“Chris aka slick”
I would like a second witness. Please produce a biblical example where a generic singular is also in the same sentence changed to plural. This is improper grammar and I challenge you to find another example of this in the scripture. It isn’t there. If you don’t agree, it should take nothing to prove me wrong 😉

Paula,
It isn’t a proxy that he is using. He has made himself invisible. Proxys just hide the IP address but they still show up. This guy has a way to make himself completely invisible. Nothing shows up at all and my blog trapped him in the spam box just like all the other invisible spammers who also come onto blogs invisibly.

By the way for the information of everyone, “Chris” has found a way to come onto my blog without any evidence that “he” is here. No IP address shows up on my software when he posts and he comes here completely invisible. As far as I know, no one else has ever posted here in this “invisible” way. I want to know why. Diane doesn’t think this way but slickster does. Come on admit it. “Chris” is playing slick’s game. Why does an apologist who has hasn’t been able to answer my arguments have to come here invisibly to try the logical fallacy game? Perhaps we should just call you “slick Chris” until you stop hiding your identity. Is this fair?

Paula,
You are doing an excellent job of arguing against logical fallacies.

“Chris”,
Answer my questions about why you are hiding behind a spam program that lets you hide your IP address? If you are not MS or DS why do you need to hide? My guess – you are the real thing – MS in person. Prove me wrong 😉

“Chris”
I would also like you to answer the questions that I brought out regarding your connection to CARM and how you post here without a trace. What are you hiding?

The next installment is up at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/03/19/round-2-interview-with-paul/

I will answer the argument about the “casual gar” next round, God-willing. 🙂

Paula,
You are way better than I am at making the academic complex seem understandable and in not too many words!

“Chris”
I also do not go on the CARM boards anymore as the unChristlike attitude of the “staff” gave me a massive headache. I won’t be clicking on your links to CARM.

Chris (aka slickster, Diane, whoever)
If you are not MS or DS, then please tell me how you are able to get past my security? How are you posting without you showing up on any record? What are you hiding?

I am not chattykathy and the CARM team who keeps accurate stats knows this very well. I am perfectly capable of giving my own argument. As I said I have been wiped clean off of CARM by those who fear my argument. The fact that you claim to have read my argument is suspect.

I plan to answer your questions on my next post. I think it will be good to let the Apostle Paul answer the questions as he is the very best at it. It wouldn’t do to just let the answer be hidden in the comment section.

As far as dancing, I don’t dance at all. My dad was a pastor and it was considered a sin to dance when I was growing up so I wasn’t allowed to participate. However since I am all grown up now, I can see from the scriptures that dancing isn’t listed in Paul’s lists of sins so I offer to keep up with you although I warn you I am likely to step on your toes!

My intent in post 16 is to show the logic of the patriarchalist view on 1 Tim 2:12-15 against your two witnesses requirement. So any egalitarian here who actually understands the patriarchalist view should realize *why* the two witnesses requirement will not be effective against the patriarchalist view on 1 Tim 2:12-15.

And the apostle Paul intends to show why your objection holds no water. Fair enough?

One last thing that is interesting…no one has called me “Schatz” before Chris showed up. No doubt meant to be a disrespectful term, but in its language of origin it means “treasure” or “love”.

It is especially interesting to note that “Chris” claims to have read Diane’s rebuttal to me when in fact Diane has removed all of my posts off of CARMs discussion board so my argument hasn’t been seen there since at least September 2008. Interesting.

Well, Diane (aka Chris) nice of you to show up on my blog. Shall we dance?

I will let anyone here who would like to answer you first have a say and I will answer tomorrow. I am so glad that you posted because it gives me a wonderful opportunity to respond to the slick errors. 🙂

2 Cor 13:2 I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them–

This takes on great significance as Paul points out that his “witness” comes both in writing and in person. The Talmud documents the Jewish understanding that a person’s testimony is considered two witnesses if it is in writing and in person. I have the documented quote from the Talmud someplace on my computer as I used it on an online debate I was having when someone challenged me about the “two” witnesses being one person argument. When I get a chance one day to go through all of my computer files, I will have to post that reference again. Jesus of course would have been considered only one witness since his testimony was in person only.

