Subscription Lists

God's way is a way of clarity and not confusion. Although there is no biblical passage which directly states this fact, the principles that it embraces are repeated throughout the Bible. Any way which is a way of obscurity and confusion is not God's way. Some of the brightest and best minds I have ever known are part of a spiritual way that has produced and continues to produce confusion; my conclusion is simply that their way is not God's way. After all, a tree is known by the fruit that it produces. I am not bitter nor do I hold any disdain for those who still walk this way; I simply write off (justify) their actions as coming from good and honest (though mistaken) hearts.

Again, allow me to illustrate using a concrete example. I beg you not to get lost in the example; it is merely a way to illustrate the point of this message. For those who hold that the New Testament contains the pattern of organization and work of the New Testament church and that it is man's duty to restore that ancient pattern, there are scores of issues they can never resolve. Again, I use only one to illustrate. Patternists teach that the local congregation, when fully organized, is governed autonomously by elders (pastors, overseers, bishops, etc.). Furthermore, males who serve as elders are to be appointed from men who have “believing/faithful children” (see their proof texts at 1 Timothy 3.4 and Titus 1.6). Both of the passages cited use the word children (plural of child). Question: Given the premises just cited, would it be scriptural for a man to serve as an elder who has only one child?

Among the patternists, there are several ways this is approached. One of my favorite professors used to say, “If someone asked you as a father of one child, 'Do you have children,' how would you respond? It would be entirely proper to answer affirmatively.” From this he argued that the passages cited are correctly applied when a man who has fathered but one child serves as an elder. Others argue that the plural of children is to be interpreted in its most restrictive sense and only men who have fathered more that one child can be considered for the eldership. Surely a person can “see” both of these arguments, but they cannot both be right since they come to opposite conclusions. And although heaps and heaps of evidence can be piled up to support one conclusion or the other, there is no way on earth to determine which of the two choices (if either) God imposed.

Now, given that scenario, some have said, “Well let's just take the safe approach! We know that it is right for a man with a plurality of children to serve, so let's only appoint men from those ranks; surely all could agree that this would be right.” However, this presents an equally problematic result. This would mean that men with one child would be forbidden from serving as elders. If this is not God's intention (i.e. to forbid elders with one child), then this means that someone has made a law where God did not! To justify their inability to legislate one way or the other, some then conclude with the wave of the hand that this is a matter of judgement and must be decided by each local congregation. In this case, justification is as simple as declaring a thing to be a matter of judgement and not of faith!

Again, I hope you didn't get lost in the illustration. It was intended only to show that among patternists even the most fundamental of issues can never be answered finally. To justify their inability to give a “thus saith the Lord,” they merely move the issue over into the realm of judgment! However, now comes an even greater problem; someone must decide which issues legitimately belong in the realm of judgement and which do not! God's way is a way of clarity and not confusion!

Questions:

1. What principles and passages support the conclusion that God's way is a way of clarity and not confusion?

2. THINK: What are some practical implications of the principle cited (# 1, above)?

3. Given the “One Child” vs. “Plurality” conundrum, is it possible that God did not legislate either way? If this is not the correct conclusion, can you suggest one which still recognizes God as being the author of peace and not confusion?

4. Why is it not "safe" to appoint as elders only men with a plurality of childen? If God established a pattern, do you thin it would be ambiguous? Why or why not?

"'Winging It" from Stan Smith

Inspired