Achilles Heel of the Eldership Doctrine

[Mike R. Prevost]

OK. Here is my initial Achilles Heel post. I have had some time constratins so It's a little late.  Sorry.

 

But some background is in order. First, I believe and stand firmly behind the multiple elder church structure doctrine. On balance, I believe that this is what the scriptures teach. I say “on balance” because of the issue at hand.

 

I think it wise to try to argue both sides of an issue and see which side has the strongest argument and if there are some arguments that I cannot overcome. E.g., “Where are the chinks in my armor?” In order to “convince the gainsayers” (Tit 1:9), we need not only to explain how our assertions are plausible, but we need to also prove that they are in fact correct. To show that our assertions are merely plausible convinces only ourselves.  If possible, we need to leave the gainsayer with no ground on which to stand – no room to honestly cling to his positions. This is the angle from which I am approaching this topic.

 

I feel that the strongest argument for the single pastor model is the angels of the seven churches found in Revelation. Single pastor advocates interpret these angels as indicating the individual pastors of these seven churches. Of course, we do not believe the single pastor model, so we obviously need to deal with these arguments. You may not think that this would be a very strong argument in light of all our other evidence, but if I can hold my ground here, then I have a crow-bar that I can use to pry open most if not all of the multiple elder passages (e.g., “ordained them elders in every church” could mean one elder in each church).

 

Bro Houston has written an excellent article on the subject. If you have not read it, I suggest reading it in order to get some context for this discussion. His work does a very good job of delivering a plausible explanation of these angels. However, “I have somewhat against it”. ;)

 

So, I am going to argue from the point of view of a single pastor advocate (e.g., some single pastor trying to hold onto his exalted position).  But, at present, I do find the "angels of the churches" arguments of the other side to be stronger than the ones that I can come up with, hence this discussion. I want to be proven wrong, but not without a fight – I want the issue to be soundly resolved.  This seems to be a good place to do it.  There are some very smart folks here and the "Hot Pants" discussion shows that we can all behave ourselves while arguing vigorously.  Hopefully this will be a useful exercise.  Please remember that I'm debating here and intend no disrespect to Bro Houston or anyone else.  Given my time constraints, I will have to do this in a succession of posts.

 

[ENTERING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

 

MUAHAHAHAHA!!!! See you in the next post!

 

[EXITING SINGLE PASTOR ADVOCATE MODE]

[Donnie Gillum]

I’ve thought along some of Bro. Frazier’s same lines, especially the emphasis on the shifting of pronouns and “what the Spirit saith to the churches”.  In Rev. 1:11 it appears that it was not a separate letter that was sent to each church, but the one book which contained the letters addressed to the angel of each church. Obviously, John had to send the book by some method or someone.  Was one book circulated among the seven churches?  

Trying to understand the star/candlestick imagery can lead to a lot of complexities which defy logic, at least for me.  For one, the stars are in Jesus’ right hand and the candlesticks are in Asia.  Did Jesus touch John with His right hand while it still held the stars? (1:17) Another peculiarity I’d like to add is that one image is earthly (candlestick) and the other heavenly (star), which ordinarily have nothing at all to do with each other.  (I.e. a star does not go on a candlestick – a candle does.)  If the star represents the pastor, he seems to be very disconnected from the church according to this analogy.  Finally, it appears that the churches are candlesticks without candles, but they do have star!

[Mike R. Prevost]

Work is getting busy for the rest of the week.  May not be able to respond until Monday. 

 

I also tend toward the idea that the angels are a poetic device -- like anthropomorphism or metonymy.  However, I don't like this interpretation for two reasons.  First it is not in keeping with the literalism that I prefer when interpreting scripture (but, after all, we are in Revelation).  Second, it is not provable -- it's merely plausible.

 

Remember that what we are trying to do here is not come up with more plausible explanations.  We are trying to pry a single pastor advocate from his single pastor interpretation (i.e., "convince the gainsayer").  We are not trying only to satisfy ourselves.  Hopefully we can (1) Prove that the angels CANNOT BE Pastors and (2) Prove exactly what they are.  If we can only prove that they cannot be Pastors, then it would be good enough to come up with the most plausible explanation.  But if we cannot prove that the angels are not Pastors, we cannot convince the gainsayer because his interpretation is also plausible and he will not budge from it.

 

I want to convince the gainsayer.  I want to prove that the angels cannot be Pastors.

[Michael V. Frazier]

(I am learning either 1) to despise Ning's text editor, or 2) being forced to learn patience... I can't recall how many times I've lost what I've been typing... Oh well... trying again.)

