Elder Arrangement -- PROVEN WRONG!!!

by proplog2 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Francois

  Does this seem to anyone else to smack of the Isrealites demanding kings be put over them like their neighbor tribes had. Remember that? They had been given judges and they weren't happy with those. Now they wanted kings and they were told that Kings would be bad for them...and they were.

  In a like manner the elder "arrangement" in JW congregations today has been nothing less than a disaster. I remember my uncle, a cong. overseer at the time, saying that the elder arrangement was going to be a disaster, and it is. Another failure brought to you by the spirit-led boobs at the WTBTS.

  Frank Tyrrell
• 

  Euphemism

  Proplog... my rebuttal wasn't "seems pretty clear to me." My rebuttal was the whole paragraph preceding it.

  You stated that Acts was using the word 'elder' as a general description, rather than a designation of office, but you provided absolutely no evidence to that effect. Do you have any?
• 

  willyloman

  I wasn't around then but folks who were tell me the whole concept of a body of elders was supposed to offset the influence of some very powerful congo servants who ran their personal congregations with an iron fist; if the guy was unbalanced in some way, the whole congo suffered. The "body" of elders was supposed to diffuse this kind of behavior.

  Well, you see how well that's worked.
• 

  proplog2

  Euphemism:

  The Bible doesn't go into a lot of specifics about the administrative duties in the congregation. However there were two general classifications Overseers who had to show teaching ability and Ministerial servants who did the other stuff.

  Acts 6:2-5 "So the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them and said: "It is not pleasing for us to leave the word of God to distribute food to tables. So, brothers search out for yourselves seven certified men from among you, full of spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them over this necessary business; but we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."

  "Men who were full of spirit and wisdom" - sounds like an older man spiritually speaking.

  So whether you are appointing an Overseer or a Ministerial Servant the basic qualification is that they would be older men. There is no evidence that says men were appointed to a position called "ELDER". Men who were mature were appointed overseers and ministerial servants.

  Now to your question:

  You stated that Acts was using the word 'elder' as a general description, rather than a designation of office, but you provided absolutely no evidence to that effect. Do you have any?

  When Acts 20:17 says that Paul sent for the Elders of the congregation of Ephesus he wasn't speaking about some office called "ELDER" since there is no evidence to suggest there was such an office. To say that there was such an office in view of the lack of any evidence to that effect is pure speculation.

  Since there are no direct or indirect references to an office of "elder" therefore the reference at Acts 20:17 must be referring to some aspect of appointed positions that can be generalized in a way that was customary according to ancient traditions. One of those traditions is a general reference to men of authority as being older men.

  This is something like the expression "old boy network". Is there a club of people designated by some formal title of "Old Boy"? Of course not.

  One of the problems with appointing people to an office called "Elder" is that it automatically relegates all who aren't "Elder" to a junior, inferior and imature status. This has an alienating and demeaning effect.

  That's my proof. Now it is up to you to show that there was an office in the Congregation named "elder" to which people were appointed. You can't do that.
• 

  Euphemism

  Proplog... we're just going in circles here. The interpretation of Ac 20 that I presented is the most natural one from the text. It doesn't say that Paul called "some of the elders," or that he called "those elders who held the office of overseer." He called "the elders"... all of them. And he said, to all of them, "the holy spirit has appointed you overseers."

  Your interpretation ignores the plain meaning of the text. And since you obviously have been unable to present any evidence for it, I'm bowing out of this discussion. You can have the last word.
• 

  proplog2

  Euphemism:

  This topic is focused on the shaky foundation of the current "Elder Arrangement" that was set up in 1972.

  For years the Watchtower has claimed that Christendom was wrong by establishing "Elder" as an official title in their churches. Coupled with that the Watchtower argued against the democratic process involved in the appointment to "Elder".

  The Watchtower correctly argued that "Elder" is not an appropriate title because it is a description of a persons qualifications and NOT a biblically based "title". The official titles of those who had leadership functions in the congregation were "overseer" & "ministerial servant".

  In 1972 the Watchtower started appointing men to an official position called "elder". They also made a distinction between such appointed "elders" and what they continued to call "ministerial servants".

  The main scriptural text that the Watchtower hung this on is the same one you keep emphasizing. You keep claiming that there is some "clear meaning of the text" which I am ignoring. Stating that the meaning is "clear" is not a fact - it is a value judgement. And since you haven't explicitly stated the "clear" meaning you have failed in your explanation.