Lin,
The Jews considered that a man’s personal witness and his written witness were two witnesses. Paul apparently took this view as he said:

2 Cor 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES.

Thanks missional girl and Greg! I used to write 5 to 7 minute sermons every week for our phone message that we set up to share the gospel with Jehovah’s Witnesses. The most popular messages were the dialogs I created between a Christian named Chris and a Jehovah’s Witness named Joe. For some reason the dialogs helped people to see things that otherwise went right over their heads. We always got requests to put the Chris and Joe talks back on the line. It also gives me more freedom to have a little fun 🙂

cute 🙂

Technically it was Luke who reported the facts. It was the Apostle Paul who accepted the Berean’s testing him and likely the term “noble” came from the one who was tested.

By the way, welcome! I am so glad you stopped by. I’ll pass your comments on to the Apostle to see what he has to say next 😉

Frank,
Wonderful words!

the elders are to lay hands on these people as an act of recognition and blessing upon them as ministers of Christ, called by him and having his power and authority to carry on this ministry

The ministry of those gifted by God should not be a threat to pastors and elders. Instead they should openly recognize God’s gifting and bless those who desire to serve the body with their gifts. Too many leaders in churches today think that allowing people to serve depends on people being “yes men” who will not challenge the pastor so these types of leaders withhold the ability to serve at their own discretion. In this way “service” becomes political games and fear of being shut out causes some to be silent when a leader should be rebuked.

This understanding of the “priesthood of believers,” according to McGrath, was the Protestant answer to the Roman Catholics charge that Protestants had no means of restraining false doctrine or immoral living in their midst. Perhaps, if Protestant churches really understood and practiced “the priesthood of all believers,” some of these present church leaders would be humbled and reminded what their true role and function in the congregation is supposed to be.

Amen! What a wonderful word for today! Thank you, Frank, for taking the time to write and encourage us as believers. Your words have really rung true and I am sure that there will be many who read these words who will also be pricked by God’s Spirit who can see the difference between true godly leadership and the politics of many churches today.

37 Pastor Paul

My opinion only, obviously, but no one has authority BECAUSE they hold an office as I see the text of scripture properly understood.

I agree with your post. Any authority we have is to be used for servanthood. When we lose sight of that function, I believe we start to change the focus from the body to ourselves and selfishness is a terrible example and a poor leader.

Great comments, everyone! Even if we disagree to some extent, these disagreements can push us to reason these things through. We have been pushed in this post to think things through clearly. What does scripture really say and can we rely on it alone and not on societal “norms”? Where is “authority over” listed in the scriptures as something that is to be cultivated in the body of Christ? Sometimes thinking outside of the box of “the way we always have done things” takes a good amount of work. It may also be uncomfortable, but I think it is productive. It stretches our minds and it causes us to place our comfortable positions under the light of scripture.

26 Paula,

You said:

There is only one Head to give orders to the parts of the Body, and none of us are it.

I know a pastor who says that he is the “covenantal head of the church”. I asked him to show me this from the scriptures and he has not yet been able to do that. I asked several pastors who support the doctrine that his particular pastor holds, about what they think of a “covenantal head” and they all said that there is no such position given to anyone in the body of Christ. Jesus is our only “covenantal head” of the body of Christ. When men think they have this position, no wonder they get the idea that they are allowed to rule over others. But this is the fallen human nature that wants the right to rule people. I have never seen such an attitude of entitlement turn out for good.

27 gengwall,

I understand what Cheryl and Paula are saying but it is naive to believe that such a utopian commune can exist in a fallen world.

I think that Paula answered this quite well in post #28. We are in a fallen world and we do not have the ability to live as God wants us to live without the work of the Holy Spirit. What is impossible with man is possible with God.

