wrote: > What's being discussed? Seems like an appropriate question. Refer to Hal's recent post posing the general question of functioning leadership. It's not an issue of house churches doing common organizing, per se. Even within a house church (or any group) this is an issue. > Why are these people talking about the other people? Refer to posts regarding B. Steinman's asking about Randy as someone to do Directory job... > What is the function of this "list" or "directory"? Does it somehow demark > people into a camp? Please help me to understand the seeming importance of > this list and how it relates to leadership of home churches. In both places (and any place), there are, de facto, functioning organizers/leaders who are taking the lead in doing things. If they're not designated, then occasions arise when others can think they're stepping out of line and usurping too much authority. So, what to do about that? That's how I read Hal's post. - - Chris ------------------------------ From: Christian S Smith Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 08:47:20 -0500 Subject: Re: position/function Kevin: Briefly: positional thinking tends to think about offices to fill, objective job descriptions, structured relations and orders, etc. Resonates with concern about _offices_ of pastor, elder, deacon, etc. Things "out there" that real people have to fill our live up to ("nounifying" verbs). Functional thinking, on the other hand, tends to think about who in fact accomplishes what, how things actually operate organically, different people's gifts they have to contribute, etc. More concerned with pastor*ing*, elder*ing*, deacon*ing*, etc., than whether or not some title or office exists. Re: episkopai (sp?), positional thinking is concerned to set up offices of bishops; functional thinking is concerned to recognize who actually is, de facto, doing "overseeing." It's the old Barchy/Brewer "It's the Verb, not the Noun" argument (see Voices archives on-line). Has implications for church leadership; also potentially for how one thinks about marriage relationships and responsibilities, I think. Hope that helps. Anyone else want to elaborate? - - Chris On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, McBride-Luman, Kevin (G) HIST wrote: > Chris, I would like to hear more about the distinction you had in mind > between position and function. ------------------------------ From: trd@petsparc.mc.duke.edu (Tim DeGrado) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:08:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: position/function To add to Chris's post, positional thinking often leaves the agenda up to the person in the position - that's his/her department. If the person cannot perform the function on his/her own, then he delegates some of the job. Functional thinking makes it more difficult to do that. There's more interplay of all the group members in seeking the Lord's will, listening to Him and each other, and affirming the particular role each member will play toward the common agenda or goal. What Chris says of defacto leadership is true. I know a brother who has diligently worked in discipleship relationships (one-on-one) with many young men including myself. He also taught the scriptures regularly. He was and is for all intents and purposes an "elder", yet when asked to become officially in that position had to decline because he and his wife could not handle the added time burdens with elders-meetings, etc. Of course, this was not a house church. I'd be interested to know if anyone has an explanation to why Paul designated elders in the gentile churches. On face value, it looks pretty positional. Or? Tim ------------------------------ From: Hal Miller Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 13:38:09 -0500 Subject: Re: position/function -Reply Tim wrote: I'd be interested to know if anyone has an explanation to why Paul designated elders in the gentile churches. On face value, it looks pretty positional. Or? >>> I don't have my Bible in front of me so I'm doing this from less than inspired memory, but I believe that Luke reports that Paul recognized (make sure you check the connotations of the verb) elders when he went back to the churches that he had founded on his first journey. I point this out for two reasons: 1) Such a report is _at_least_ as friendly to the functional as it is to the positional interpretation since he did so only after the "elders" could arise in these churches and be recognized. 2) Such a report does _not_ make it Paul's universal policy. In fact, there is a deafening _lack_ of interest in or attention to elders in Paul's letters (the Pastorals to one side). One could argue that Paul saw his _early_ attempt to recognized elders "officially" in churches as a failed enterprise and he later replaced it with a more appropriate, more consistently functional approach that required no such "official" recognition. ------------------------------ From: trd@petsparc.mc.duke.edu (Tim DeGrado) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 14:26:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: position/function -Reply Hal, Thanks. My computer helps me to quickly look up the word there: Acts 14:23 And when they had *appointed* elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. 