Pastoral Example As Pastoral Authority

The New Testament makes it clear that pastoral authority is not the power to bind decisions upon the congregation. Instead, the congregation chooses its own servants, calls them into account, seeks counsel from other congregations, offers counsel to other congregations, defines its own doctrine, and disciplines its own membership. Pastors possess no power to do these things without direct congregational consent.

Completely false. Apparently Kevin believes that repeating the same thing will make it true. The continued emphasis on the emasculated pastor during Kevin’s series is shameful. This is nothing more than the wisdom of men who do not take God at His word.

I don’t see scripture commanding double honor to those who lead exemplary lives as elders, but to those elders who rule well. That word, rule (proestōtes), has to mean something, and we don’t get to redefine it just because the implications of a certain usage are uncomfortable. Look at the other places it is used in the NT, and see if the meaning there could be reasonably understood “to set a good example” or if it carries a more authoritative connotation.

The whole series has been driven by pragmatism rather than Scripture.

JamesK,

We have all been waiting, apparently in vain, for you to provide meaningful interaction with Bauder’s series. We still wait.

Tyler, I have posted lengthy responses to the earlier posts.

[James K]

Tyler, I have posted lengthy responses to the earlier posts.

Truthfully you haven’t put together a cohesive, organized position anywhere. I’ve asked for it publicly (in previous posts) and via IM. As the Filings editor I promised you that if you would put together a blog post on your position, that I would post it as a Filing so all could chew and comment on it.

James K, your position as far as I can tell is that Bauder is wrong, WRONG, W R O N G.

Honestly until you answer your critics (many who have asked for what I have asked!), your contributions to the Bauder ecclesiology articles is less than NIL.

I know this isn’t the focus of your paper, but…

[The Article] Some pastors, however, have a right to receive multiplied honor (1 Tim. 5:17), and the degree of honor that a pastor receives is tied to his labor in ministry.

In 1 Tim 5:17 diplous describes the honor of which certain elders are to be considered worthy… If diplous is translated “double,: efforts to interpret the verse become problematic and speculative. On the other hand, if we translate diplous as “equivalent,” the problems disappear. For it makes eminently good and simple sense to say that [some elders] are deserving a matching (diplous) honor commensurate with their service.

- Kline, Meredith, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32/2, June 1989, 178.

The well-ruling elder would be considered worthy of a “twin” honor, or an equivalent honor. What do you think?

[Jim]

James K wrote:

Tyler, I have posted lengthy responses to the earlier posts.

Truthfully you haven’t put together a cohesive, organized position anywhere. I’ve asked for it publicly (in previous posts) and via IM. As the Filings editor I promised you that if you would put together a blog post on your position, that I would post it as a Filing so all could chew and comment on it.

James K, your position as far as I can tell is that Bauder is wrong, WRONG, W R O N G.

Honestly until you answer your critics (many who have asked for what I have asked!), your contributions to the Bauder ecclesiology articles is less than NIL.

Other responsibilities have prevented me from putting together something for the filings. I would still like to though. If you have really read all of what I have said in response to Kevin and have concluded that all I am saying is that he is wrong, then you have not done a very good job. My earlier responses to Bauder’s works though do cover quite a bit of material. The idea that the only contribution to something must be a full blown series to match is unrealistic. I am sure you are aware of theological journals which give book reviews. Imagine the reviewer being told that the only way his critique was of value was if he gave his own fully developed view. I am not sure how that could be less than nothing, which given the context is impossible.

Alas, this takes us off topic. The idea perpetrated by Kevin of the emasculated pastoral role isn’t something only I have noticed.