In response to the comments about people not being able to _Make_ others believe in Jesus. A book I'm reading, Evangelism in the Early Church, was apparently written by someone who believed in infant baptism. Many who believe in this are into the idea that children are partakers of the covenant along with their parents. Paul wrote to spouses married to unbelievers that the believing spouse sanctified the unbelieving spouse, else where your children unclean, but not are they holy. There is apparently a difference between children born to Christians (holy) and children born to unbelievers (unclean.)

I've read the argument that 'holy' here is the word for saint and is used as evidence for infant baptism. I see this as a good point against infant baptism. Many believe infant baptism washes away 'original sin' but here Paul says that the child is holy for hacing a Christian parent, not because he was baptized as a baby. This argues against the idea of baptism washing away original sin.

Americans are very much into indicidualism and everyone making his or her own decision. The book I'm reading says that in New Testament times, if a head of a household made a decision to become a Christian, it would be natural for his wife, children, and slaves to follow him in that decision. While I don't believe that early Christians would have baptized a blaspheming, unbelieving slave, I think we do get our eyes too set on individualistic notions.

Evangelicals have even canonized the phrase 'Personal Savior' as if that set of words were in scripture, or were a holy phrase in and of itself. Jesus is a personal Savior to those who believe in him. But, as Keith Freeen said, if he introduces his sister he doesn't say 'This is my personal sister.' He just says 'my sister.' He doesn't say 'This is my personal arm,' etc.

The use of 'personal' reflects our emphasis on indicidual salvation. But I think we are missing something here. In the Bible whole households got saved. Sometimes the Lord would bring in a head of a household and use him as a key for opening up a whole family to the gospel. An experienced miss'nry church planter pointed some of these thigns out to me: we talk a lot about personal salvation these days. The Bible talks about household salvation.

If children of believers are holy as children, then it may make sense that the men who rule their houses well enough, leading an exemplary life, counseling their kids, teaching them the word, so that the children continue in the faith, may be more qualified to do the same type of work in the church at large.

I do believe God calls men to oversee his church. One of the instructions Paul gave was that if a man desired to be an overseer, he desired a good thing. I believe there are men the Lord works on to put the desire of overseership in their hearts.

In many churches these days, with the one-sermon meetings and the lack of mutual exhortation in meetings, if someone wants to do a lot of teaching a large scale, he almost has to be become a clergymen. We have men with gifts and callings of teacher, prophet, and pastor trying to become professional 'pastors.' Instead of having Biblical eldership in many of the churches, there is the professional clergy. Many of the Ephesians 4:11 gifted people try to go into local eldership because the church system pushes them in that direction. Nowadyas, there are also traveling evangelists, and teachers and prophets may end up taking this route due to a lack of other recognized options and a lack of teaching on the matter.

The idea of a local elder being 'called' is taken way out of balance, imo. Instead of the church having elders that meet the Biblical requirements- for example of ruling his household well- local leadership is made up of 'pastors' whose qualifications are either education or a 'call' to pastor, or both. Especially here in Indonesia, young people take the professional career clergy route. My wife goes to Bible school, where a lot of students will do ministry work, like sing or play music in church (which pays here) but don't want to do 'worldly' jobs for a living like work in a store or wash cars.

These young people can graduate and, without ever demonstrating the ability to care for a household, are given great responsibility over saints who are more mature in the Lord. Why? Because of education, a call to ministry, and a label of 'servant of the Lord' (which is used in Indonesian to refer to preachers.)

Many of these students probably do have great calls on their life. Many of them are gifted teachers. But a call to teach and a degree in theology don't qualify one to be an elder in the church. The qualifications for eldership are in scripture.

I think this emphasis on a 'call' for ministry comes from two courses. One is the fact that Paul mentions his own call to ministry in scripture. Another is the influence of John Wesely and those who came after him. wesley knew he was called, and focused to some degree on the concept of being called for ministry.

