Sure enough, we camped out in 1 Timothy 5 this week for about 40 minutes. Specifically the focus was on verses 17-20 and honoring the church leaders was the topic. Several important points came out that we can look at today. First, a plurality of elders. Any mention of leaders (elders, overseers, bishops) is always in the plural. Even generic instructions when establishing a new body has a plurality (Acts 14:23), and when speaking of a fellowship already in existence where supplies are being distributed the gifts are given to "the elders" (Acts 11:30). In each instance where the office is being discussed there is a plurality given. Only the requirements for qualification are given in the singular, and then because the qualifications are those to be met by each individual that is to serve as part of the plurality. So then how many make up the plurality? Ah, and here we can get into trouble. Elders means more than one, and that is as far as we can go. We are not told any specific number, so making a requirement of three, seven, twelve or any other number mandatory could bring disastrous results because there may not be enough men who meet all the qualifications in the body to fill the number mandated by the church policy. In that case concessions would have to be made regarding biblical instructions (men not meeting qualifications for eldership, women installed, etc.). If the best practice is to follow what the Scriptures say, then there must be more than one elder and each man must meet all the biblical qualifications for the office. The local church is not to be headed by a single man with all authority. Such a model is not biblical and therefore is a problem waiting to surface in the body.
Second, the position of elder is a position of honor by its very nature. Men serving as elders have a spiritual calling for leadership. They have demonstrated the character and conviction necessary to take on the task of handling the Word, leading the church body, and caring for the spiritual condition of each and every member of the local church. It is not for the faint of heart, for the weak in moral standing, for those light in theological understanding, nor for those who cannot handle conflict well. In short the majority of church membership do not belong in the position of elder. It is almost as if the prospective candidate desires very much the position, but never feels quite qualified to serve in that position, yet he is nominated, vetted, approved and encouraged by his peers and feels such a conviction by the Holy Spirit that he accepts the noble and solemn path placed before him. And in following, the one handling the Word is worthy of double honor which does include monetary compensation for service. The two examples given in support for this appear in 1 Timothy 5:18 where reward for work and wages are specifically given in support textually.
Finally, elders are to be protected. Perhaps the greatest disservice a body of believers does to their leadership is in this area. How many say, if even under their breath or just in their heart: "The elders don't really do that much. They meet once a week in the conference room all by themselves, drink coffee and talk about how the church is doing, like anyone couldn't do that." Have we not read the qualifications necessary to serve in such a position? Can we not see the passion for every member of the body that causes the men of God serving as elders to cry out to God on their behalf? Can we not think of the spiritual warfare conducted on a regular basis undertaken by such men to maintain personal integrity and gospel fidelity in the church through handling day-to-day issues and discussions, teaching, etc.? How many of us are in the practice of praying for the deacons and elders that are serving the body? How may of us would want our children to take a similar position? "Dad doesn't really do that much, just go off 'to work' every day and then tell us what to do when he comes home, like anyone couldn't do that. I don't need to pray for him or support him, what's the big deal?" It breaks my heart to think my children would think that little of me; likewise it breaks my heart to think that anyone in my local fellowship would think so little of the leadership in the church.
Verses 19 and 20 finish the thought with instruction not to entertain (or receive) an accusation against an elder unless it comes from two or three eyewitnesses. We must be diligent here. If the enemy is out to steal, kill and destroy kingdom work then we must assume accusations will come against the elders and that most of those accusations will be false. We must not even entertain talk about elders coming from one mouth. Saying something like, "Let me stop you right there, by continuing down this line (by yourself) you are in violation of 1 Timothy 5:19 and I will not hear it. If you have another eyewitness or two and are committed to the common testimony of misconduct then come together and present your case. Otherwise do not attempt to spread this to me or anyone else, the Word of God demands it of you and I will hold you to it, for my part." Me must honor the membership of the church by not receiving an accusation or gossip about another member, and we must not entertain such accusations against the eldership all the more.
My final written note about the sermon this week: "The membership should be joyful about giving honor to the men whom God has put in a place of leadership and service to the body through working to equip, teach and impart sound doctrine." May we all be challenged to consider carefully how we honor our leadership and commit to praying for these men whom God has installed for service.
It says "Post a Comment." I didn't find the "Ask a Question" section. So I guess I'll do it here. :)
ReplyDeleteThe role of elder is somewhat varied in churches. Some see "elder" as a synonym for "pastor". Others see "elder" as a synonym for "deacon". I know many churches have pastors as their leadership and elders as some sub-leadership. I know some churches that have only pastors and deacons or pastors and elders.
So ... how do you see the role of elder in the biblical church?
