Church Authority and Hebrews 13:17

[Bob Hunter]

Ok, let's spend no more time talking about them. The point of this thread is to have a discussion about the principles of submission to the authority of the church as laid out biblically.

Really? I misunderstood the purpose of this thread. I thought you were posing a challenge to Manny Silva. My bad...

[Jon Twitchell]

Ok, let's spend no more time talking about them. The point of this thread is to have a discussion about the principles of submission to the authority of the church as laid out biblically.

Of course.

However, it would be easier to have a discussion about something if the opposing viewpoint would show up. Until they do, the best some of us can do is to attempt to wrap our heads around the other side of the argument and suppose how the discussion might go. Which inevitably leads to discussing what we think the people who hold that viewpoint might believe.

Anyway... you're right. I don't want NN to become a place where we talk about people who aren't here. There are plenty of places on the internet where that happens.

[Daniel Hamlin]

How deep does the rabbit hole go???

There is no end once you start down the rabbit hole of a conspiracy theory.

[Dan Henderson]

There is no end once you start down the rabbit hole of a conspiracy theory.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.

[Debi Peck]

Ok, let's spend no more time talking about them. The point of this thread is to have a discussion about the principles of submission to the authority of the church as laid out biblically.

You are right, Kevin, and I have edited my post accordingly. I appreciate you holding us accountable, and I apologize for my comments.

Debi

[Kevin Rector]

Dan, would you be interested in engaging my post #68 above?

[Kevin Rector]

Really? I misunderstood the purpose of this thread. I thought you were posing a challenge to Manny Silva. My bad...

I don't think you're bad

The point was to post a challenge to Manny in order to try and facilitate a conversation. Talking about people who are not here just seem counter-productive. Plus Dan is here, and he's been somewhat engaged in the question and so I'm hopeful that will lead to meaningful conversation. I feel that I've learned a lot from Dan in the short time that he's been here and I'm hoping that will continue.

[Abram Book]

Church discipline is a multifaceted issue with a number of gray areas, especially related to the offense actually being disciplined. For example, the Nazarene Church has a documented procedure for disciplining/monitoring/reinstating clergy caught committing adultery, but what about the church treasurer who skims funds or the trustee who refuses to pay his or her tithe? Beyond the basic guidelines set out in Hebrews 13:17 and a select few other Scriptures, there are few specifics we can turn to as far as how to address individual discipline issues. Sometimes we just need to evaluate the information that is there, discipline appropriately based on the information and hope and pray there is restitution in Christ.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.

Corollary: The Dr. Johnny Fever rule: If everyone's out to get you paranoid is just good thinking

[Bob Hunter]

I don't think you're bad

The point was to post a challenge to Manny in order to try and facilitate a conversation. Talking about people who are not here just seem counter-productive. Plus Dan is here, and he's been somewhat engaged in the question and so I'm hopeful that will lead to meaningful conversation. I feel that I've learned a lot from Dan in the short time that he's been here and I'm hoping that will continue.

Good point, but they are not completely absent. They read our stuff, as do many others that do not comment. I am always surprised to learn about what is read on NN and by whom. With that comes greater responsibility I suppose.

[Peggy Gray]

I am always surprised to learn about what is read on NN and by whom. With that comes greater responsibility I suppose.

Um, yeah. Which is why I make it a practice NOT to tell my non-believing friends/relatives about NazNet. Though it is "the website for members and friends of the Church of the Nazarene", some of the conversations reflect neither.

[Joshua Carpenter]

"...your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment." - James 5:12 (wondering where this passage fits into this thread? )

[Billy Cox]

Billy, you forgot something. The Bible is inerrant in each and every word, and doesn't contradict itself. So the challenge is much bigger to them, than it is to you.

I was hoping that Kevin had a better rationale for blind faith in church authority than the 'respect your elders' passage in Hebrews 13:17. It just seems like a rationale that work best for people under the age of 12.

...kind of like using 2 Timothy 3:16 as empirical proof that the Bible has authority.

[Billy Cox]

Per Matthew 18, if someone is a false teacher (sinner) you take your concerns to them privately. If they will not answer you take two or three witnesses (again privately). If they still will not listen you take it to the church. This is where the manual comes into play. For those who have voluntarily joined the Church of the Nazarene our mechanism for "taking it to the church" is to follow the procedures of the manual. When that is done, Matthew 18 tells us what to do when the person will not listen to the church - they are to be treated like a pagan or tax collector. However, Matthew 18, does not tell us what to do when the church does not agree with OUR accusations. If the church does not agree with out accusations then we have to look to some other source for biblical guidance. The best example is Hebrews 13:17 which tells us to submit to the leaders of the church. There are other passages that tell us to submit to "all earthly authority" etc, but for the sake of clarity I've stayed with just this one passage.