The fact is that all believers have a call for one ministry or another. Those in Bible school have calls as well. Many of them are called to teaching and pastoral ministries. But there are plenty of pew-warmers with this same call. The author of Herbews felt that his readers, for the time, should have been teachers. But they were immature. The mature had their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Many regular believers don't exercise their gifts? Why? Because in church, instead of everyone having a psalm, teaching, revelation etc. the singing is carefully controlled and one clergyman gives a message. Instead of 'if a revelation comes to another who sitteth by let the first hold his peace... for ye may all prophesy one by one' people think only the preacher can talk and if someone else gets a revelation, he'd better hold his peace and let the preacher talk. That's the way people think it is supposed to be.

Regular believers are taught that clergymen have a 'call' to ministry. So, naturally they think they DON'T have a call to ministry. So many of them just sit around and warm the bench. Believers are not all gifted with the same gifts. But we all have gifts that we should use to edify one another. The scriptures teach this repeatedly. Some churches do teach that believers have calls to 'regular' ministries. But there seems to be an underlying assumption that the calls of clergymen are somehow fare different.

Paul did emphasize his call. This is natural for the work of an apostle. Apostles are 'sent ones.' Apostles have a special call from Christ to be apostles. It is understandable that an apostle would mention this, especially if it were necessary for his readers to receive him as an apostle in order to receive spiritual benefit.

Wesley was called to a great work which changed the course of the nation of England, as well as the English colonies in America. He knew he was called to preach. I had a friend once who worked at a Salvation Army men's shelter. The person who had hired him asked him if he felt a 'call' to that particular ministry. He recognized this as a doctrinal emphasis on the 'Weslyan call.' Honestly, he answered and said he didn't feel a particular calling to that ministry in that sense of the word. Other managers came and went, but he stayed around for years workign there until he went on to missionary work overseas.

But it is interesting to note that a 'Wesleyan call' is not listed as a requirement for eldership. Historically church leaders were known as elders (sometimes translated priest, which comes from the Greek word for elder) until after the reformation. Now, people read the concept of 'clergy' into 'pastors' in Ephesians 4:11. The apostles appointed elders to head churches. But since churches use a different word for their leaders than the early church, the often overlook the Biblical requirements for these leaders. So a man can claim to be 'called' to pastor, but not meet the Biblical requirements for eldership, and so many believers don't even blink an eye.

Young men without families, who haven't demonstrated the requirements of eldership may have gifts and callings to teach and to tend to other sheep (i.e. pastor.) But they aren't qualified to be elders and to 'pastor' in that sense of the word. We should encourage the gifts in such men.

Some will say 'What about Timothy. He was young, and he was a 'pastor.' The Bible does not call Timothy a 'pastor,' but the word pastor means 'sheeptender' not 'head of a local body of believers who calls the shots and does most of the talking.' Scripture does not even call Timothy a pastor. It does seem to indicate that he was an apostle along with Paul and Silas. (I Thes. 1:1, 2:6-7.) Titus, and probably Timothy as well, were to appoint elders in the church. We know that Timothy's age could have been a source of trouble for him in his ministry. He was told to let no man despise his youth. He was also told not to rebuke an elder, but to entreat him as a father, indicating that he was younger than the elders of the church.

But notice that the Bible does not call Timothy an elder. 'Elder' implies age and maturity. Timothy was to allow no man to despise his _youth._ Tradition calls Timothy a 'bishop' but the text of scripture does not even apply this title to him. He may have appointed elders and done other leadership work, but as an apostle or perhaps as a representative of Paul's ministry. We don't see Timothy settling down in the local ministry of eldership. Elders were taken from among the local congregations.

Authority and influence, such as the authority of apostles and elders, has a relationship to fatherhood. Apostles gain a measure of 'rule' in the kingdom through spiritual fatherhood. Elders demonstrate their ability to rule through natural fatherhood.

A study of I an II Corinthians reveals a lot about the nature of apostolic authority. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that they had many teachers, but not many fathers. For he had become their father in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul's authority with the Corinthains had to do with the fact that he was the one who brought the Gospel to them. He had laid the foundation of Christ in that church. A body of believers had been established through his preaching, where previously there had been no body of believers.