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteWe must not even entertain talk about elders coming from one mouth. Saying something like, "Let me stop you right there, by continuing down this line (by yourself) you are in violation of 1 Timothy 5:19 and I will not hear it.
A question: Suppose the situation is that an elder has secretly made a pass (or, worst, sexually assaulted!) a woman or a child. There are no witnesses. You don't think that the victim should remain quiet in that situation, do you?
Stan,
ReplyDeleteBeware the italicized you !
I would say that the best way to confront the arrangement of the biblical church is to stick to the Bible. So, to begin, 1 Timothy 3 is clear about two offices. The titles may vary depending on translation but I believe overseer and elder are most commonly used (sometimes bishop) and seem to be interchangeable (Acts 20, Titus 1, 1 Peter 5). Either way the overseer/elder position is clearly delineated from the deacon position. So there should be these two offices to be biblical.
Biblically, pastor is a gift (Ephesians 4:11) given to some for equipping the saints for works of service so they can become mature and attain the fullness of Christ. So, some elders may be gifted as a pastor. Others may have another gift. Biblically I don't find an office of pastor in the most common sense - the leader of the congregation, alone having final say where "the buck stops here." I haven't noticed a translation that uses "pastor" when talking of the plurality of church leadership. I certainly haven't read any arrangement of pastor leading alone with elders and deacons as sub-leaders.
I suppose that I see the role of elder in the church to be a plurality that directs the affairs of the church (with some preaching and teaching) {1 Timothy 5:17} and shepherding the flock and keeping them from being deceived and led astray {Acts 20:28-31}. There will obviously be a number of tasks included, but that is what I see as the role of the elder for the biblical church.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteTell me, when would a man meeting the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 for elder be alone in secret with a woman or child?
I have known six biblical elders in my lifetime and none of them ever met with anyone alone, ever. They take seriously the requirement to be above reproach and therefore never put themselves in positions where a reproach could be brought.
In this hypothetical situation: in secret with no witnesses with no prior history or future evidence of continued behavior, a individual word against individual word - that the elder should be brought under discipline, rebuked publicly so others may take warning and removed form his position immediately?
If that be the case - take anyone else's word against the elder, if the accusation is really bad - then elders must take the position fearing public rebuke for any accusation brought. Do you believe that to be a biblical stance? I'm sure there are countless other hypothetical situations that would bring about a single person's word that has no witnesses for something done in secret by a duly installed elder tested and shown to meet all the qualifications of Acts, 1 Timothy and Titus for which there is no previous history. Other than trying to find a case for not following what is clear in scripture i'm not sure what is profitable in even pursuing the exercise. Do you?
I'm sorry, what is your answer to my question? It would help in moving forward in answering your questions if I knew what your answer was to my question.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the question is: Do you think the woman/child who has been somehow abused in secret by an elder ought to remain quiet or should they speak up?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteLet's see how I can answer this question so you can be satisfied. By all means speak up. Let me go a step further, for any hypothetical situation you might come up with no matter how small an offense or how great done in secret with no witnesses, by all means speak up (in case you come up with more hypothetical examples after this).
Now the question for you. For all these hypothetical situations, should the church receive the accusation (bear in mind that although you have pronounced in your example the elder to be guilty you have also stipulated everything was done in secret with no witnesses), rebuke the elder publicly to make an example and remove him from his position?
You can also answer the question about your motivation for asking such questions. Setting up hypothetical situation where you have already established the guilt of an elder for something done in secret with no witnesses and no additional historical information or knowledge as to the qualifications and procedure for installing said guilty elder. Just to determine cases where what is clear in scripture should not be applied? Something else?
You question is loaded and you know it. If everything is done in secret then no one would know beforehand of the elder's guilt, it would have to be pre-supposed? You see, if your case is to be taken seriously then you would have to ask it like this: suppose there is an accusation brought by a woman against an elder that she was sexually assaulted. The two were alone and there were no witnesses. What do we do in that situation biblically? But you didn't do that. You assigned guilt to the elder for a secret situation no one knew about. I realize it is a hypothetical situation and you can stipulate however you like. I'm not going to tell you what your motivation is here because I don't know your heart, but it looks extremely dubious.
Is that a sufficient answer?
Is your answer that an individual truly ought to speak up if they were abused by an elder, even if it was done in secret? If so, then yes, that is a sufficient answer, and better yet: it is the right moral answer, too. I hope we can agree.
ReplyDeleteMy motivation for the question? That's easy. Good solid Bible study techniques. You see, I fear that all of us at times approach Bible study from a less systematic, more whimsical manner. It happens sometimes, no problem, as long as we don't make a pattern of it, right?