I suspect that the very process of asking the church to side with one party or another breaks the fellowship and makes submission impossible. I think it is reasonable to say that the 'losing' party will be treated like a pagan or tax collector, whether they are the accused or the accuser.

I'm not that familiar with Nazarene disciplinary procedures, but could you really see the denomination going along with some kind of formal inquiry or trial of sitting DSes, GSes, Nazarene college presidents or faculty? Heck no!! It would be the denomination on trial, not just the people targeted by the CNs. Be careful what you wish for.

With no ecclesiastical remedy available, the CNs take their grievances directly to the people.

[Bob Hunter]

With no ecclesiastical remedy available, the CNs take their grievances directly to the people.

Which degenerates into a populist free-for-all. This is exactly why we have orderly Assemblies where elections are held and business sessions are conducted. I don't like sitting through long business sessions at all. Most of it just seems pointless to me. But I realize that some things in life must be endured (like pastor's reports). The CN's have co-opted the process to their own divisive ends. They believe their cause is so important that it transcends the normal processes and procedures. As stated earlier, they believe they are entitled to be the exception to the rule.

[Michael Flowers]

I was hoping that Kevin had a better rationale for blind faith in church authority than the 'respect your elders' passage in Hebrews 13:17. It just seems like a rationale that work best for people under the age of 12.

...kind of like using 2 Timothy 3:16 as empirical proof that the Bible has authority.

Could someone point to a translation that says this verse is talking about "respect our elders"? I can't find one. Every version that I have checked (via biblegateway) says "obey your leaders". This isn't about blind faith in authority. This is about having faith that God is in control of those whom He has allowed to hold those positions of authority.

Also, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not refer to the Bible but rather to the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament). So yes, that passage should not be used to prove the authority of the Bible. It is not proof of its absolute innerancy. It is the acknowledgement that the actions of God as revealed in Scripture are useful (the most useful) in teaching people about matters of faith and their relationship with God. No other work is as authoritative as the Scripture (OT and NT) on how we must come to God.

[Dan Henderson]

Dan, would you be interested in engaging my post #68 above?

I can't engage completely without alluding to things that I know about personally. I think the best way to keep a secret is to not let people know you have a secret.

I will try to engage a little by stating that disagreement also dies not imply lack of submission. Do this for me and I will engage with you. Compare and contrast the "Oath of office" taken by US military officers (make sure you look at the one for officers. Compare it to the "Oath of office" taken by officers of the Third Reich. You may initially ask me What does that have to do with this question. Howerver, unless you understand the key differences in those two oaths, you and I have no common ground and any point I would try to make would fall on deaf ears.

[Michael Flowers]

I can't engage completely without alluding to things that I know about personally. I think the best way to keep a secret is to not let people know you have a secret.

I will try to engage a little by stating that disagreement also dies not imply lack of submission. Do this for me and I will engage with you. Compare and contrast the "Oath of office" taken by US military officers (make sure you look at the one for officers. Compare it to the "Oath of office" taken by officers of the Third Reich. You may initially ask me What does that have to do with this question. Howerver, unless you understand the key differences in those two oaths, you and I have no common ground and any point I would try to make would fall on deaf ears.

US Military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Oath_of_Office
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Third Reich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_oath
"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."

Thought I would share this for any who are interested but don't know where to look. The key point of difference I see is the "unconditional obedience" referenced in the Hitler oath.

[Dan Henderson]

US Military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Oath_of_Office
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Third Reich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_oath
"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."

Thought I would share this for any who are interested but don't know where to look. The key point of difference I see is the "unconditional obedience" referenced in the Hitler oath.

Very close, one of the things I wanted you to see is not just the unconditional obedience but to whom the obedience is promised. I want, among other things for you to compare the object of allegience (to whom or what the allegience is being given)

[Michael Flowers]

Very close, one of the things I wanted you to see is not just the unconditional obedience but to whom the obedience is promised. I want, among other things for you to compare the object of allegience (to whom or what the allegience is being given)

Right, I was just pointing out the part that I thought people might be prone to miss/overlook. The oath being given specifically to Hitler stood out instantly to me (as does the Constitution in the US oath). God is present in both, but he is not the recipient of the oath in either one.

