Conditional Submission to Elders?

[christianyouth]

I was having a discussion with a friend yesterday, who quoted to me the verse, "Obey them that have the rule over you." I notice that in this passage, there is no qualifier that points toward conditionality. This verse seems to indicate unconditional submission to elders. In fact, as far as I can tell, there are no verses that point toward conditional submission to elders.

But why is it then that we, as Protestants first, and as church goers second, believe that obedience to elders is conditional? As Protestants, the Reformation would be an example of conditional obedience to the existing Church structure. And as church goers, it's evidenced in our desire to leave a church that does not agree with the Scripture(which many times means our own interpretation of scripture).

I think there is a large burden of proof on those who say that unconditional submission to elders, or to the wider authority of the church, is wrong.

In Christ,
- Andy

 

[TimV]

I was having a discussion with a friend yesterday, who quoted to me the verse, "Obey them that have the rule over you." I notice that in this passage, there is no qualifier that points toward conditionality. This verse seems to indicate unconditional submission to elders. In fact, as far as I can tell, there are no verses that point toward conditional submission to elders.

From 1 Tim. 5

19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

Conditionality is built in to the whole system in confessional Reformed churches as well as other orthodox churches. Andy, I see you go to an independent Baptist church, and I know some have no checks and balances in place against Elders abusing their positions, but many, if not most, do have those checks in place in their church constitutions.

In my denomination, the OPC, if the Elders were to say that they've accepted a homosexual into membership and I can't complain about it, I could take them to court within our denomination, and I would win. I am no means under any obligation to unconditionally obey them. The concept is that they are under authority as well.

Is your friend a member of your church? You may want to get a copy of his/your church constitution, and I think that there is a likelihood that conditional obedience is built into his/your church constitution.

Regards
Tim

 

[beej6]

Which verse is that one?

As a general principle, churches and elders may err if they do not follow Christ. So one example of not 'obeying them that have the rule over you' is if 'them' have become ungodly. I see no warrant to obey ungodly men over Christ. This of course is not to be taken lightly in either direction, not by elders nor by their flock.

 

[toddpedlar]

What conditionality are you speaking of, though? What conditions do you believe pertain when deciding whether one is bound to obey or not? I see nowhere in Scripture that says a command from one who is rightly in authority over you, if legitimate, can be disobeyed without sin. Nowhere is there anything that says you may decide that a leader who is lawfully in authority over you (elder or President) is ungodly and therefore his orders disobeyable.

And to BJ - one is NEVER to obey ANY man, godly OR ungodly, if it means disobeying Christ.

 

[VictorBravo]

What conditionality are you speaking of, though? What conditions do you believe pertain when deciding whether one is bound to obey or not? I see nowhere in Scripture that says a command from one who is rightly in authority over you, if legitimate, can be disobeyed without sin. Nowhere is there anything that says you may decide that a leader who is lawfully in authority over you (elder or President) is ungodly and therefore his orders disobeyable.

And to BJ - one is NEVER to obey ANY man, godly OR ungodly, if it means disobeying Christ.

I see the conditionality built into the idea of what is authority and what is "lawfull."

Using the President as an example, he has legal authority over me in a limited sense. He has absolutely no authority in other senses. I would disobey an order of his, in perfectly good conscience, if it were outside of his authority.

As a silly example, perhaps, if the President (or an elder for that matter) ordered me to paint my bathroom pink and eat fried mush every morning, I'd feel free to disregard the orders because they are clearly out of the scope of their authority. It wouldn't be a matter of sin, as far as I can tell, because they are not in authority in those issues.

 

[toddpedlar]

Precisely my point, Vic - the conditionality is not a condition based on PERSON but on the commands themselves - and this conditionality always holds, regardless of the leadership position held above the individual.

Your silly example is also pertinent - authority has a scope.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I posted this before in the politics forum and it is equally applicable, I think, to ecclesiastical authority.

John Cotton, An Exposition Upon the Thirteenth Chapter of the Revelation:

This may serve to teach us the danger of allowing to any mortal man an inordinate measure of power to speak great things: to allow to any man uncontrollableness of speech; you see the desperate danger of it.

Let all the world learn to give mortal men no greater power than they are content they shall use -- for use it they will. And unless they be better taught of God, they will use it ever and anon: it may be, make it the passage of their proceeding to speak what they will. And they that have liberty to speak great things, you will find it to be true, they will speak great blasphemies. No man would think what desperate deceit and wickedness there is in the hearts of men. And that was the reason why the beast did speak such great things; he might speak and nobody might control him: "What," saith the Lord (in Jer. 3. 5), "thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldst." If a church or head of a church could have done worse, he would have done it. This is one of the strains of nature: it affects boundless liberty, and to run to the utmost extent. Whatever power he hath received, he hath a corrupt nature that will improve it in one thing or other; if he have liberty, he will think why may he not use it?