One concern I have in the way some of my more conservative brothers approach Bible study is what I have called recently the Problem of treating the bible as a woodenly literal rule book, rather than a book of Truth.
IF the Bible is a woodenly literal rule book, well, then here we have a rule ("Only consider complaints that come with two or more witnesses") and IF that is the rule from God's Mouth to our eyes to be held to with no exceptions, then that is what we should do. BUT, as you know, I don't think we should treat the Bible as a woodenly literal rule book, that doing so is a disservice to serious Bible study and the serious seeking of God's Will/God's Ways.
Another concern I have with some of my more conservative brothers is the way they so casually dismiss human moral/ethical reasoning. We HAVE God-given reasoning for a reason: To use it.
Thus, we can USE OUR REASON to say, "Obviously, IF a child or an adult has been abused by anyone - including a church elder - they should absolutely report that abuse, even lacking a witness."
We need not worry about the line in the Bible that says only to report abuse when there are two or more witnesses. There IS validity and a sound point being made in the "rule," but it ought not be considered a blanket statement FROM GOD TO US that we ought never report abuse that happens in private. That would be a logically and morally inept way to approach that biblical teaching and/or ethics.
Am I making myself clear? My concern is the "rule book" approach to Bible study and this teaching from Paul is an excellent example of why "What did God say in the Bible? What ELSE did God say in the Bible?" approach to exegesis is an incomplete and, taken alone, a fatally flawed rubric.
Jeremy...
For all these hypothetical situations, should the church receive the accusation (bear in mind that although you have pronounced in your example the elder to be guilty you have also stipulated everything was done in secret with no witnesses), rebuke the elder publicly to make an example and remove him from his position?
No, that is not what I said or am saying at all. A single he said/she said witness approach alone certainly OUGHT NOT be sufficient reason to remove anyone from a position, elder or otherwise.
Rather, I was asking the specific question I asked to get at the whole problem with the what I call "rule book," wht you call "What did God say (in the Bible)..." approach to Bible study. IF we take that teaching as a universal rule, THEN a victim should remain quiet. IF we use our own moral God-given moral reasoning, THEN we can see that a victim remaining quiet is not a sound moral answer at all.
Agreed?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteWait a minute, maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear. You write:
"We need not worry about the line in the Bible that says only to report abuse when there are two or more witnesses. There IS validity and a sound point being made in the "rule," but it ought not be considered a blanket statement FROM GOD TO US that we ought never report abuse that happens in private. That would be a logically and morally inept way to approach that biblical teaching and/or ethics."
This goes to the point in another comment thread, but where do you get the authority to decide that when the text of scripture says, "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses" (1 Timothy 5:19) that we should not take that as God's Word? What do you mean we should not worry about that explicit statement? Where in the bible do you read that we are to entertain an accusation against an elder by one person?
What does the Scripture say? The text here does not deal with making accusations, it deals with entertaining them. It seems that you somehow move from a church member should not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or more witnesses to someone being abused should not report it. Why are you doing that? My post and the text concerns entertaining accusations against an elder. Let me pose a few questions that will hopefully clear this up:
Are you saying that a church member may entertain an accusation against an elder brought by one person?
Using your example, or at least the non-loaded version, what if a woman in your church came up to you and said, "Dan, I don't know who else to go to, but I met with an elder last week and he made a pass at me then groped me. No one else was around, we were all alone in his office and everyone else was gone for the day, and he's sure to deny it, but it happened." Do you entertain that accusation?
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteDo you entertain that accusation?
Yes, we must for the sake of justice and morality and Godliness. We must investigate and consider the point, which is not the same as saying that, because an accusation has been leveled, that we must chastise the accused based solely on the accusation. But if it's a serious accusation (ie, groping, assault, abuse, etc not merely, "I thought she was being sort of flirty with me..."), yes, we must investigate and consider it.
Why? Because if a person has been accused of sexual assault, for example, if the accusation is true and nothing is done, then we are allowing a criminal to be free to harm others. This would be an affront to justice and morality and decency.
You also asked why I asked the question (the question being should a victim report an assault, even if there were no witnesses) when your post was about "entertaining accusations..." The reason I ask is that it's a natural and obvious consideration. If you have a child in your church and that child hears an authoritative teaching, "NEVER ENTERTAIN ACCUSATIONS if there is not a second witness..." then that child is also likely to hear, "Never MAKE an accusation if there's not a witness..." Does that seem reasonable to you? And we certainly do NOT want victims to remain quiet, even when (especially when?) there are no witnesses, Agreed?
