From: mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Qualifications for Elder
Date: 23 Jul 92 06:29:57 GMT
Organization: Rice University

>>	Obviously this is a protestant interpretation of "elder". I Tim
>>	is talking about the offices of bishop and deacon (the priests
>>	coming somewhat later that the Epistle to Timothy).

>In the New Testament the Greek words for elder and bishop are sometimes
>used interchangeably. The apostle Paul seems to do this in his letters (cf.
>Titus 1:5ff).

>The priesthood tradition, as practiced by Roman Catholics and the Orthodox,
>is not found in the New Testament.  It is simply tradition.

[more of the same deleted]

>And some of us would suggest that there is little similarity between this
>traditional deaconate and the New Testament.

I would agree that the current or traditional church hierarchy is not 
*in all its particulars* *mandated* by the NT.  However, to say it is not 
found there is IMHO misleading. 

As you have noticed, the different types of leaders (bishops, deacons, etc.)
are indeed mentioned, although sometimes confusingly, in Scripture.  It
is no wonder they conflict because the church hierarchy was just beginning to 
emerge during this time.  Later letters such as 3 John (written by "the elder")
show this evolving structure taking form.

The argument for apostolic succession is indeed based on Scripture, namely
the election of new apostles to succeed Judas in Acts. "Lord... Show us
which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry"
(Acts 1 24-25).  An argument can be (and is) derived from this requiring
valid churches to be part of the apostolic succession.

However due to the changing nature of bishops etc. in the NT, it seems that
these offices themselves are not *mandated*.  I would however argue that
they provide a very good example to follow in church government.  We cannot
for example say that "Oh, our leader isn't called a bishop so he doesn't
have to stand up to the moral guidelines for bishops in the NT."  God
is not amused by word games.

Also, we know what the semi-early church hierarchy (from about the year 200 on)
was like to a high degree of precision, and that the "traditional" deaconate,
etc., is very close to the same.  We may not be clear on what exactly is what
in the epistles, but obviously the church that bandied them about decided on
this system of government.  I have this feeling that they knew more than
we about what Paul and the others were talking about.

Though I am not Catholic I do believe that tradition is important.  I do
not think you can separate "the New Testament" from the church of the
time.  These letters were internal directions to members of this church.
What these churches were like, and what they practiced, seems to me
a VERY NONTRIVIAL point.  Take, for example, and argument over whether
Paul in X epistle was saying Y was right or wrong, because it's hard to
make out.  Looking at the churches he founded, it seemed that they said
Y was wrong.  They probably knew lots more than we about the people and
purposes behind these letters.  The NT did not pop into existence in a 
vacuum, and the epistles were not written from God to you, with
no other context required.
 
The Church has remained curiously the same for long periods of time, with
large changes only during the Schism and Reformation.  Read some of Justin
Martyr (second century AD) and his description of what church services, etc.
were like.  They bear a scary resemblance to those of today, and even
more to the "traditional" pre-Schism ones.

>>	fr. deacon mark     

> elder tom

generic nobody ernest