Set up the Pope as Lord Paramount over kings and princes, and they shall know that he hath power over them; he will take liberty to depose one and set up another. Give him power to make laws, and he will approve and disapprove as he list: what he approves is canonical, what he disapproves is rejected. Give him that power, and he will so order it at length, he will make such a state of religion, that he that so lives and dies shall never be saved; and all this springs from the vast power that is given to him and from the deep depravation of nature. He will open his mouth: "His tongue is his own, who is Lord over him" (Psal. 12. 3, 4).

It is therefore most wholesome for magistrates and officers in church and commonwealth never to affect more liberty and authority than will do them good, and the people good: for whatever transcendent power is given will certainly overrun those that give it and those that receive it. There is a strain in a man's heart that will sometime or other run out to excess, unless the Lord restrain it; but it is not good to venture it.

It is necessary, therefore, that all power that is on earth be limited, church-power or other. If there be power given to speak great things, then look for great blasphemies, look for a licentious abuse of it. It is counted a matter of danger to the state to limit perogatives; but it is a further danger not to have them limited. A prince himself cannot tell where he will confine himself, nor can the people tell; but if he have liberty to speak great things, then he will make and unmake, say and unsay, and undertake such things as are neither for his own honor nor for the safety of the state.

It is therefore fit for every man to be studious of the bounds which the Lord hath set: and for the people, in whom fundamentally all power lies, to give as much power as God in His word gives to men. And it is meet that magistrates in the commonwealth, and so officers in churches, should desire to know the utmost bounds of their own power, and it is safe for both. All intrenchment upon the bounds which God hath not given, they are not enlargements, but burdens and snares; they will certainly lead the spirit of a man out of his way, sooner or later.

It is wholesome and safe to be dealt withal as God deals with the vast sea: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but there shalt thou stay thy proud waves." And therefore if they be but banks of simple sand, they will be good enough to check the vast, roaring sea. And so for imperial monarchies: it is safe to know how far their power extends; and then if it be but banks of sand, which is most slippery, it will serve as well as any brazen wall. If you pinch the sea of its liberty, though it be walls of stone or brass, it will beat them down. So it is with magistrates: stint them where God hath not stinted them, and if they were walls of brass, they would beat them down, and it is meet they should; but give them the liberty God allows, and if it be but a wall of sand it will keep them.

As this liquid air in which we breathe, God hath set it for the waters of the clouds to the earth; it is a firmament, it is the clouds, yet it stands firm enough; because it keeps the climate where they are, it shall stand like walls of brass. So let there be due bounds set -- and I may apply it to families: it is good for the wife to acknowledge all power and authority to the husband, and for the husband to acknowledge honor to the wife; but still give them that which God hath given them, and no more nor less. Give them the full latitude that God hath given, else you will find you dig pits, and lay snares, and cumber their spirits, if you give them less; there is never peace where full liberty is not given, nor ever stable peace where more than full liberty is granted. Let them be duly observed, and give men no more liberty than God doth, nor women, for they will abuse it. The devil will draw them, and God's providence lead them thereunto; therefore give them no more than God gives.

And so for children and servants, for any others you are to deal with: give them the liberty and authority you would have them use, and beyond that stretch not the tether; it will not tend to their good nor yours. And also, from hence gather and go home with this meditation: that certainly here is this distemper in our natures, that we cannot tell how to use liberty, but we shall very readily corrupt ourselves. Oh, the bottomless depth of sandy earth! of a corrupt spirit, that breaks over all bounds, and loves inordinate vastness! That is it we ought to be careful of.

 

[Scott1]

christianyouth
Puritanboard Junior

But why is it then that we, as Protestants first, and as church goers second, believe that obedience to elders is conditional? As Protestants, the Reformation would be an example of conditional obedience to the existing Church structure.

If I'm understanding you, it seems like you are making the opposite case here by saying Protestants (protesting) disobeyed their authority (the church) and separated themselves from her discipline. This was for the right reasons (obeying Scripture) and I realize you agree with that but their obedience was conditional (to ecclesiastical authority).

However, the Westminster Confession recognizes that our church authority (humanly speaking) can fail:

IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]

I think also we can easily establish the right to appeal so that one who doesn't submit to, for example, a Session, can appeal to a Presbytery, or even a General Assembly.

