Early Church Leadership?

Hi Gregclearly the word apostle and pastor is used to catergorize people with certain giftings. And if men called people "Apostles" and also "Prophets" then I don't see why they wouldn't call people as titles "evangelists, pastors or teachers".My whole point is that they did not 'call people'...apostles or prophets. I may describe you as a webmaster but I don't call you that. I want to distinguish between descriptions and titles. There is no biblical evidence that 'terms' such as apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; were ever used as 'offices' or 'courtesy titles'. The words draw attention to function not an authority position in a local church.I love the way in which Peter refers to Paul;our beloved brother Paul [2Pet 3:15]. This tells us who Paul was in Peter's affections, but gives no courtesy title.I personally disapprove of all formal titles in the Christian community and do not use them. eg Rev, Dr, Pastor, Evangelist, Saint!!. To be consistent which should use all or none. As it is unlikely that I shall ever be addressed as Saint Ron I request that other descriptions be omitted too. ;-) I allow others freedom of conscience and hope they will do the same for me.

Ron:I wanted to make sure I understand what you are saying here. The way I understand what you are saying is that God did give the gift of these offices but they do not need to be verbally expressed. Would you also say that they don't even necessarily need to be known other than by the one to whom the gift is given.Curious.Mike

I wanted to make sure I understand what you are saying here. The way I understand what you are saying is that God did give the gift of these offices but they do not need to be verbally expressed. Would you also say that they don't even necessarily need to be known other than by the one to whom the gift is given.Hi MikeEven the concept of 'office' has no biblical basis. The word 'office' in the sense of an official position is used 46 times in the KJV version and NEVER in the originals. The words translated 'office' always speak of function not status.The KJV is my Bible of choice but it has some latent problems and the whole issue of spiritual authority is one of its greatest problems. Here is an example; Take heede therefore vnto your selues, and to all the flocke, whereof the holy Ghost hath made you Ouerseers, to feede the Church of God, which hee hath purchased with that his owne blood. (Act 20:28 GB - the Geneva Bible was predominantly Tyndales Translation)The KJV translators of 1611 altered this vital verse; Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Act 20:28 KJV)Can you see the difference in emphasis between 'the church whereof the Holy Spirit has made you overseers' and 'the church over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers'. The word that the 1611 translators translated 'over' is the Greek preposition meaning 'within'. The original says that the elders are within the church, the KJV says elders are over the church.This slanting of the text towards the 'status quo' is through much of the KJV. It has a historical background in English history and King James' translators built 'hierarchy' into their translation. They did not want to encourage egalitarianism of any kind; ultimately it means the death of any monarchy.The idea of a hierarchy (priestly pecking order) is not the only idea that the translators infected the KJV with. What I was saying is that the use of words like 'pastor' 'apostle' 'evangelist' as a title or official position has no basis in the Bible. And that we would get a better understanding of the nature of spiritual authority if we did not so use them.Hope that is a little more clear.

Yes. Ok now we are on the same page definetly I see where you are coming from and I don't totally agree because I believe after reading these scriptures the terms at least (elder, apostle) where used as descriptive titles.• Paul is refered to by Peter as 'beloved brother' as a title.Hi webmaster Greg!!!were getting closer at any rate...my view is that they are not titles at all, but descriptions/functions. ;-) Why would I give you a title. You are Greg; webmaster is what you do. I know that the world used this pattern of speech as with President George W Bush, or Vice President Chaney, but I understand that Mrs Bush calls him Bushie; she know what he does.It was important in Paul's letters to make it plain that he was not writing in a private capacity as a 'beloved brother' but as an emissary of God with divine authority; an apostle. But that does not mean he was introduced in the meeting as Apostle Paul; he was 'beloved brother'- not a title a relationship. We are to give honour to whom honour is due, but that does not mean, that in the church, we have to use honorary titles to do so.

Ephesians 4:11-12 - And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:Ron, I like what you said. "Why would I give you a title. You are Greg; webmaster is what you do."If verse 12 in Ephesians 4 is not being fulfilled then the doing is not been done and therefore some have apparently appointed themselves to these positions/titles.Thank you both for this thread. I have gained a lot in just a few minutes.Mike

perhaps apostle greg has a nicer ring to itThe people who would give it to you would want to put the ring through your nose. It is all about control.But surely you must conceed that in the scriptures the word 'apostle' is used to distinguish and classify people. Like if I came into the early church room with all the 'apostle' I might welcome them by saying 'greeting apostles in the Lord Jesus!' I do think there is a place to use this sort of 'titling' and I don't think it should be dis-allowed for the scriptures seem to feeling use it on occasion. Another example would be addressing 'saints in the Lord' etc.There is sometimes a quaint formality among the colonies that is very attractive. :-D Would you really say 'hi apostles, hi prophets, hi evangelists, hi shepherds and teachers'? Is this how you will greet them in heaven? When I get the chance I am not going to say 'greeting Apostle Paul', I'm going to give him a great bear hug and say 'thank you, beloved brother'.

That wasn't what I asked even though that might be a good personal perference, does the scriptures or the early church use the word "apostle" as a title for some people at some times and scenario's.I want to be sure we are not talking past each other here. Can you give me a quotation where the word 'apostle' is used as a title in the manner of 'president Bush'But I would ask also were the 'saints' that treated the 'Apostle' Paul like an angel showing personal preference to him over others? YES what that sinful or wrong? NO because I would feel inclined to pluck out my eyes for Paul but not for Ron even though I love Ron dearly speaks something to the esteem and authority spiritually given to the 'Apostle' Paul. As Paul said you don't have many fathers in the faith.Surely this was not because they esteemed his spiritual authority but because they loved him. I know people for whom I would give my eyes who have no spiritual status.Did you get to read this weeks Abraham, My Friend? They loved this man. He had poured out his life for them and now he was reaping what he had sown. And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him, Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship.(Act 20:37-38 KJV)Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.(Act 21:13 KJV)This kind of behaviour was not caused by their esteem for Paul or for the spiritual authority given to him, it was because they loved him....our be-love-d brother Paul.