 

I don't believe that we will be able to come away with an absolute answer on this particular issue.  As I've said before, what you believe is how you will read the text.  The single pastor advocate only going to see the text as referencing a single pastorship.  It is like someone who is wearing glasses with red-tinted lenses.  That person, unable to see any other color, will view everything in the color red.  Therefore, the task required is to remove their glasses.  Removing the glasses often involves taking the "gainsayer" to the logical end of their assumptions.

 

We've already explored the difficulties of the angel=spiritual being idea.  And I have tried to show some of the difficulties of the angel=single pastor idea.  Most of the time, people simply settle for the idea that has the fewer number of difficulties and assume that's all that can be done.  However, that leaves us with a false dichotomy since there are other possibilities to consider. 

 

I haven't performed an exhaustive study, but I did try to quickly search for any examples of Scriptures using a singular word to express a plurality.  Outside of passages using a nation's name to refer to the entire populace or Jesus speaking "Jerusalem, Jerusalem" referring to the city's people, I haven't found any solid example. 

 

My thought is that if a concrete example could be found, then it can be easily argued that the singular usage of angel in the text can refer to a multiple eldership within a church body.  I tried to do this somewhat with my previous post by illustrating the jumps between singular and plural pronouns.  As such, I do not believe anyone can successfully argue that the text means a single pastorship, especially when you take such an argument to its logical conclusion (more on that later).  I realize this idea of singular=plural seems forced, but we'll deal with that later.

 

Let's look at an example:

I believe that the text refers to a single pastor.

Really?  That is interesting.  I don't hold to that same idea, but I'm curious to know what you believe what you do.  Does the text absolutely require that interpretation?

Well, uh, yeah, I guess that it does absolutely mean a single pastorship.  I haven't found any of the other ideas convincing.

I see.  Assuming you're correct that the text implies a single pastorship, do you say that based on the idea that the letter is addressed to that individual?

Yes, of course.  The text clearly reads, "Unto the angel of the church of ... write."  What else could it mean?

Then, the letter is only to that individual?

What do you mean?

Well, if John was told to write to "the angel," then the contents of each letter must only be to that individual pastor?

No, I don't actually believe that.  The letter was to the church in general.

Then why was it only addressed to the singular pastor?

Well, it's just simply understood that the letter is to the churches although addressed only to the pastor.  The pastor would receive the letter and then read it to the church.

Ok, but if the letter was addressed to a single pastor, how can we know that it was to the general church body?

Well, the letters end with "what the Spirit saith unto the churches."  Therefore, we know the letters were written to the churches.  And the letters often speak of multiple persons: "some of you into prison, slain among you, every one of you, etc."

Very true, but if the letters were written to the general church body, why was it addressed to single individual?

Like I said, the pastor would read the letter to the church.

Yes, but you also the letter was written to the general church and not the individual pastor.  That is unusual for the Scriptural letters.  Paul wrote to Timothy, and although the general church has benefited from the letters, we don't naturally assume that Paul intended for them to extend beyond Timothy.  Paul wrote to Titus and Philemon, and we are blessed by the divine influence which bears evidence within them, but we don't believe that Paul was intentionally writing the the general church.  Galatians was addressed to the churches throughout an entire district in the Roman Empire.  Romans, Ephesians, Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians were written to specific churches. Timothy, Titus, and Philemon were addressed to specific individuals.  Hebrews is written to a general audience.  James and Jude also write abroad.  Peter writes one letter to Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, and a second letter to the general church.  John writes one letter to Gaus, another to a general audience, and a third to "the elect lady," which is usually interpreted to be the Church, but even if not, John also clarifies himself by adding "and her children."  In fact, there is no Scriptural letter which we can look to that gives evidence of addressing a mere individual but clearly being intended for a wider audience.  Yet, you expect me to accept your assumption that the Revelation letters do?  Why? On what precedence to you make such a claim?

Uh, uh ... that's just the way the text reads.

Do you not, rather, mean that is merely what you beleive?  But that you are unable to adequately substantiate that claim?

Uh, I suppose that is true.

Then, isn't it equally as valid a proposition that you could be wrong, that "the angel" could also be likewise bear a wider meaning as in "the elect lady?"

Uh, I suppose that is true.

Thank you.

[Michael V. Frazier]

Now, regarding the issue that this idea is forced...

 

While true, it is no less forced than the idea of a single pastor.  All in all, there doesn't appear to be a clear, decisive conclusion because of the ambiguity of the text.

The text adequately explains the candlestick symbolism, but the stars implying messengers remains unclear. 

 

Perhaps looking at reasons why the candlestick was chosen to represent the churches may help provide suggestions as to the proper understanding of stars representing messengers.

 

However, I still feel that the idea of the singular messenger (angel) requires the interpretation of a single pastorship has enough difficulties to be disqualified as an absolute interpretation.  And if it's not absolute, that is enough to αντιλεγοντας ελεγχειν, refute [those who] contradict, convince the gainsayer.

