Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 11

Ch. 12 is entitled, "To Submit or Not to Submit". Here, Job tackles the verses often cited to support the idea that laymen must submit to clergymen, in Protestant churches, typically the Head Pastor.

He first points out that if you start reading through the epistles in the New Testament, you get all the way through Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians "without so much as a single word being either written to, or concerning, church leaders." (143) Evidently, they were addressed to whole assemblies, or groups of assemblies in a town.

But 1 Thessalonians 5 says, "we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work." (144) Ain't that hierarchical leadership?

No. Job argues that the culprit here, and also in Romans 12:8 and 1 Tim 5:17 is the word proistemi. This is normally translated "stand before", "stand over", or "have charge over". Vine's Expository Dictionary lists these meanings: "'to stand before', hence to lead, to attend to (indicating care and diligence)." (144) Frustratingly, without citing the sources, Job cites F.F. Bruce and "some of the newer Bible translations" as endorsing the translation "care for you". (144)

Job is certainly right that if this is what was meant, then those texts take on a different color - they are exhorting people not to bow to hierarchical authority, but rather to respect their spiritual parents, as it were, who care for them.

But I don't think enough has been said here. What are these newer translations? NIV, NLT, HCSB, CEV, translate as above, or something like "your leaders". Note: leading terms are ambiguous - they can have to do with hierarchical leaders, or with those who provide initiative and guidance without have any special office or rights. A "leader" could be a king or pope (hierarchical) or the bravest guy in the platoon. (non-hierarchical) The coach, or the pro-Bowl middle linebacker.

The excellent Good News Bible has "[those] who guide". Score one for Job's preferred rendition. The Message (not a translation, but a paraphrase) has "honor those leaders who work so hard for you, who have been given the responsibility of urging and guiding you along in your obedience." (1 Thess 5:12) But is that right?

Perhaps Job was referring to the TNIV, which has

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. (1 Thess 5:12)

Perhaps this explains why there was no reference - this 2002 revision of the popular NIV Bible has been perceived as wrongheadedly politically correct because of its rigorously gender-neutral translations. (e.g. "and sisters" above instead of "brothers" for adelphoi) They actually have a website constructed to explain various departures from the NIV. In any case, the TNIV translates "lead" for the same word in Romans 12:8.

The IVP Bible Background Commentary says that proistemi

...was especially applied in the Greco-Roman world to patrons, sponsors of clients and religious associations. If that sense is in view here, those would be the Christians who opened their homes for the churches to meet in them and sponsored them, providing what financial and political help they could... (595)

I suspect that is a dead-end, though. Why would those be singled out as ones who "labor among you"?

All in all, it seems to me that it is best to translate this verb as "lead" - leave the ambiguity in the translation which is in the original. It is up to the reader to discern that Christ-like, "foot-washing", servant-leadership is in view. I think Job is right about the meaning of these passages; I just don't think it makes the case to cite (without citing) an authority or two as to the proper translation. It's really interpretation that matters, in the context of the teaching of Jesus and it's fit with that of the apostles.

Next time: more Greek-word-fu.

Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 10

Chapter 11 is complicated, and if you're following this series, this is a good reason to buy the book, and carefully check it against the Bible to see if it is accurate. Here, I'll summarize the case.

As we saw last time, New Testament assemblies/churches meet in homes. This keeps the numbers down, and so the kinds or levels of leadership suited to large organizations are simply irrelevant. There will be no CEO. (125)

Job examines Acts 1 and Acts 6 - in both, the fledgling Christian community in Jerusalem had some tough decisions to make. In both, Peter takes the lead. But how? Not by himself making the call. Rather, he leads by framing the issue and giving an argument about the best way forward. In short, he didn't order, but rather persuaded the assembly. The consensus of the whole group was the key - Peter played an active, stimulating, and guiding role in the formation of it. (125-8)

In another episode, Acts 15, the leaders (apostles & elders) not only convene the meeting, but they, on behalf of and in front of the assembly, argue through a matter. The result? Consensus. Quoting Acts 15:22, "Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided..." (130, original emphasis) Job comments,

What a contrast this is to clergy-led doctrinal convocations behind closed doors at denominational headquarters; or even just an individual Minister of an individual church unilaterally deciding how things ought to be! (131)

Some of the toughest decisions a church must make have to do with disciplining members by kicking them out (hopefully temporarily). Jesus in Matthew 18 seems to imply that this is the work of the whole assembly, and this is confirmed by Paul's handling of sexual immorality in the Corinth assembly, 1 Cor 5. (131-4)

In sum, churches should have non-hierarchical leaders - their elders standing not as a special class, but just brothers along with the rest, with no positional perks or powers. They should lead by moral authority, having earned the right to influence people's free choices, so that they follow Jesus together. (140-1)

There is a place in the world for hierarchical leadership - Job cites government and family, in which the mayor or husband does by virtue of his position stand "above" those under him. But "there is no hierarchy in a biblical church because one already exists: Jesus - and everyone else!" (136) Jesus should function as head not only of the universal church, but on individual assemblies, and he doesn't need middle management. (136)

At the end of the chapter he makes a very interesting argument. God has ordained hierarchical leadership in the family - husband over wife and kids, and parents over children - see Ephesians 5 and Col 3. (136-8) (I would hasten to add that this is Christ-like, non-domineering leadership.) Suppose that the Rev. Lovejoy, picture above, is a legit hierarchical leader over a family - which means that they should submit to him. Job points out that this is not consistent with the hierarchies just mentioned. Suppose Lovejoy wants the wife to teach Sunday-school and the husband doesn't want her to. To whom should she submit, pastor or husband? Again, suppose Lovejoy wants the kids to give all their allowance to cause X, and mom and dad disagree. What should the kids do? Job says, "we are presented in a nonsensical and absurd impasse" (139) - so long as we take the idea of hierarchical clerical leadership seriously. But, we should not. Sorry, Lovejoy!