5500. cheirotoneo, khi-rot-on-eh'-o; from a comp. of G5495 and teino (to stretch); to be a hand-reacher or voter (by raising the hand), i.e. (gen.) to select or appoint:--choose, ordain. That's the Strong's, which may be "tainted" at the end there with an institutional viewpoint. The voting aspect would suggest that the qualification of the person was attested to by the church (2/3rds or simple majority or unanimity???). O.K. Paul didn't do it alone. But I guess my original question persists, if these elders were already functioning as elders and everything was groovy, then why "make it official"? You seem to imply that Paul did this early on but changed his ways later. My reading of Galatians (his earliest letter too, I think) suggests that he was just as anti-institutional from the very start of his christian life as he was in his later years. I'd be interested in hearing response from both sides of this. From house-churchers who have official elders and those who have not made the official distinction. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages? Do you feel scripture mandates a certain polity? Tim ------------------------------ From: robertl@education.canberra.edu.au (Robert Long) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 09:09:56 +1100 Subject: Re: position/function Dear Tim I thought your final question in your last post about positional thinking attributed to Paul an assumed positional thinking mentality. In the context of what we know about Paul's dealings with people it would seem odd that he was wanting to set up another temple-like hierarchal structure. Sometimes I find myself imputing my 20th century sense of management upon Paul in similar ways to projections made by others about Paul as missionary. I think we just trip ourselves up doing such things. Maybe Paul was just heaps more of a contextual problem solver than we would like and he changed his stripes according to the group and the problems they were having. I really reckon the idea of clasifying his managment style or trying to systematise his management methodology is a fairly worthless exercise. The idea of interpreting Paul's dealings with people in a functional way endeavours to be more practical about life in the early church. Rob ------------------------------ From: trd@petsparc.mc.duke.edu (Tim DeGrado) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 19:33:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: position/function Rob, I'm trying my best not to assume anything these days! Seriously, the scripture that I quoted from Acts 14 said that elders were appointed (elected or affirmed if you rather) in EVERY church. I'm just taking that at face value and asking why? Is that assuming a positional viewpoint? My question only becomes irrelevant if the account in Acts is somehow inaccurate. Please help me to understand your interpretation. I'm also inclined to shy away from titles and stick with the functional approach. Tim ------------------------------ From: robertl@education.canberra.edu.au (Robert Long) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 09:38:00 +1100 Subject: Re: position/function G'day Tim Thanks for the post. I don't take the Bible at face value and do not make historical accuracy a framework for judging legitimacy of the biblical text and therefore ask different questions about the passage where Luke tells us that Paul appointed elders in every church. What does "appointed" mean in a small home church like structure in the first century anyway? I mean it surely wasn't institutionalised or hierchicalised that early. Most research tells us that this came centuries later. What was Luke's purpose in telling us this? Is this a round about narrative much like the accuracy of his speech recollections in the same book? Maybe Paul layed his hands on them and wished them the best as they returned to their homes and households with which they dealt. Their obvious level of interest and commitment made them pastoral carers anyway regardless of whatever Paul said to them. To attribute this authority to Paul seems at odds with other passages of the NT which tell us that Paul struggled to have any authority at all in some churches let alone appoint someone else in a position of authority. My understanding of the passage is of some kind of informal blessing and words said which Luke describes and which the institutionalised church understands through its own shaded spectacles. I can't imagine some kind of ritual or ceremony and think that it is out of place for Paul to authenticate a pastoral caring function especially given his own discussion about how the Spirit authenticates ministry and service in the life of the church. Perhaps paul and barnabas just gave an acknowledgement to a perception that some people were already pastoral carers and this was some kind of encouragement. I think our other choice is to search through Kittels and find the way the word "appointment" was used in the imperial court and government at the time and make inferences about whether it had the same meaning for the early church. From what we know of the early church it seems that this kind of trip into etymology is something the church turned on its head anyway. The church gave new meaning to words used by the court and government and so the framwork of analysis is probably not helpful. My belief is that the early church and its behaviour was nothing like the imperial court, government or temple structures of their day indeed, that their conduct was subversive and revolutionary in the face of these traditions. cheers Rob ------------------------------ From: DLBeaty@aol.com Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 14:27:38 -0500 Subject: re:position/function/elders 96-02-20 15:18:58 EST Tim DeGrado stated: >But I guess my original question persists, if these elders were already functioning as elders and everything was groovy, then why "make it official"? I'd be interested in hearing response from both sides of this. From house-churchers who have official elders and those who have not made the official distinction. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages? Do you feel scripture mandates a certain policy?< It has been interesting for me to follow the various comments on eldership. Recently I have heard some interesting explanations of what Paul meant by ordination. I think it was David Anderson in "2 or 3 Gathered," who suggested that he was actually charging those who were already elders to take responsibility for the younger ones. This could probably not be proven, but it does make sense. An elder is simply an older man. The feminine form of the word in the plural is translated "older women." How could anyone, even Paul, lay hands on someone and make him an older man? In his first letter in chapter 5, Peter exhorts the older men to nourish or tend the flock of God, taking the oversight. In Acts 20:28, Paul instructs the elders at Ephesis to "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood." Could this be what actually happened during an "ordination service?" In 1 Timothy 3 Paul states that an overseer _must be_ above reproach, ......etc. Rather than giving qualifications for an office ('office' is not in the Greek), he is probably exhorting these men to lead by living exemplary lives. These 'qualifications' should be the goals of every believer, with the exception of the teaching abilities. As a parent, no one could ordain me to my responsibilities, but the church could encourage, bless, and impart gifts and wisdom to facilitate my function. I agree with Rob that Paul did, in fact lay hands on individuals for this purpose. This also could be part of what was meant by the word appoint or ordain. In our culture and time, when old age is disdained, it has become difficult for us to realize how common it was for mature men and women to be respected and followed in the first century - within and without the church. Hence, leaders are tempted to force their influence on others, by carrying titles and espousing various concepts of authority. Thankfully, we are seeing the seeds of change in this area. For twenty years I have observed the ordaining of officers in the local church I was brought up in, and in others with which we have had contact. Virtually every time, when some one was found already functioning in a certain gift or place of service, the act of "ordaining" them brought damage to everyone involved. My question is, was it the fallen nature that interfered with "God's order," or was the concept itself flawed? I have concluded the latter. In home church, we have abandoned the system that so severely hindered us, seeking only to serve one another in Godly fear. In my experience, the only advantage I have found in having official elders after previously having served in this capacity for 16 years is the learning experience-- learning that it was wrong! That is not to say that this practice is not working in other places by the grace and spirit of God, I just know it did not work for us. As you can see, I have reason to be strongly biased on this subject. Admittedly, I am. We are trusting that our Lord will bring balance to us all, even if it takes our communicating on the Internet! Dan Beaty ------------------------------ From: trd@petsparc.mc.duke.edu (Tim DeGrado) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 15:43:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: re:position/function/elders Dan, I appreciated your thoughts on the matter of eldership. My experience, though not as personal as yours (I've not acted officially in the elder "office"), is similar. I think that mature believers who are sensitive to others needs will naturally reach out and minister to the younger in the faith. When we institutionalize discipleship, we force something that comes natural in the Spirit. Tim ------------------------------ From: robertl@education.canberra.edu.au (Robert Long) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 23:38:13 +1100 Subject: re:position/function/elders G'day Dan I don't understand this understanding of making things "official" regarding eldership, what does this mean? What is officialdom? Isn't it little more than a legislating of orthodoxy or at least the effort to give authoritative power to decisions of a certain group. I don't understand this "making things official" in Luke's recount of the events of Acts 14 and it seems out of place with Paul's emphasis on charismata made elsewhere. The idea of an ordination service may make sense to certain cultural emphases on organisationalism but it seems out of place in the first century church. It's like the idea of laying on hands. What a big deal is made of a very ordinary everyday process. The way some invest this as a magic-like act strikes me as very foreign to the ordinary way touch is used in the practice of encouragement and intimacy. The use of terms like "appointment" and "ordination", because of their history are simply a distraction to the way we ought to be a church. I thought we would want to off load some of this baggage since churching in the home and disarm some of the expressions in the NT that have been invested with institutional power. Rob ------------------------------ From: "Frank N. Johnson" Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 10:26:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: re:position/function/elders >It's like the idea of laying on hands. What a big >deal is made of a very ordinary everyday process. The way some invest this >as a magic-like act strikes me as very foreign to the ordinary way touch >is used in the practice of encouragement and intimacy. Rob: While I really like most of what you had to say in your post, I'm wondering how you understand the following verses: 1 Timothy 4:14 -- "Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery." 2 Timothy 2:6 -- "And for this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands." See also the dramatic change in effectiveness in Paul's ministry after Acts 13:1-4 when Paul and Barnabas were sent out by the Spirit after the prophets and teachers had heard the voice of the Spirit, prayed and fasted, and laid hands on them. I agree that the modern practice of ordination is too institutionalized, but these verses seem to speak of something more than "ordinary touch" for "encouragement and intimacy." I don't disagree with the overall tone of your post -- I'm just wondering how you see these verses in light of that tone. In the grip of grace, Frank ------------------------------ From: DLBeaty@aol.com Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 11:34:42 -0500 Subject: Re: position/function/elders G'day Rob' First of all, I've been meaning to contact those of you who are in Aussie. I am very interested in what is happening down there with home churches. My wife and I were there in Dec 92 for about a month in Sydney and loved it. We have some friends in both NSW and Queensland who might be interested in home church. Who knows? On the subject of ordination and elders: In a message dated 96-02-25 07:36:43 EST, you write: > I thought we would want to >off load some of this baggage since churching in the home and disarm some >of the expressions in the NT that have been invested with institutional >power. We have only been involved in home church for about a year now, but we are very committed to these concepts and the simplicity of Christ that we have found here. I am unloading excess institutional baggage as fast as I can. That is why I appreciate this list. It was a wonderfully liberating experience for me to have escaped the "office" of an elder, to find my function in the Body of Christ, and to find others here with the same desires. In my previous post I was simply attempting to help find anwers to questions concerning the meaning of various scriptures. I have no argument with anyone here, just a hunger for more understanding. Thanks to you all, Dan ------------------------------ From: OIKOSKIRK@aol.com Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 13:53:43 -0500 Subject: Re: position/function/elders Dear all, I contend that authority is neither postitional or functional in nature. What it is is relational. Love, Chris ------------------------------ From: robertl@education.canberra.edu.au (Robert Long) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 21:11:18 +1100 Subject: re:position/function/elders G'day Frank Thanks for the post. I am interested in your question regarding the verses in Timothy and the account of laying on of hands and think the same framework I alluded to in my last post applies. If we read these passages without institutional glasses they become quite powerful accounts of the way quite ordinary actions are empowered by the spirit of God. In a similar way I understand the church meal as the empowering of God through the everyday things of life. Joachim Jeremias's study on this is very helpful as is some of Rob Bank's stuff. Without this framework I tend to think that the laying on of hands in some way bestowes the Spirit on someone and engenderes prophetic utterance. I think if this was so we, the human church, would endeavour to bottle and control it as soon as possible in much the same way as the institutional church has sought to manipulate other acts for their own ends. I don't think the writer of Timothy was doing more than expressing ordinary church relations in his own terms. We just stand in a perspective to the text which carries with it centuries of ecclesial and bureacratical history. I recall being prayed for by others in a pastoral meeting here in Canberra when I was perlexed and distressed. Noone said that anything needed to be invoked and noone gave authority to any act. I remember that as some tears were shared that some touching occurred and astounding insights spoken especially by some people who one would not normally expect such insights. I think that this was both prophetic and that laying on of hands occurred, it was a time of striking encouragement and intimacy which I will not forget for a long time. The whole moment was a natural progression of the committment of these people to me and I to them. How I report what happened to my mates at work the next day is a different thing. How they understand that report and relay it on to others is one for hermeneutical conjecture. I think it is the accent one puts on the events which colours what these things become. To some they are "ordinances" as my Churches of Christ brethren would say but can't explain, to others they are "rites" or "sacraments". I think these responses to the text say as much about the reader as the passage says about itself. In the same way my framework says much about me. The way I read the report in Timothy or in Acts I see the winning back to God of things ordinary and the desacralisation of things made sacred. Regards Rob ------------------------------ eof -- Last updated 4/27/96