In II Corinthians, Paul writes that he and Timothy did not boast in other men's labors. Their authority extended to the Corinthians _because they had gone as far as Corinth with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul didn't go to Jeruslaem and start telling people what to do on the basis of the fact that he was an apostle. He had not not started the church in Jeruslaem. Many there were in Christ before him. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, however, that even if he were not an apostle to others, he was an apostle to them, because they were the seal of his apostleship in the Lord. Paul's authority in Corinth related to his spiritual fatherhood there. He brought them the gospel.

Timothy, as an apostle, also carried the gospel to new places along with Paul. A young man can be a spiritual father in the gospel. Apostles gain spiritual authority in the church as they work. They have responsibility in their own labors. They authority is the autority to build up, not to push people around. They are to be servants. Apostles also are to be in mutual submission with others the churches they minister in.

Elders demonstrate their qualifications to oversee the flock partly by demontrating themselves as good fathers. He who is faithful with little can also be faithful with much. If a man's children all depart from the faith, would we want him to do oversee the house of God? If a man's children all serve and love the Lord, isn't it more likely that he has greace to have the same influence on the house of God?

We talk about serving the Lord being a personal decision, but from the Bible we see that the way we live can effect others. Timothy was to watch his life and his doctrine closely, so that he could save himself and others. Notice that, he could save not only himself but others. The end of the book of James tells us that he who converts a brother who errs from the truth shall save a sould from death. Now we know that it is God who saves. But He sues other people. There may be many people out there who would have died intheir sins _if it had not been for another person._ God's grace works through others.

God's grace can work through fathers. Many chidlren who would have been rebellious may be spared from it through the grace of God working through a loving father. If this is a special gift, isn't it one we would hope to see in elders? Wouldn't we want to see elders who are good fathers at work in the church?

Some churches face difficulty when the child of an elder, who seems to have ruled his house well, goes off into sin. Some may want the elder to step down. Others may see ruling ones house well as an initial requirement for getting into eldership, and think that eldership is not a position that should be easily lost.

This situation illustrates the benefits of having older elders. Having older elders takes care of this problem because an older man often has children who are older. The church can look and see if the man's children are serving the lord. Even if some of the children were prodigals, and returned to the Lord, the congregation can see how the man dealt with these difficulties over his life, and how the seed he sowed into his children's life eventually bore fruit. Beyond that, there is another very practical reason for having elders.

The Greek, Hebrew, and English words of 'elder' all imply a measure of age. Some translate the Greek word as 'old men.' After exhorting the elders, Peter tells the younger to submit themselves unto the elder, indicating that there may have been physically older. Timothy is told to rebuke not an elder but to entreat him as a father, indicating that the perhaps elders were older than Timothy. The NIV even translates this verse to have Paul tell Timothy to rebuke not an older man. Nowadays, men Timothy's age are appointed and labeled as elders.

A problem left over from the clergy system is the idea that if someone is going to take care of sheep and do a lot of teaching, he should be an elder. In many churches, only clergy do much of this work. But I thinkt he early church was different. Everyone was to use their gifts. Some would teach. Others would encourage. The stronger brothers were to help the weak, but not all men involved in local ministry were elders.

I think it would be a great thing if churches had young men who were excited about the word of God, and taught and tended to sheep who were less mature than themselves. These young men can disciple others as they grow in the faith. As their own families mature and grow in the Lord, these men will learn the skills involved in being a good father. After these men have endured the difficulties of fatherhood, and learned to be successful servants of the Lord in this matter and demonstrate their ability to lead their own houses, let them be overseers if the Lord so leads. Otherwise, let them continue with their teaching ministries and other ministries in the body.

The system that is so popular now, where 'preacher' becomes a career path limits church leadership to a professional caste. It also tends to deprive churches of leadership that meets the Biblical qualifications for eldership. God's design is for those faithful in little things to be put over much. The instructions about elders ruling their houses well are in there for a reason.

-- Anonymous, October 09, 2000