As I said, there is some validity to NOT punishing an accused person on a he said/she said accusation with no other support, and justice must be considered for both the accuser and the accused. But, if we were to take "Don't ENTERTAIN accusations..." and equate that with "Don't MAKE accusations...," then that is problematic.
Do we agree on that much?
So, it sounds like maybe you're saying that YES, a victim should absolutely make the accusation of an assailant, even lacking a witness, but that the church should not ACT on that accusation, if there is no supporting evidence, is that right? I would agree to that. This is why I asked the question I asked, to clarify the point and because it seems like a reasonable question to ask.
Are we agreed, then?
Part of the problem the Catholic church has gotten into is precisely because they did NOT entertain the accusations of assault when they should have. Like I said, IF there is an accusation that has no supporting witness, IF that is brought to light, then there is at least a record. And maybe, with it being brought to light, a SECOND victim might say, "Hey, wait a second, that happened to me, but I was quiet about it because there were no witnesses..." and a problem may emerge. But yes, yes, yes, we MUST listen when an accusation is made and treat it with sobriety. We may not act on it, ultimately, if there is no support to the charge, but it is vital to bring it to light. Morality and justice insists upon it.
cont'd...
Which gets to your other comment/question...
ReplyDeletewhere do you get the authority to decide that when the text of scripture says, "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses" that we should not take that as God's Word?
First off, I didn't say that the "two or three witnesses..." is not God's Word. Never said it. Don't believe it. Of course it is God's Word. What I'm pointing out is the need to be wary about establishing an eternal rule based upon a cherry-picked verse or abandoning moral reasoning.
Secondly, I get the authority from teachings such as "Do not shed innocent blood" For instance. Commands to protect the innocent, for another instance. Beyond that, I get the moral authority because the liberty to not be oppressed is a self-evident truth that ought not be abandoned.
Again, this gets to the point of treating the Bible as a rule book. It also gets to the point of not trusting our God-given reasoning. The Bible tells us to treat scripture as good for teaching and reproof. It says NOTHING to suggest we should abandon our God-given moral reasoning or that we should not trust our conscience/moral intuition/reasoning - flawed and imperfect though it may be.
What do you mean we should not worry about that explicit statement? Where in the bible do you read that we are to entertain an accusation against an elder by one person?
That is my point: The Bible is not a rule book. Just because there is this line ("don't entertain accusations without a second witness...") does not mean that this is a universal rule with no exceptions and no other considerations. Again, if we treat the Bible as a rule book, then that would make sense. But it is NOT a rule book, it is a book of Truth. The Truth being taught in the "no witnesses" type passages is the Truth about not charging someone wrongly. It is wrong to hold someone accountable for an unproven charge. There truly ought to be witnesses or evidence before anyone is punished. IF we understand that TRUTH, then we understand well. BUT, if we treat it as a wooden rule, then that MIGHT seem to teach that a victim ought not make accusations towards an assailant if there are no witnesses.
And so, I was seeking clarification. IF we can agree that victims should ALWAYS talk about abuse done towards them and bring it to the light of day (even lacking witnesses) AND still agree that it is important not to punish an accused based on ONLY an accusation, then we can agree. I'm just concerned about the approach to bible study and letting solid eternal Truths take a back seat to a literality towards ancient rules in a specific time/place/circumstance.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteI don't see any need in continuing on here. We are on the same track as on the other thread. All I will say in response to all you wrote is that it seems you are really going out of your way to undermine and disobey what you claim to love.
The text of scripture says:
Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.
And so you read that and your first thought is not of obedience to God's Word and how that should effect the practices of elders (never meeting alone for counseling, never putting oneself in positions where a charge could be brought, only seriously and thoroughly vetting potential elders to make sure to the best possible ability of a congregation they meet the requirement of being men above reproach) but instead think of a situation in secret where an elder abuses someone where there are no witnesses so you can pre-suppose guilt and then naturally and self-evidently surmise that the biblical and Godly thing to do is ignore the clear imperative of scripture. You offer the Catholic church as an example, as if the situation where you have a single minister heading up a congregation under a requirement of celibacy that regularly meets behind closed doors is equivalent to the text of 1 Timothy 3 (plurality, husband of one wife, etc.).
You reason all these things out in your own mind as being clear and reasonable and there is only one problem.
