tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926328.post1955440730833493415..comments2022-03-24T19:35:12.530-07:00Comments on The Mission House Church: WHAT IS A NEW TESTAMENT MODEL OF CHURCH LEADERSHIP?Keith Gileshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00328300571647154699noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926328.post-92146423329637109172011-03-14T19:39:09.179-07:002011-03-14T19:39:09.179-07:00Kevin - To respond to your comment I would have to...Kevin - To respond to your comment I would have to re-quote my entire article again. So, rather than do that I will refer you to the comments I have already made above and summarize by saying:<br />A) Jesus commanded us not to emulate the hierarchy of Rome or that of the Jewish rulers.<br /><br />B)The Apostles did what Jesus commanded them.<br /><br />C) Authority in the NT does not look like what we have made it today, (i.e.- one senior pastor)<br /><br />D)I am not against leadership (see points made above).<br /><br />E) You don't have to agree with me. It's ok.Keith Gileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00328300571647154699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926328.post-27123772214640305452011-03-14T19:31:37.977-07:002011-03-14T19:31:37.977-07:00Let's take even the Ephesians passage you quot...Let's take even the Ephesians passage you quote. You take "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Ephesians 5 goes right on to command that wives submit to their husbands. Ephesians 6 goes on to command children to submit to their parents, and even for slaves to submit to their masters. The very verse you take up as your banner against hierarchy is embedded in a section that supports hierarchy. <br /><br />Now, I recognize that this was a matter of context. Slaves were to submit to their masters because that was the culture they were in. But if even slaves are to submit to their masters, should not we submit to the leadership of the church? <br /><br />You cite many examples that could be similarly defused. <br /><br />There are also examples against what you claim. Take Acts 15. The question becomes raised as to whether the new gentile Christians should be circumcised. The Jewish believers in Jerusalem get together and hold a council, making a decision on the subject which they then hand down to them a command "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."(Acts 15:24). Now I realize you can explain this, fit it into your model, but at the very least in challenges it. It creates a conflict to the system you want to say is <i>the</i> Biblical model.<br /><br />To think you have read scripture perfectly, while almost all the other believers throughout the history of the world have failed to do so is extremely presumptuous. <br /><br />You also ignore the larger picture in which the very Bible you cite is embedded. Scripture itself was written by men (even if inspired by God) who are held to have had a special authority to write these texts. That text itself was assembled by a church council. Yes, tradition had already established these as standard texts in much of the church, but that only recurses to tradition. The very same tradition that created the hierarchical church structure (heck, there are written references of such a structure even before the writing of the gospels).Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10738560902077094558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926328.post-56995814829312798392010-09-09T05:38:04.894-07:002010-09-09T05:38:04.894-07:00Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. Exc...Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. Excellent way of expressing what leadership in the church should look like.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950789466244123894noreply@blogger.com