31 Lin,

The problem is that we really do believe that a human has to be in charge. We bring our worldly thinking into the Body. We have been trained that way (even in church) to follow men instead of Christ.

I too think that we have let the world influence us. Yet in the body of Christ we are all to attain to maturity. It is so easy sometimes to just follow a man and let a man or men tell us what to do. When I worked for many years helping people come free of the cults, I found that they were trained to believe they needed leaders to tell them what to do, say, think and act. One former cult member really helped me to understand this. She was raised in a cult and so she “put on” the cult mentality since she was a child. Everyone looked and thought the same because it was considered a sin to think independently. They were all taught that no one can understand the bible without being taught what it means. Then when she got out of the cult she said that it was a fearful thing because now she had to think for herself. She said that she didn’t even know who “she” was. Since she was raised in the cult, the cult was who she was until she left. Learning to think for herself was a very difficult challenge for her.

Paula #22,

Your challenge is worthy of consideration. I too would like to see the scriptures adequately explained.

gengwall #24,

You said:

Anarchy has nothing to do with the presence or absence of morality.

I beg to differ. In the dictionary online at dictionary.com meaning #1 and #4 have to do with morality.

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

This dictionary also lists the Greek anarchia as the origin which means lawlessness. Lawlessness has to do with what is right or wrong and it deals with morality.

A couple of weeks ago we met with the District Overseers for our denomination and they gave a teaching on the anarchy of determinism. What they said was, if there is determinism so that God commands everything to happen, then there can only be anarchy. From what they told us, anarchy has a lot to do with the absence of morality.

21 Greg,

Question is though, how does the church universal navigate this world without becoming corrupted by its worst abuses?

This is a very valid question. I think that the way we do this is to be a body and not an organization. The body will care for itself while an organization lays claim to a “system” of “whose on top”. In contrast to this, the hand doesn’t worry if it is above or beneath the ear. There is equal care and yet no concern for selfishness.

I am out of the office or a couple of days. I will get to the comments when I am back at work.

gengwall,

I think it would be helpful for us to define our terms because some reading this blog may not understand what we mean by “ruling” people. We must look to scripture to see what the context is that will define the terms.

Analytical Literal Translation:

1 Thess 5:12 And we request of you*, brothers [and sisters], to know [fig., appreciate] the ones laboring among you* and leading [or, caring for] you* in the Lord and instructing you*,

International Standard Version:

1 Thess 5:12 Brothers, we ask you to show your appreciation for those who work among you, set an example for you in the Lord, and instruct you.

The Greek word for being “over” you literally means to stand before you. This is clearly shown in the interlinear of Scripture4all at http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1th5.pdf

These ones who are standing in front are to be the examples and 1 Thess. 5:12 shows that what they do that is “over” you is admonish, exhort, give you instruction. This doesn’t give them “power” over us as if they have some kind of authority to lord it over the congregation, but by their gifts and by their maturity they are to protect the congregation, be an example of mature Christianity and watch out for the flock while instructing us in the right way from scriptures.

The world’s idea of ruling is not be responsible to be an example. It is the “boss”, the one who takes authority over the underlings.

In the verse about “rule” in 1 Timothy 5:17, the rule is defined as preaching and teaching.

1 Tim 5:17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

The International Standard Version thus translates this verse as:

1 Tim 5:17 Elders who handle their duties well should be considered worthy of double compensation, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

The duties of an elder is in protection, teaching, preaching and generally caring for the flock. I haven’t found any examples of “ruling” to be taking authority over the flock. In this way preaching, teaching, protecting the flock all come under the definition of service. Not lording over the flock but doing everything for the benefit of the flock in service.

As far as Phoebe, she was a prostatis and this is a very strong word. It is someone who is a protector, a guardian and one who protects with their resources. Such a one can be a protector by being a teacher exposing error. The person can also give aid in many ways to protect others. This is what is meant by “set over”. It is the opposite of a person who rules others so that others serve them. It is a powerful word but it means to undergird others – to come alongside and underneath them to lift them up when they are helpless.