The bible says Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. , and you say in response to the question, Do you entertain an accusation of a single witness?: "Yes, we must for the sake of justice and morality and Godliness." We are not talking about the abused being repressed, we are talking about God's establishment of His church and the imperatives associated therewith. You choose to knowingly write out your intended disobedience to that imperative based on your own notion of what is best. You cannot mask blatant disobedience behind a mask of not treating the Bible as a woodenly literal rule book. It is the Word of the Living God, Dan. You do not have the authority to say "Do" when God says "Do not." You are making yourself out to be God and you must stop, repent and rethink how to be obedient to God's Word, not coming with the wisdom of your own mind to find ways to circumvent clear teachings of scripture.
You need not respond to this line any further. I will be spending my time addressing scripture in the other thread and this same issue will come up so my responses hereafter to you in this thread will be the same call for you to turn from your current ways and refer to the other thread.
I would like to respond, just to get some clarity, if that is okay.
ReplyDeleteI thought we were in agreement that IF a person were victimized (assaulted, abused) by someone in private, that they should absolutely NOT keep silent.
Is that right?
So, they should not keep silent, but they shouldn't bring it up in church, either? So, I guess you're saying that they should report this abuse to their loved ones, the police, the media maybe, just not in church? Is that your position?
I'm just trying to understand.
Also, do you understand MY concern that some COULD take that sort of teaching and use it as justification to keep victims silent, IF there were no witnesses? Do you agree that this is a reasonable concern? Because you seem to be treating me like some sort of leper merely because I support victims speaking out about abuse, and that seems strange.
For instance, this crazy suggestion...
You choose to knowingly write out your intended disobedience to that imperative based on your own notion of what is best.
No, I am writing out my intended OBEDIENCE to protecting the innocent from harm. I don't think God contradicts God's Self, and the Bible is QUITE CLEAR that we ought to protect the innocent, which would include protecting the abused, EVEN when there were no witnesses.
You DO agree with that fundamental truth, do you not?
If you don't, do you see my concern there?
In other words, I don't think God contradicts God's Self, BUT if we hold to a woodenly literal rule book approach to Bible interpretation, you WOULD have God contradicting God's Self, in various areas. Yet another argument against the "rule book" approach to Bible study - it undermines God's authority and Godliness.
ReplyDeleteDan T.,
ReplyDeleteI have no problem responding for clarification.
This is vitally important for us when having these sorts of discussions because single sentences in the Bible do not exist alone. I am basing my adherence to 1 Timothy 5:19 on the presumption that 1 Timothy 3:1-7. Take special note here, because this is where we begin at different points. You used for an example the horrific outings in the Catholic church, which do not follow 1 Timothy 3:1-7 as a basis to presume guilt for the elder. You cannot levy disagreement with 1 Timothy 5:19 on this basis because that set of circumstances is not the condition on which the imperative was written - only for the biblical church organization of leadership and the qualifications being met by the men appointed to the post.
I think of it this way. If a man is brought before the body by the existing plurality of elders for proposed eldership, then the congregation is obligated to vet this candidate. Is he a man of but one wife? Is he temperate and self-controlled? Is he a man beyond reproach in the church and in the community? Is he mature in the faith and gentle not violent ? Is he not a lover of money or quarrelsome? Take everything you know of this man from his public and private life (all we know of it based on his wife and children (if he has them)) and ask the following:
If two years from now a person comes alone with a charge of stealing from the church coffers for personal gain without witnesses done in secret, would you consider the accusation? If his history would make you question this or entertain the accusation then his history should be brought before the elders as reason not to install that man.
If two years from now a person comes alone with a charge of gossiping about another member who sought counseling, would you consider the accusation? If his history would make you question this or entertain the accusation then his history ought to be brought before the elders as reason not to install that man.
If two years from now a person comes alone with a charge of abusing a member of the congregation in secret with no witnesses would you consider the accusation? If his history would make you question this or entertain the accusation then his history ought to be brought before the elders as reason not to install that man.
Continued...
Continued...
ReplyDeleteYou see, these things must be considered beforehand by the congregation and the qualification seriously considered so that if the situation in 1 Timothy 5:19 arises the members will not have to think about whether or not they will accept the accusation - they already have.
Are human beings still fallible and capable of making mistakes? Yes, we all will have a sinful nature until we die and our bodies are glorified. But, if the existing elders have been led by the Holy Spirit to select a man for the position of elder, and the congregation is in full knowledge of the qualifications of the man to be installed, and the members have prayed about this man and carefully examined his character (not his physical abilities or attributes) based on his walk and family which has been in full view for years (since he is mature in the faith, not new) then the chances of such misconduct is slim. And even if someone were to pull the wool over the membership's eyes or fall into temptation, we have scripture assuring us that his sins will find him out as God will not allow such misconduct to go unanswered.