As in my post on the first page of this thread with all the scriptures: "Paul, an Apostle"All the salutations from the beginning of the epistles are the equivalent to our letter endings. As these documents were originally scrolls it was the normal pattern to place them at the beginning, otherwise the reader would have had to unroll the whole scroll to find out who was writing to him. If you received a letter you would almost certainly turn to the last page to see where it came from. Consequently these are simple self introductions. In the way that you might sign yourself;Greg GordonWebmaster; Sermonindex.That tells me who you are, but it's not your title. Let's illustrate from the present age. You know those little drop down boxes where you have to chooseMrMrsMissMssDr...my point is 'Apostle' would never have been in a drop down box, nor evangelist, not prophet, nor shepherd/teacher. They were not titles, nor handles, just explanatory descriptions.For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (Rom 11:13 KJV) This is our beloved KJV again. See the focus on 'office'. Here is the ASV But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; (Rom 11:13 ASV) and here is Youngs Literal (even better): For to you I speak--to the nations--inasmuch as I am indeed an apostle of nations, my ministration I do glorify; (Rom 11:13 YLT)You may notice too that the ASV and Youngs correctly translate 'an apostle' rather than 'the apostle'. 'The apostle' could conceivably be a specific role like 'the pope' or 'the president' but 'an apostle' leaves the door open to be 'one of many'.

Great discussion, I like it. I just wanted to add something. Perhaps it's obvious, but anyway...Concerning all these titles that we are so fond of using in our days, isn't that because we always tend to associate a person with what he is doing?I mean, if you are introduced to a new person somewhere, you (speaking generally here) always ask: "So, what do you do (for a living)?" In this modern world, to a very large extent, we are what we do. In the Bible, people are often identified as being "the son of". Like "Joshua, son of Nun" and "Caleb, son of Jephunneh". We, on the other hand, have our true identity in Christ and that gives us a new perspective of who we are to each other.I believe that this tendency to add titles to everything and everyone may have a lot to do with us still thinking in a "worldly" way, if you see what I mean.Just my thoughts on the subject, make of it what you will. :-)/Rikard

Concerning all these titles that we are so fond of using in our days, isn't that because we always tend to associate a person with what he is doing?Hi rikiI think you are right. At one point in my life I was the manager of an 'Executive Job Club'. These were senior management folks, out of work and completely disorientated. Their whole lives had been defined by their job titles and when the job title was lost they had no identity.

Riki, your post is spot on reference"So, what do you do (for a living)?" In this modern world, to a very large extent, we are what we do.I think this applies to men.What does anone else think?Also, how can we overcome these sort of barriers in the church :-)

How about a little tour of terms used to describe God's servants in the Bible?The New Testament terms all have a slightly derogatory derivation. Here's an example. An under-rower. minister hupEretEs Strongs 5257# Mt 5:25,26:58 Mr 14:54,65 Lu 1:2,4:20 Joh 7:32,45-46,18:3,12,18# Joh 18:22,36,19:6 Ac 5:22,26,13:5,26:16 1Co 4:1ὑπηρέτηςhupēretēsThayer Definition:1) servant1a) an underrower, subordinate rower1b) any one who serves with hands: a servant1b1) in the NT of the officers and attendants of magistrates as - of the officer who executes penalties1b2) of the attendants of a king, servants, retinue, the soldiers of a king, of the attendant of a synagogue1b3) of any one ministering or rendering service1c) any one who aids another in any work1c1) an assistant1c2) of the preacher of the gospelThe trireme was a powerful Greek fighting ship. Its specifications are impressive. * Overall length: 37 metres (121 feet) * Overall beam: 5.5 metres (18 feet) * 170 oarsmen in 3 files on each side: top file 31, middle and bottom 27 each * Oarsmen spaced at 2 cubits (0.888 metres/2 feet 9 inches) * One man per oar * Oar length 4.2m (13 feet 8”) and 4.0m (13 feet) - short oars at ends of ship * Speed: able to cover 184 sea miles at about 7.5 knots without stopping Note the fact that there were three files of rowers. Rowers were usually slaves and the most expendable were put on the bottom file. In the event of the ship being badly damaged or sinking, these men chained to their oars, were the first to die. They never got any medals or laurel wreaths, they were happy just to survive. They were known as 'under-rowers' - huperEtEs. It's the word used to describe Paul's career path!! But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister (huperEtEs) and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; (Act 26:16 KJV) Do you still want to be an apostle?The word came to mean someone who carried the baggage for a man at arms. Those who attended a senior officer to serve him. In the British army this would he would have been a called a 'batman'; the lowest of the low. It's the word used to describe John Mark's role in 'carrying the bags' of Barnabas and Paul.And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister (huperEtEs). (Act 13:5 KJV) Do you still want to be a minister?Later still it came to refer to someone in a position of delegated authority. So it moved 'up-market'. But never lost its prefix 'uper' meaning 'under'. It was always a man 'under' the authority of another. Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers (huperEtEs) of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. (1Co 4:1 KJV)And yet I somehow feel that Paul never forgot its origin.

So what place does this have in the "contemporary" church, where somebody is appointed over an entire congregation, or over a specific ministry within that congregation (e.g. Sunday school director)?

I agree with jim,where do we go from here?It seems that we are to live with these titles in the church,even after so many centuries of it being so.OR NOT...? :-)