[Wilson Deaton]

The point of this thread is to have a discussion about the principles of submission to the authority of the church as laid out biblically.

I'd like to address two separate questions.

Question 1: To submit or not to submit?

I believe the Bibical principle is: Submit to those in authority BUT obey God rather than men (when the two conflict).

If one believes the Church of the Nazarene is not being contrary to God's will then one must submit.
If one believes the Church of the Nazarene is being contrary to God's will then one must not submit.

Thus, I think that we can't, unfortunately, be objective. For example, because of my particular beliefs it is natural and easy for me to think the CNs ought to submit to the Nazarene authorities. At the same time, I can applaud Martin Luther for refusing to submit.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not we see a conflict between the authorities and God.


Question 2: If one cannot in good conscience submit (because one sees a conflict between submitting and obeying God), what should one do?

I believe that because we live in a culture in which denominational affiliation is voluntary and in which there are choices, that one should simply withdraw affiliation and move on (rather than trying to overthrow said authorities). [ANALOGOUS to Jesus talking about shaking the dust off rather than talking about mounting a flanking assault...]

Wilson

[Billy Cox]

Which degenerates into a populist free-for-all. This is exactly why we have orderly Assemblies where elections are held and business sessions are conducted. I don't like sitting through long business sessions at all. Most of it just seems pointless to me. But I realize that some things in life must be endured (like pastor's reports). The CN's have co-opted the process to their own divisive ends. They believe their cause is so important that it transcends the normal processes and procedures. As stated earlier, they believe they are entitled to be the exception to the rule.

Do you really believe that any of the 'normal processes and procedures' would give them a fair hearing? If one is convinced (as the CNs are) that the foxes are guarding the denominational henhouse, and the protocols set forth in the Manual are tantamount to asking the foxes for their objective opinion on whether to continue their practice of guarding the hen house, going directly to the people would be completely appropriate, and with a high degree of moral urgency.

Now that I have channeled the CNs, I probably need to shower or take a strong laxative. My intent here is not to agree with the CNs, but to point out that all these remedies in the Manual are designed to rid the denomination of people like the CNs, not for people to hold denominational leaders 'accountable'. One should not be suprised when they don't want to play along.

I suppose that in the big picture

[Bob Hunter]

Do you really believe that any of the 'normal processes and procedures' would give them a fair hearing? If one is convinced (as the CNs are) that the foxes are guarding the denominational henhouse, and the protocols set forth in the Manual are tantamount to asking the foxes for their objective opinion on whether to continue their practice of guarding the hen house, going directly to the people would be completely appropriate, and with a high degree of moral urgency.

Now that I have channeled the CNs, I probably need to shower or take a strong laxative. My intent here is not to agree with the CNs, but to point out that all these remedies in the Manual are designed to rid the denomination of people like the CNs, not for people to hold denominational leaders 'accountable'. One should not be suprised when they don't want to play along.

I suppose that in the big picture

Let me just say this, I've sat through many of Assembly debates. I've personally attended two GA's and sat through numerous board meetings where various points of view were expressed. I sometimes feel we spend tooooooo much time deliberating and not enough time actually implementing matters of decision. I can remember several lively debates, open calls for accountability and statements of opposition. We do have a mechanism in place for dissension. But once we call for "Question" and the majority has spoken, then it is time to move on until the matter is opened again. The CNs are trying to open closed matters on the issue of Biblical innerancy. That issue has been decided long ago. They can protest all they want, but I doubt they will get the proper committee to propose it before an Assembly. But then, I'm of the belief that this campaign is really not about the issues that are currently being discussed. I'm working with another construct altogether.

[Billy Cox]

Very close, one of the things I wanted you to see is not just the unconditional obedience but to whom the obedience is promised. I want, among other things for you to compare the object of allegience (to whom or what the allegience is being given)

Yes, an appeal at this point to Hebrews 13:17 is equivalent to a corrupt general telling his subordinates that they salute the uniform, not the man.

[Dan Henderson]

Also, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not refer to the Bible but rather to the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament). So yes, that passage should not be used to prove the authority of the Bible.

You might want to re-state or even delete this post. I don't think you meant to say this.