Next time: What about NT exhortations to obey our leaders?

Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 9

In chapter 10, Job says that if he's going to get on a plane, he insists that certain things be in place: wings, pilot, engine, and so on.

Similarly, there is an "irreducible minimum" of structural elements that should be in place in a biblical church - not a real church (Job grants that traditional, institutional churches are real churches) but rather one which is faithful to the apostolic tradition as delivered in the Bible. (119-20) What are these structural elements?

1. Governance by the consensus of all in the group, with (non-hierarchical) leadership provided by men the group recognizes and respects as spiritually mature (elders).
2. Meeting in a home or homes.
3. Meeting on Sunday, with "a time of corporate worship where the format was that all were free to participate as the Holy Spirit led. No one person convened the gathering from the front." (121)
4. And "the heart of their [Sunday] gathering was the Lord's Supper observed as an actual meal which all present shared". (121)

Why hold out these structural elements? Is it because Job is a legalist, eager to point the bony finger of condemnation at those who do things differently? No. Rather, it is because "the design of a thing" - whether on airplane or an assembly - "corresponds directly to its function". (122) A local assembly is supposed to function as "a little, local, extended family of God's people." (122) And the above structure, in Job's view, best facilitates that sort of corporate life.

In a humorous thought experiment, Job asks us to imagine a "family gathering" in which the family assembles in a rented hall, and then after some chit-chat, the dad or someone gets up and offers an extended speech. They then share a cup of cofee in the foyer and chat some more, and skatter back to their respective homes for a meal. Some family gathering! It is indeed a family, but it is disfunctional. (123-4)

With this chapter, Job begins part 2 of his book, wherein he covers the actual functioning of biblical churches in some detail. I think he actually qualifies points 1 & 3 above - stay tuned. The above is just the bones - he's going to put some meat on it, until you can discern an actual animal.

Book: Beresford Job's Biblical Church - 4

In chapter four, Job discusses "the Early Church Fathers", namely Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, who died between 100 and 246 CE. These are a fascinating cast of characters, but in this post I'll stick to summarizing what Job says about them, and how this relates to the notion of a Christian "tradition of the elders". This chapter corresponds to Part 1 TR 3, available to download here.)

In Job's view, theologically, these early leaders got it right, preserving the faith against a host of heretics. (50) But practically, when it came to church leadership, they replaced God's design for the church with an inferior model.

How so? A crucial point emerges from the speech of Paul in Acts 20:17-28, carefully compared with all the other relevant passages in the NT. This is that the following (Greek) words:

• elder / presbyter
  
• overseer (sometimes mistranslated "bishop")
• shepherd (often translated "pastor")

refer to one and the same class of men, each term emphasizing a different aspect of their role in church life. They are men who are more mature in the faith (elders) who watch over (oversee) the flock, as it were, shepherding individual members. He shows that this is no idiosyncratic opinion, but is acknowledge by pretty much all scholars of early Christianity. (54-7)

It takes some time to reflect on how profound this is: there simply is no concept of a "pastor" or "head pastor" in the New Testament, in the way we now understand those terms!

In short, the early (late 1st century to early third century) church evolved a system employing a laity/leadership class distinction. At the top was the Bishop - he was the top dog, the Big Cheese. Job gives some rather shocking quotes from various letters by Irenaeus (himself a bishop), c. 110 CE:

...be very careful not to resist the Bishop, that through our submission to the Bishop we may belong to God... we should regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself... always act in godly concord; with the Bishop presiding as the counterpart of God, the presbyters as the counterpart of the council of the Apostles... Thus, as the Lord did nothing without the Father... so you must do nothing without the Bishops and the presbyters. ...let all men... respect the Bishop as the counterpart of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God... without those no church is recognised. (59)

And Tertullian:

The distinction between the order of clergy and the people has been established by the authority of the Church... (60-1)

Thus, the norms implicit in the New Testament with overthrown. Moreover, church tradition has now been elevated above the NT and the apostles' tradition. Or has it? As Job points out,

...the Fathers claimed for themselves the same type, and measure, of authority that the original Apostles of Jesus possessed. They argued that what they taught was necessarily correct precisely because they, as those standing in a direct line back to the original Apostles, were saying it. (63)

The bottom line:

Historically Christian churches have supported, and submitted to, this tradition of the Early Church Fathers rather than being in obedience to the... traditions of... the New Testament. (64-5)

We've been basing our leadership practices not on the Apostles (and so, on the will of Jesus, which is the will of God), but rather on this ancient catholic tradition, which purports, like the mythical oral law of Moses, to go back to a divine source. But, it conflicts with the Bible, which we accept as inspired by God.

Nor is this only a Catholic problem; all mainstream Christian traditions, be they Baptist, Pentecostal, or many going by the name "house church", practice hierarchical leadership. In Job's view, "Any kind of 'stand apart' leadership is wrong. An elder is not the first among equals; he is just one amongst equals." (66) The New Testament model is of "locally grown, non-hierarchical leadership", not "one person in church who has come in from the outside". (67) He says more justify these strong assertions in later chapters - stay tuned.

Finally, Job pulls his punch a little. The early church fathers, he holds, aren't entirely to blame, because the NT canon was still being decided on. (50) Still, the church, after agreeing on the NT, should have re-examined her practices in light of it.

Next time: the great baptism fiasco!