Replies

haha I’m 39, and my opinions are changing all the time!

I see the keys and al that as being given to whosoever will enter into the Covenant. It’s funny how Catholics point to Peter all the time, while pastors I know always point to James’ role in Acts 15, et al, to justify their roles.

I reject both of those narrow views. I see a family of brothers and sisters in the household of God. Some are elder brothers, but they don’t run the house- God alone does that. So by the absence of special leaders, we all become special leaders.

As for the ‘true leadership’ vs. ‘leadership class’ question, if the character already exists, why does there have to be an outward indication of one’s status then? Why the robes, the titles, the special places in the rituals? If the character is there, that’s enough for me.

Could is be because people who seek such an office don’t want to work for a living? I know that’s a cynical generalization, but in many cases I believe it’s true.

I will elevate no man above my position- because Jesus Himself is there, and may another never come between us.

We can even see this attitude in the architecture of a typical church. You have a raised alter from which ‘ministry’ is dispensed, while the common folk sit in pews at a lower level, facing the special ones. The gifts and callings of the pew sitters lie dormant during a typical church service, while the special people get to exercise theirs. How then do we adhere to Paul’s suggestion that we all show up prepared to minister to one another? To edify one another?

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve attended church and left, wondering what I just accomplished- or what blessing I missed from the person sitting next to me.

That’s much as I see it, too.

Thx.

The funny thing about James at the council, in the way I read it, and contrary to many Pastors' interpretations, is that Peter gives the authoritative teaching, and Paul and Barnabas back that teaching up through examples. Then James, known as one of the strongest defenders of the Jewish nation and people, threw his weight behind Peter. The symbolism here is that, if even the most observant Jew who followed Christ can agree that the laws of the old covenant have been superceded, then on what grounds can such laws stand? Thus, it was Peter who gave the authoritative teaching, and James lent his learned opinion and weight to that teaching.

I see a family of brothers and sisters in the household of God. Some are elder brothers, but they don’t run the house- God alone does that. So by the absence of special leaders, we all become special leaders.

I agree we are all one family in Christ - too often that is forgotten on these threads. However, while, yes, God is the head of house, He isn't home right now, so to speak. As such, the "eldest brothers" need to step up and wear the mantle of "man of the house." I don't believe that when Christ left this Earth He left His house in such arrears, without any authority.

As for the ‘true leadership’ vs. ‘leadership class’ question, if the character already exists, why does there have to be an outward indication of one’s status then? Why the robes, the titles, the special places in the rituals? If the character is there, that’s enough for me.

This is a loaded question, as is the comment about the architechure, and it gets to the heart of all Sacramental Theology. If you want, I can try to get into that can o' worms, but it may be best to save it for another thread.