Once again we have a servant heart. Some think that being a servant is a powerless position and degrading, yet I believe that in scripture a true biblical servant is a powerful place to be in because one is using power under control for the well-being of the receiver not control for the well-being of the person themselves. Everything points to service not taking a position of authority to cause someone to serve you. If we can keep that in mind, I think that we will understand that Christianity puts hierarchy on its head. Those who are the greatest are to be on the bottom and not on the top. The strongest Christians are to serve others by lifting them up.

If I am wrong on this, I welcome anyone to show me where I am wrong. It is a completely different concept than rulership from a worldly, hierarchical view. If we see “presiding” as protection and loving care, then we are well on our way to understanding the place of elders and helpers.

Don, I agree. God will never contradict His word when He speaks.

I also think that when we as the body of Christ “look to the leaders” i.e. see them as rulers instead of seeing them as the example for us to follow, we become pew sitters and the body becomes anemic instead of raising up warriors for the faith.

In the proper balance the servants of the church are our cheer leaders as we “do” and “go”. In an unhealthy church the leadership uses the sheep for their own purpose. In the Old Testament God gives a “woe” to these shepherds who dominate the sheep:

Eze 34:1 Then the word of the LORD came to me saying,
Eze 34:2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock?
Eze 34:3 “You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock.
Eze 34:4 “Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them.

Paula #4 said:

I would ask: what exactly would this “anarchy” look like anyway? What would people be doing without authorities over them?

I think there is so much wisdom in what you wrote in your comment #4. I would just add that true biblical authority is always “under” us and not “over” us since the gifts are to build us up and are never given to allow a person to “lord it” over another.

10 Paula,

Hey twin!

I have one other take on what gengwall said. He said “I should add, of course, that the opposite extreme of authoritarian control is anarchy. ”

What I understand is that gengwall is saying is that authoritarian control is an extreme on one end and anarchy is an extreme on the other end. It is the middle that is the balance that we should aim for. The middle is not free of authority but it is free of authoritarian control. Authority then is used to build up and not to push down.

If that is what gengwall meant, then I am in complete agreement that both ends are the extreme and we should avoid both extreme ends.

It looks like Paula and I were posting at the same time and our answers were very similar even though neither one of us knew what the other was writing.

The way I see it is that authority is in the gift and in the giver therefore it is God who is the authority and not man. Authority is given to use our gifts for the benefit of the body, not for lording over the body or forcing the body to fall under us.

I think we see this when we look at the scriptures where we see the entire body making decisions instead of one man.

Act 6:2 So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.
Act 6:5 The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.

It was the whole congregation who were summoned by the apostles to make a decision and it was the whole congregation who chose men to do the work on their behalf.

We can also see that authority could have been asserted, the apostles chose to not lord it over the body of Christ.

1Thess 2:5 For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed–God is witness–
1Thess 2:6 nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority.

I also see presbyteros as non-hierarchcial since those who were to be great among the congregation were to be servants of all. How can there be hierarchy when one is acting as a servant? It doesn’t make sense to me as a hierarchy.

What I do see is the leaders going underneath the flock and lifting them up. It is an upside down model where the leadership is underneath not on top. It is lifting one up not putting one down underneath yourself. It is the example of Jesus who did not use his authority to put people underneath him when he was here on the earth.

When leadership starts thinking of hierarchy they run into major problems. All of a sudden the sheep become their sheep and are there to serve them. When a leader starts to think that the sheep are there to serve them, it is very easy to slip into an abusive model.

The way I see it is that I have authority to use my gift of teaching and I use it wherever and whenever I can. Yet I do not have the authority to force people to listen to me. It is only when people submit to learn from me that my gifts can be fully used. The power is in the hands of the body of Christ, not in me or in any other leader. I believe this is why submission is so important. I also believe this is why submission is emphasized and taking authority over people is never given as a solution in the scripture. When we submit to the gifts of the body, we will grow and be in unity with others who have what we need.

Does this make sense?