  Here are some questions and comments that I would like to have answered by you:

  1. Do you believe that every word of the Bible was specifically directed by Holy Spirit with the intent of expressing God's thoughts?

  I don't. I believe the Bible was written by humans. Acts most likely was written by Luke. Paul didn't say at Acts 20:17 "Go and get the elders at Ephesus so I can meet with them" It is Luke who describes the requested action. There is no reason to conclude that Luke was trying to explain something about the organizational structure of the first century congregation. The words "older men" used in that context was definitely not referring to some title. It was a convenient expression that Luke used in other places to refer to church leaders. Furthermore when Luke quotes Paul as saying holy spirit appointed them overseers we can't be absolutely sure that Paul said it in exactly that way. Contrast this situation with the various letters Paul wrote that explicitly addressed the setting up of congregation order. These letters though not penned by Paul at least claim to be dictated by him. I would give far more weight to those scriptures authored by Paul then something written by Luke. Luke is not always an accurate reporter and sometimes doesn't agree with Pauls version of events.

  2. Do you believe that there was an official title to which men were appointed called "Elder"?

  I don't. The reason I don't believe that is because when the Bible speaks about organizational appointments the only stated offices are "overseer" & "ministerial servants."

  Here are the problems with your argument:

  You are using a weak argument to reach a conclusion that doesn't harmonize with other scriptures. Your argument would be defenisbile IF you could show that when speaking about congregation organization there was a titled position called "elder".

  You are basing your argument on a single scripture and you are attempting to establish your position by assigning a very precise meaning to a vague word. At best you are drawing your conclusion from an exceptional case.

  You have not addressed the evidence that I've given that is unfavorable to your position.

  I would say your objection is in fact trivial because it focuses on a point that is less significant than the basic thrust of my argument.
• 

  little witch

  The whole labeling thing in the dubs makes me sick.

  "Overseer". Makes me think of someone on horseback, armed with a rifle, watching over the field hands.

  And "elders", as in, "obey your elders", is so out of context. I am not a child, and I will NOT obey an idiot, no matter how old the turd is.

  "Pioneer"....They have been beating on doors for over a century, how is it they consider themselves new at this game?

  "Flock", yeah, right, as in, sheep to the slaughter.

  ''faithful and discreet slave'', how is it they equate zillions of cheap magazines and books every month with being discreet?

  It seems to me that all these names and labels they use are just to establish a heirarchy in the ranks.

  As a ''member of christendom'', I can tell you that we have a pastor, whom we hire and fire at will, by vote.

  We elect by vote, deacons, who actually take care of the congregation.

  We collect money by free will offering, and as a group, decide by vote how that money is spent.

  In other words, the people of the congregation run the congregation, no wonder the dubs villify ''christendom''.
• 

  Euphemism

  Proplog... no, I don't believe every word of the Bible was dictated by holy spirit. I am simply using the Bible as a historical document, to endeavor to prove what I believe was historically the organization of the first-century congregation.

  As I stated above, I'm not going to continue the argument. Your words above can stand as the last words. I just wanted to clarify that I'm approaching this from a historical, not fundamentalist, pespective.
• 

  proplog2

  I don't mean to make this an endless exchange either. We really agree on a lot of things.

  You were kind enough to answer my first question:

  I don't believe every word of the Bible was dictated by holy spirit. I am simply using the Bible as a historical document, to endeavor to prove what I believe was historically the organization of the first-century congregation.

  I would appreciate an answer for the second question:

  2. Do you believe that there was an official title to which men were appointed called "Elder"?

  Evidently that's what the Watchtower believes and it appears you have reached the same conclusion.

  Is there any other scripture besides the one in Acts that you use to substatntiate your belief.
• 

  Euphemism

  I believe that the term 'elder' was synonymous with 'overseer'. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament suggests that presbyteros was probably the more common term in predominantly Jewish congregations, whereas episkopos was more likely a Hellenistic term.

  A few other citations that, IMHO, shed light on the use of the term are Ac 11:30, several mentions in Ac 15, 1 Tim 4:14 (which refers to "the body of elders" or "the presbytery"), and 1 Pet 5:1,2.

  I also intend to gather some linguistic information as to whether your suggested interpretation of Ac 14:23 and Tit 1:5 is possible, and I'll post here again when I have that.