[Michael Flowers]

You might want to re-state or even delete this post. I don't think you meant to say this.

No, that is exactly what I meant to say. The Bible had not been composed or even come to be regarded as "Holy Scripture" at the time of the writing of 2 Timothy. I believe that all of our Bible is divinely inspired, is authoritative for teaching and rebuking and training in righteousness. However, I do not believe that we should use that verse as a proof text. That would definitely be going against authorial intent.

Look at the context of the verse after all (vv 14-15): "But as for you (Timothy), continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (NIV) Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Paul is here validating continued use of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament).

"It was the glory of the Jews that their children from their earliest days were trained in the law. They claimed that their children learned the law even from their swaddling clothes and drank it in with their mother's milk. They claimed that the law was so imprinted on the heart and mind of a Jewish child that he would sooner forget his own name than he would forget it. So from his earliest childhood Timothy had known the sacred writings. We must remember that the scripture of which Paul is writing is the Old Testament; as yet the New Testament had not come into being. If what he claims for scripture is true of the Old Testament, how much truer it is of the still more precious words of the New." (William Barclay, Daily Study Bible Series) [FYI, I looked this up after I wrote the above.]

This passage does speak to the authority of Scripture, but it should not be used as a proof text of a Bible canon that was not set down for another few hundred years.

[Benjamin Burch]

No, that is exactly what I meant to say. The Bible had not been composed or even come to be regarded as "Holy Scripture" at the time of the writing of 2 Timothy. I believe that all of our Bible is divinely inspired, is authoritative for teaching and rebuking and training in righteousness. However, I do not believe that we should use that verse as a proof text. That would definitely be going against authorial intent.

Look at the context of the verse after all (vv 14-15): "But as for you (Timothy), continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (NIV) Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Paul is here validating continued use of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament).

"It was the glory of the Jews that their children from their earliest days were trained in the law. They claimed that their children learned the law even from their swaddling clothes and drank it in with their mother's milk. They claimed that the law was so imprinted on the heart and mind of a Jewish child that he would sooner forget his own name than he would forget it. So from his earliest childhood Timothy had known the sacred writings. We must remember that the scripture of which Paul is writing is the Old Testament; as yet the New Testament had not come into being. If what he claims for scripture is true of the Old Testament, how much truer it is of the still more precious words of the New." (William Barclay, Daily Study Bible Series) [FYI, I looked this up after I wrote the above.]

This passage does speak to the authority of Scripture, but it should not be used as a proof text of a Bible canon that was not set down for another few hundred years.

So you are accepting late first, early second century pseudo-Pauline authorship!? I couldn't agree more!

But seriously, excellent post.

[Jon Twitchell]

You might want to re-state or even delete this post. I don't think you meant to say this.

First and foremost, you have to read scripture in the context of how the author and original readers understood it. Since there were no New Testament "scriptures" when Paul wrote this, he can only be referring to the Hebrew Scriptures... and that can only be how Timothy (and other original readers) understood the text.

This verse is as much about the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures as it is about a particular view of inspiration.

[Jon Twitchell]

Oh... and while we're on the topic... just in case anyone is unclear or needs me to state this for the record.

Contrary to Tim Wirth's underhanded insinuation on facebook...

I fully believe in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[Hans Deventer]

Oh... and while we're on the topic... just in case anyone is unclear or needs me to state this for the record.

Contrary to Tim Wirth's underhanded insinuation on facebook...

I fully believe in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Jon, that's a no brainer.

[Hans Deventer]

First and foremost, you have to read scripture in the context of how the author and original readers understood it. Since there were no New Testament "scriptures" when Paul wrote this, he can only be referring to the Hebrew Scriptures... and that can only be how Timothy (and other original readers) understood the text.

This verse is as much about the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures as it is about a particular view of inspiration.

It might depend on the dating of the letter to Timothy. If it's indeed written by Paul, I would agree with you. If a later date and authorship would be the case, then it might be argued that the statement is in line with 2 Peter 3:16 and it would also deal with at least some of the NT books.

2 Peter 3:16
He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

[Jon Twitchell]

It might depend on the dating of the letter to Timothy. If it's indeed written by Paul, I would agree with you. If a later date and authorship would be the case, then it might be argued that the statement is in line with 2 Peter 3:16 and it would also deal with at least some of the NT books.

2 Peter 3:16
He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Sure. But in no way did Paul (or a pseudo-Pauline author) mean "66 Canonical books of scripture are God-breathed..."

