November 02, 2007
Above Reproach
I’m an election judge for the upcoming election and I spent the day working on early voting. There are many safeguards in the election process, one of which requires we have multiple judges from both the Republican and Democrat parties. I have confidence in the election results because of the accountability that’s in place. My church is also in the process of doing their annual election of elders…I wish I had as much confidence in it as I do in the local county election. I feel a conflict of interest is a very real possibility anytime all nominations and voted ballots are submitted and returned to only one person rather than to an independent committee. In the church, men filling the position of elder are to be above reproach (1Tim 3:2). It only seems fitting and reasonable to expect those handling the election should also be above reproach.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Gail;
-----Are you suggesting…are you insinuating…could you possibly be inferring that…that…that anyone might be far enough below reproach to actually tamper with the balloting? The shame of it would be so obvious to the doer of such a dirty little deed! How could his conscience remain intact? I can’t imagine one who would be so blatantly deceitful in handling what good people have entrusted to him. But then again, I do recall an experience with some elders which tends to revive my imagination.
-----But maybe there would not have to be any tampering with the ballots. Maybe the elders have been craftier than even that. For in the charade they play with elder candidates - that document otherwise known as “the statement of desire to serve as elder,” and the interview following it - their choices are made according to the ideology they wish to perpetuate. They surely do make it look like they are getting to know the candidate and assessing his abilities for the task. And they are. But I suspect this is only their secondary purpose. From my experience in their little elder candidate‘s hot-seat, they are primarily screening for their desired ideology. Remember from discussions we have had before, they place emphasis on “unity“ among themselves. So the candidates they set before the congregation for approval actually are an elders’ wish list. And the only remaining reason for any ballot tampering might be to protect a favorite from receiving a disapproval by the congregation.
-----As Paul said, the position of elder is a noble task. The adjective Paul used was . It has a very broad meaning, like our adjective - good. It is used only eighty-five times in the New Testament. The King James translates it mostly as “good,” often as “better,” and also as “meet,” “honest,” worthy,” and “well.” The NIV has rather swept up all those meanings with its choice of “noble” for Paul’s description of the task, as does the RSV, while the NASB has chosen “fine,” the ASV, Darby’s, NCV, NKJ, “good,” and the New Living Bible, “honorable.” I believe the implication is that the task is befitting of all shades of the meaning of I think Paul chose an adjective with broad and general implications because he did not want to limit the breadth and depth of the position with a more narrow description. He portrays a special office that, although it is authoritative, it also is submissive. An office that is to be filled with care more than dominance, honesty more than ambition, and exemplification more than legislation. It is an office in which you would expect to see the men who are obviously mature and well rounded in Scriptural knowledge, and who behave accordingly. Following the essence of the Scriptures, we would expect to see men there who make and maintain genuine relationships with whomever they meet, after all, Christianity is a relational life. This is all good, this is all
-----Men who were truly godly, truly humble and Scriptural in their thinking would understand that when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was He did not state that it was to love God with all you are and to love your doctrine as it is in your understanding. This is most important for elders to realize, because it is near impossible to assemble a group of people who all hold the same doctrine. Since the elders must oversee a gathering of people whom Paul has commanded to be convinced of their beliefs in their own minds, the elders must allow those individuals their given ideological freedom. Once again, the elders’ rule and authority has a clear limit that is set by the Scriptural freedom given to the individual. So the elders’ use of any criteria beyond that Scripturally set limit to either select new elders or manipulate the congregation’s approval of those selected is unscriptural and below reproach. Even if there was a desire to for this man or that man to become an elder because of this ideology or that ideology, there is reproach. For Paul not only did not mention ideological agreement as a qualifier for eldership, a large portion of his messages to the Romans and to the Corinthians was to not form relationships along ideological lines. So the elders step out of the character of the office even before they have thought about tampering with the ballots.
Post a Comment