All the above does not consider the prior point I made regarding the elders themselves and how they conduct themselves once installed. Making a practice to NEVER meet with anyone alone. NEVER counseling women without their wife present. In short, taking the responsibility of the position to be sacred and therefore setting out to make sure they remain above reproach.
We must assume 1 Timothy 5:19 applies to the 1 Timothy 3:1-7 church, otherwise we would have to presume the guilt of the elder in all possible scenarios. For my part I don't believe a biblical elder could have anyone place themselves under his authority with such possibilities lingering. Nor do I feel that an elder could successfully carry out his position of authority in the church with a constant fear of being outed for any accusation by a single person without two or three witnesses (every word against word situation that arises).
If there are cases where the church is veering off from scripture in leadership organization and qualification (1 Timothy 3:1-7) it is probably just a matter of time before there will be an issue with entertaining accusations against those in the non-biblical leadership organization (1 Timothy 5:19).
Continued...
Continued...
ReplyDeleteI hope that clarifies. I do not see the Bible as a woodenly literal rule book, but as the Word of the Living God. 1 Timothy 5:19 was not a mistake to be violated or massaged to fit all kinds of different arrangements. Because God is Holy and we are fallible we must change to align with the Word, not the other way around. To change the Word (arrangements other than 1 Timothy 3:16 and accepting accusations based on the non-biblical arrangement unlike what is written in 1 Timothy 5:19) to fit what we feel seems right is what undermines God's authority and the Godliness of His people. I hope you can see that clearly.
The "rule book" approach does not mean what you think it means. When people see things as a rule book they do feel like they need to follow the "letter of the law", that's true. But it is also true that others who use a "rule book" approach defend their disobedience with statements like "it didn't tell me I couldn't" or other where loopholes in the written laws are pried upon and leveraged to force acceptance of unlawful behavior or the passage of more laws for which to find more loopholes. This is clear in practical terms in our current judicial system just as well. So when you issue statements about "the conservative" bunch treated the Word like a rule book be careful because your responses run to the rule book approach also, albeit from a different angle.
The Bible is much more than a rule book - it is the Word of the Living God. God breathed every word and that Word is Truth and it is Life. We dare not deviate from those words in favor of our own presuppositions, worldviews, or anything else that seems self-evident. We are fallen sinners, God is Holy. We must be obedient to His Word, not our own wisdom. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and disciple (Proverbs 1:7); Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil. This will bring health to your body and nourishment to your bones. (Proverbs 3:5-8)
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteI hope that clarifies.
?? I'm sorry, no, it does not clarify at all. I don't see any answers to the questions I asked.
I will concede that churches ought to vet their elders, of course, they should.
I will concede that churches ought to choose elders who are holy, qualified, wise, loving, Godly, etc.
But, my question is: IF a person has been assaulted in secret by anyone, including a church elder, should that person speak up and tell what happened? If so, WHERE should that person do this?
1. To the police? Yes or no?
To their families? Yes or no?
To their church? Yes or no?
Do you see the problem for those who'd say "NO, victims should NOT report abuse..."?
Do you see the reason why I'd ask this if you hold to a literal, "Only consider accusations with 2-3 witnesses...," because of the potential problems of discouraging reporting abusive incidents?
IF you think yes, they should report it to the police and their loved ones/family, do you think this is NOT going to become public knowledge in church? Do you think the church should ignore what is going on with the police (and probably the media) if this report was made?
I'm not seeing an answer to the questions asked, Jeremy, just your answers to the question, "Should churches vet their elders?"
And yes, I used as an example what happened in the Catholic church, but I could ALSO have used examples from Baptist, Methodist, or other evangelical churches, so I don't see how that is relevant.
Any chance of an answer to the questions asked?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteI don't know how I could have been more clear. I answered your question about why I hold the position I do. I did not address how other people might consider applying the scripture verse, I did not address to what extent those in hypothetical situations might go about making an accusation of something that happened in secret with no witnesses where no one knows exactly what happened and is left with only one persons word against another. I did not address how all churches of all denominations might organize their leadership and how different hypothetical situations might play out based on those arrangements. I did not address a lot of things I would have to make presumptions about.
What I did was repeat what is in the plain text of scripture, posit that 1 Timothy 5:19 must be based on the prior given that the leadership of the biblical church be established according to the plain text of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and then provide my opinion of how that might play out functionally in the biblical church from the vantage point of the membership, the existing plurality of elders and prospective elders.
Are you honestly asking me to comment on what a hypothetical person might do in a hypothetical situation where some hypothetical church policies and polity that you have prescribed might play out? You would take that answer to be in some way a cogent and reasonable explanation of how to correctly interpret a clear biblical imperative?