Which was, I suspect, the primary point that led us down this road.

[Hans Deventer]

Sure. But in now way did Paul (or a pseudo-Pauline author) mean "66 Canonical books of scripture are God-breathed..."

Which was, I suspect, the primary point that led us down this road.

Agreed. I just found it interesting that the more scripture gets included if you accept a later date and a non-Pauline authorship, which is usually not a road that a conservative approach would like to take.

[Michael Flowers]

Sure. But in no way did Paul (or a pseudo-Pauline author) mean "66 Canonical books of scripture are God-breathed..."

Which was, I suspect, the primary point that led us down this road.

That was indeed where I was going with that.

[Daniel Hamlin]

Very close, one of the things I wanted you to see is not just the unconditional obedience but to whom the obedience is promised. I want, among other things for you to compare the object of allegience (to whom or what the allegience is being given)

This actually mirrors the problem with inerrancy, though.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,

Because we still have to interpret the Constitution and authorial intent. What if my understanding of the Constitution is different than yours? We are just over 200 years from when it was originally written, we are essentially within the same culture as the writers, and yet we still battle over the meaning of various parts of the Constitution. Yet we are supposed to deduce the "plain meaning" of Scripture which was written thousands of years ago in a culture completely different than our own.

[Jim Chabot]

This actually mirrors the problem with inerrancy, though.



Because we still have to interpret the Constitution and authorial intent. What if my understanding of the Constitution is different than yours? We are just over 200 years from when it was originally written, we are essentially within the same culture as the writers, and yet we still battle over the meaning of various parts of the Constitution. Yet we are supposed to deduce the "plain meaning" of Scripture which was written thousands of years ago in a culture completely different than our own.

Not to head way down a rabbit trail and a long discussion on interpretation of the constitution. But we really don't argue over the meanings in a real sense. The discussion is more of a con, where folks who want things a certain way look to find often specious means to connect with certain clauses. Just a for example, the commerce clause has been incredibly misused over the past 30 years or so, my guess is that those who have manipulated this to their advantage would admit to this misuse when candidly speaking with their like minded contemporaries.

Regarding the plain meaning of scripture. We do believe that the scriptures innerantly speak to everything concerning our salvation. In other words, the plain reading is just fine. I find it extremely rare the instances where the cultural context honestly challenges the plain reading, in fact I can't think of an instance off the top of my head. Generally I find that the cultural context and history adds richness to the text as opposed to a new meaning. Chalk it up to the miracle that we call scripture, just as it was superintended it is also preserved.

[Jim Chabot]

Agreed. I just found it interesting that the more scripture gets included if you accept a later date and a non-Pauline authorship, which is usually not a road that a conservative approach would like to take.

Not that I ascribe to the pseudo Pauline theories, but for the sake of the argument, nothing changes. Without an established Canon, no reference may be made to one as this would be yet future.

[Hans Deventer]

Not that I ascribe to the pseudo Pauline theories, but for the sake of the argument, nothing changes. Without an established Canon, no reference may be made to one as this would be yet future.

Sure. So there are 2 situations:
A) the letter is from Paul, in which case 2 Tim 3:16 only refers to the Tenach, or
B) the letter is from a later date, in which case, like 2 Peter, it might also refer to parts of the NT already established and recognized as Scripture.
In neither case can it possibly refer to the canon as we know it today.

[Michael Flowers]

Sure. So there are 2 situations:
A) the letter is from Paul, in which case 2 Tim 3:16 only refers to the Tenach, or
B) the letter is from a later date, in which case, like 2 Peter, it might also refer to parts of the NT already established and recognized as Scripture.
In neither case can it possibly refer to the canon as we know it today.

I can agree with that as the councils had not yet met to decide upon what would be considered "Holy Scripture". It took a couple hundred years of councils before an official, standardized canon was put into effect (and even after that men like Martin Luther rejected certain books like James that were included).

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Sure. So there are 2 situations:
A) the letter is from Paul, in which case 2 Tim 3:16 only refers to the Tenach, or
B) the letter is from a later date, in which case, like 2 Peter, it might also refer to parts of the NT already established and recognized as Scripture.
In neither case can it possibly refer to the canon as we know it today.

I think there's a middle road - Paul thought he was referring to only our O.T., but writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he said more than he knew and the Spirit intended for his words to refer to all that which the Church would ultimately affirm as Scripture.