[Mike R. Prevost]

Here's an other angel to consider.   Err...  I mean another angle to consider.  ;)

When you bring up to single pastor folks that the apostles appointed multiple elders in the churches (e.g. Ephesus), they often respond by saying that there must have been multiple churches in a city and that these multiple "elders" are the single pastors of those multiple churches.  However, in Acts, the Epistles and the seven letters of Revelation, there is only ever reference to one church per city.  So if they say that the angel of the church of Ephesus is the single pastor of the church of Ephesus, then they have a problem.  In Revelation, there is only one church in Ephesus and they say there is only one pastor.  They have a contradiction.  Either there are multiple churches in Ephesus with multiple single pastors, or there is one church in Ephesus with one single pastor.  You can't have both. 

So back to the idea of the angel being a poetic device sounding forced.  You're right it does sound forced and I don't like that about it.  However, but it is abundantly clear that there was one church per city.  It doesn't get us all the way there, but perhaps there is a way that we can leverage their contradiction to our advantage.

Gotta go.  Have to get up at 3:30 AM tomorrow.

[Mike R. Prevost]

Also, isn't there a Greek practice of writing to fictional entities?  Like Plato's Timaeus?  Some have said that Luke's Theophilus was such a rhetorical device (e.g., Theo-philus = God Lover, some say Luke's writing was not to a certain individual, but to all who love God, hence a rhetorical device, but, again, hard to prove).

 

Oh, and you also mentioned the Elect Lady and her children.  That may be another example AND one from the same author.

[Michael V. Frazier]

LOL, I didn't even think your were dismissing my contribution at all.  Actually, your "one church per city" idea is very sound.  One aspect of apologetics is to perform an internal critique on the philosophy, dogma, idea, etc. that is presented.  If the idea is arbitrary or results in a contradiction, then it has been refuted.

 

I've used the LOGOS software before, but it's been many years.  I don't have a current version.  I believe the Blue Letter Bible online site will allow grammatical searches, and I'm sure it can be tweaked to search for singular and plural pronouns.  The difficulty would be manually going through the search returns and isolating the ones that matched the criteria we require.

[Mike R. Prevost]

Bro Houston,

 

Looks like there was a post lost here.  I cannot see my post where I clarified that I was not dismissing Bro Frazier's remarks.  Bro Frazier evidently saw the now missing post.  I had replied to that post (my own post that is now missing) to add a little comment about the Elect Lady and I can see that reply, but not the original one.  I wonder if Ning has a bug.  Might be worth reporting to them.

[Michael V. Frazier]

Mike R. Prevost said:

Oh, and you also mentioned the Elect Lady and her children. That may be another example AND one from the same author.

That's true. 

I also forgot to mention that when viewed in comparison to the other NT letters (see dialogue illustration), the idea of "the angel" requiring the interpretation of a single pastor is shown to be arbitrary.  Since it is arbitrary, it is not a sound argument.  The idea of the angel=single pastor is a mere belief; thus, any other mere belief is equally as valid.  The arbitrariness of mere belief is not enough to substantiate validity.

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

Michael V. Frazier said:

I also forgot to mention that when viewed in comparison to the other NT letters (see dialogue illustration), the idea of "the angel" requiring the interpretation of a single pastor is shown to be arbitrary.  Since it is arbitrary, it is not a sound argument.  Since the idea of the angel=single pastor is a mere belief, an other mere belief is equally as valid.  The arbitrariness of mere belief is not enough to substantiate validity.

Yes, I agree.  You are saying "our belief is equally as valid as yours, so let's call it a tie".  That is, their argument is neutralized, but not defeated.  A convincing neutralization would be good.  My gut tells me we can do better.  Needs more work.

 

 

[Michael V. Frazier]

Mike R. Prevost said:

Yes, I agree. You are saying "our belief is equally as valid as yours, so let's call it a tie". That is, their argument is neutralized, but not defeated. A convincing neutralization would be good. My gut tells me we can do better. Needs more work.

 

No, actually, once an argument is shown to be arbitrary (and therefore unsound) it can no longer be viewed as a valid argument at all.  Thus, it is defeated.  They may still believe it, but not because of any sound, reasoned logic.

 

However, I do agree that we should continue to strive for a definitive answer if there is one!  :-)

 

[Mike R. Prevost]

Michael V. Frazier said:

No, actually, once an argument is shown to be arbitrary (and therefore unsound) it can no longer be viewed as a valid argument at all.  Thus, it is defeated.  They may still believe it, but not because of any sound, reasoned logic.

Well, this is the difference between logic and rhetoric.  You are focusing on logic, and I on rhetoric.