Continued...
Continued...
ReplyDeleteI guess i'm just not sure what you're asking me to do. If you are asking me to look at the scripture verse and explain where I base what I read in 1 Timothy 5:19 then I have done that already, you may read my response again.
If you are trying to get me to answer to a hypothetical situation focused on what the rights of a supposed victim of a hypothetical situation where no one knows any of the facts (except that as you are in the special position of knowing the secret information, that the elder is already guilty) so that we can hypothetically agree that it is OK to disregard 1 Timothy 5:19 in light of all the hypothetical evidence just presented, i'm afraid I won't bite.
I will answer any serious question you ask, and clarify any of the statements i've made regarding what the text of scripture says. I'd be glad to do that as best I can. I do care about those who are wronged so there is no need in trying to paint me as someone who doesn't care about those who are abused because I refuse to answer to some hypothetical you present. I have addressed the concern for victims in what i've already written if you would care to re-read my previous response.
The simple question that has been asked here is:
Would you entertain an accusation brought against an elder by one witness?
You have answered yes. And given your reasons.
I have answered no. And given my reasons.
In my mind we are done here. However, as always, if I can further clarify my position on the text of scripture I will be glad to attempt to do so.
Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteThe simple question that has been asked here is:
Would you entertain an accusation brought against an elder by one witness?
You have answered yes. And given your reasons.
I have answered no. And given my reasons.
First off, that is NOT the question I asked. Why can't you answer or at least address the question I asked??
Secondly, THAT is at least closer to what I was looking for. Your answer is "No," then should the CHURCH ENTERTAIN the accusation. Earlier, you appeared to answer Yes, and then proceeded to act as if the answer was No. Do you understand my confusion?
To be clear, I was asking from the Victim's point of view in a situation (and it is NOT hypothetical; it happens in the real world with real "elders" and real victims in real churches) where someone has been abused. MY question was "Should they speak out about the abuse?" Your earlier answer was...
Let's see how I can answer this question so you can be satisfied. By all means speak up.
Am I to understand that you were being sarcastic in that answer?
It SEEMS your answer is now, "NO," or at least, that the CHURCH ought not entertain an accusation where there was no witnesses. But I'm not asking what the church should do. I'm asking what the VICTIM should do. Should they speak out about the abuse?
Let's take this one step at a time, if you don't mind, so I can be sure I'm understanding you.
1. A woman is raped in secret. Only she and her assailant know about it. (and for now, the assailant is just some guy, not a church member.)
2. Should that woman speak out about it?
3. To WHOM should she speak out about it? The police, to be sure, right? Her family? Her church family?
4. Okay, now adapt the situation: The woman is raped by another church member.
5. Should she speak out about it?
6. To the police, right? And her family? And her church?
7. Okay, now adapt the situation: The woman is raped by a church elder in an evangelical church.
8. SHOULD SHE SPEAK OUT ABOUT IT? (Leave aside the "in church" part, should she speak out about it at all if there were no witnesses?)
9. To WHOM should she speak out about it? The police? Her family? Her church family?
10. In THAT situation, what are you advising the church to do? Ignore the legal proceedings happening and the fact that a police investigation is going on?
These situations happen. They happened in the Bible, they happen in the real world today and sadly, they happen in our churches today. I am wondering what your opinion is and why you don't feel you can answer the question directly?
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteI have answered the question directly. I'll do it again.
Should victims speak up when they are abused. Yes.
Should members of a congregation accept an accusation against an elder when there are not at least two or three witnesses. No.
Thank you for being honest in your approach:
To be clear, I was asking from the Victim's point of view in a situation (and it is NOT hypothetical; it happens in the real world with real "elders" and real victims in real churches) where someone has been abused. .
You are considering the victims point of view. The text of concern 1 Timothy 5:19 deals with the response of members of a congregation for accusations brought against elders who meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-7.
Your situation is hypothetical, you wrote "Suppose the situation is that an elder has secretly made a pass (or, worst, sexually assaulted!) a woman or a child. There are no witnesses. You don't think that the victim should remain quiet in that situation, do you?" Nothing specific, a random and hypothetical situation.
You do not consider as relevant 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and the process of installing elders, even though it is directly linked to the text regarding elders. You do not consider the role of the membership as relevant even though they are the ones being addressed and being told in no uncertain terms not to accept accusations brought against the 1 Timothy 3:1-7 elders. It is another difference between us. In a text addressing elders and members in a biblical church, you choose to address the scripture from the standpoint of a hypothetical victim because there are cases of abuse in all denominations. Based on that analysis you find it self-evidently prudent to ignore the biblical imperative regarding the response of church members.