So, it's never absolute, God is ultimately the only absolute even though he places (imperfect) authorities over us.

 

[jwithnell]

Authority comes from God and is bound by his law. As long as an elder is consistent with God's word, his authority must be respected. Interestingly, Luther was acting within his authority both as someone ordained by the church and as a scholar, once again, commissioned by his church. His struggle at Worms was precisely because he had to weigh between what the church was calling for (which went against scripture) and his knowledge that he was bound to hold to the truth of God's word.

From what I've observed, Godly men who recognize that their authority is bound by God's law tend to be very humble and have a great fear of the responsibility that they have been given (fear in the sense of awe).

 

[christianyouth]

All of the great responses, that's one reason why I love the PB, thanks all. I would give you all thanks but my thanks counter is looking a bit disproportional!

Tim, thanks for posting those verses! I notice, however, that 1 Timothy was written to Timothy. Couldn't those verses be interpreted as saying that Timothy was not to entertain accusations against an elder? I'm not sure if that's condoning accusations against an elder. I can't find any other verses that would indicate that it's our job to bring accusations against our God appointed leaders.

Todd, I agree with your point in that I also don't see any command where we can obey them that have rule over us. You added the 'if legitimate' part. I think there may be some evidence to support that qualifier with secular government, but where is the evidence that says we are to only obey our elders if they are not giving ungodly commands?

I'm just saying, common logic seems to show me that the idea of obeying God over man would mean that I can only obey my elders when they are obeying God, but I don't see scriptural evidence for that. I don't see where we get this idea for conditional obedience to elders.

Victor, that's a good point! It brings up a question that I have, what exactly is the scope of ecclesiastical authority? Maybe that deserves it's own thread, or maybe that should be in the wading pool section. But here in the IFB camp, we have had some pastors who believe the scope is virtually unlimited, going as far as telling their congregants not to wear shorts! So it's a really relevant question for me.

Thanks for all the responses!

In Christ,
-Andy

 

[TimV]

Tim, thanks for posting those verses! I notice, however, that 1 Timothy was written to Timothy. Couldn't those verses be interpreted as saying that Timothy was not to entertain accusations against an elder?

No, it's saying that he shouldn't entertain accusations unless there were two or three witnesses, which is straight from OT law. After there are two or three witnesses, then an investigation has to take place, and if the Elder is found guilty he is to be publically reprimanded.

It's a summation of OT judicial law applied to the church.

To say that that verse or any other meant that an Elder isn't held accountable would ignore an example of clear continuity between the OT and NT. Basically it would be throwing a significant portion of the OT into the trash bin and starting over brand new from scratch!

Regards
Tim

 

[fredtgreco]

Victor, that's a good point! It brings up a question that I have, what exactly is the scope of ecclesiastical authority? Maybe that deserves it's own thread, or maybe that should be in the wading pool section. But here in the IFB camp, we have had some pastors who believe the scope is virtually unlimited, going as far as telling their congregants not to wear shorts! So it's a really relevant question for me.

Thanks for all the responses!

In Christ,
-Andy

Andy,

The difference is that Presbyterians have in their structure (which they sometimes ignore) and Reformed Baptists have in their intention (often ignoring structure) that elders are themselves men under authority. (cf. ESV Matthew 8:9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does)

So an elder's authority is really neither conditional or unconditional, but rather limited by the scope of authority that is given to him by the Lord Jesus Christ as an undershepherd of the flock. The PCA's Book of Church Order describes this concept well:

7. All church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or by
representation, is only ministerial and declarative since the Holy
Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice. No church
judicatory may make laws to bind the conscience. All church
courts may err through human frailty, yet it rests upon them to
uphold the laws of Scripture though this obligation be lodged with
fallible men.

3-1. The power which Christ has committed to His Church vests in the
whole body, the rulers and those ruled, constituting it a spiritual
commonwealth. This power, as exercised by the people, extends to the
choice of those officers whom He has appointed in His Church.

3-6. The exercise of ecclesiastical power, whether joint or several, has the
divine sanction when in conformity with the statutes enacted by Christ, the
Lawgiver, and when put forth by courts or by officers appointed thereunto in
His Word.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Here's the conditional statement:

1Th 5:12 "We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you [in the Lord]."

The phrase "in the Lord" is a qualifying conditional. It speaks not only to the fact that these men are over the people in the church, and by the power of Christ, but also that they have ONLY such ministerial authority as may be directly ministered to the people by virtue of the shared "in Christ" condition.

Of course Heb. 13:17 is of a whole piece with this other part of revelation, so the first verse also exercises some control/conditions in the other context as well.