I hope that will clear things up at last. Either way, I am clear on your approach so I need no further clarification from you, I believe we are done here.
I am very glad that we agree that victims SHOULD speak up when abused, whoever does the abusing. I am still curious what that would look like to you in the church, though.
ReplyDeleteSay that the unthinkable happens and a child is abused by a church elder secretly. The child tells her parents, the parents get the police involved. The father goes to the church to tell them what his child is reporting and warning the elder to stay away from his daughter. Maybe it even gets on the news.
Does the church, in that case, remain silent and not talk about the issue?
I hope you understand my point: The teaching in the Bible is to get across the vital TRUTH that we ought not "convict" someone merely on an unsubstantiated witness. It is about protecting justice and the whole notion of innocent until proven guilty, I'd say. These are the TRUTHS involved in that teaching. The important thing is acting on the TRUTHS involved, not getting bogged down in the specifics.
IF, in trying to heed literally to the law, "do not entertain an accusation without a second witness," we tell people, "Well, just be quiet about it - it's a he said/she said thing and we ought not talk about it..." and IF harm/abuse was actually done, then THAT LITERAL approach to these words would undermine the vital TRUTH of protecting the innocent.
This is what I'm trying to get at by critiquing the "rule book" approach to Bible study. We need to work towards holding to God's TRUTHS, not wooden literal interpretations that, sometimes, may even UNDERMINE the Truth being taught. The Pharisees had this problem with their woodenly literal approach to the Sabbath and Jesus had to remind them "The Sabbath was made for humanity, not the other way around..."
The point I've been striving to make is all about holding firmly to and defending eternal Truths and not letting our cultural traditions and wooden interpretations usurp God's Truth.
God's Spirit is alive and speaking to us all. God's Word is written on our hearts. We can trust our judgment within reason. All biblical teachings, my friend.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteLet's back up again. I have spoken to several with this question and re-read the entire thread and feel there is one thing I have not clearly communicated that may be critical.
When I look at 1 Timothy 5:19 and read the text as it is written I am thinking of the word "entertain" (do not entertain an accusation against an elder) as it is defined in my dictionary. The greek word is paradechomai - from para (meaning: from beside) and dechomai (meaning: to receive by deliberate and ready reception of what is offered; of favorable reception of testimony and teaching). So my unwritted assumption in all of our conversation has been that 1 Timothy 5:19 is a principle as an imperative : Do not entertain (receive by deliberate and ready reception what is offered from beside) an accusation against an elder without two or three witnesses.
This means that if one were in a position of hearing an accusation of whatever reported activity (be it stealing, lying, gossiping, abuse, etc.) they should not receive it with ready reception.
All my comments relative to the elder and the responsibility of the congregations stands as written so any such instance should be quite slim.
With regard to any purported victim to any such sinful behavior, they can be heard and taking to the eldership. The elders are the leaders, overseeing the flock and are responsible as deemed by the congregation to handle matters before the body. There is a plurality so the accused elder can be left out of the proceedings if necessary and the remaining elders in the body look into the matter as they see fit.
Again, I am not for squelching a victim's cry when a legitimate abuse occurs. However, I hope you can appreciate my trying to stay away from a blanket acceptance of any and all accusations made by those without two or three witnesses and why it would be important for congregants to obey 1 Timothy 5:19 and not readily accept accusations for which they have no facts. In your hypotheticals you are loading the questions with a special knowledge that the elder is guilty. A member would not have that special knowledge, so 1 Timothy 5:19 has to be addressed based on the example of a reported abuse without knowing anything that had been done in secret.
I hope this will make clear what I am thinking in terms of acceptance of the accusation and answer to what action should could be taken if such an instance were to arise, as you have rightly stated they do. We must be careful, though, not to disregard a Scriptural imperative. We must think carefully about carrying out the organization of the church as in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 so that when we get to 1 Timothy 5:19 the background of biblical eldership and the solemnity of the position and process is maintained by prospective elders and the church body.
We both are concerned about victims and not silencing any voice of one harmed. Neither of us are for a "woodenly literal rule-book" approach to scripture. I would hope we could both see that since the Word is Truth that we cannot selectively select when we will or will not heed what is clear in Scripture.
Does that better explain my starting point, in terms of word definition? Knowing the definition of entertain, would you agree that we need to not disobey that imperative (since we can be strictly obedient to it and still be mindful of those who might be vicitmized without silencing them)? In other words, knowing this information would you still answer my question the same - Would you entertain an accusation against an elder by someone without at least two or three witnesses?