Assembly Times

 Sunday

   Bible Classes (10:00 am)

   AM Worship (11:00 am)

   PM Worship (3:00 pm)

 Thursday

   Bible Classes (7:00 PM)

Location

Piedmont Family YMCA

442 Westfield Road

Charlottesville, VA 22901
Click Here for Specific Directions

Review of Chapter 9

When Shepherds Are Sheepish

By Terry W. Benton

In the beginning of this chapter LaGard makes a valid comparison to England’s shepherds and herders during the hoof-and-mouth epidemic. He says,

"...England’s shepherds know that protecting their flocks means vigilance, quarantine, and - if necessary - drastic action" (p.169).

He makes the point that doing nothing can, in this situation, be worse in the end than the drastic measures that are taken. He is right about that, and I would draw a comparison of my own that would seem "harsh" to some. Yet, I find some words of Jesus and Paul that might "seem" harsh on superficial reading. I must take the chance of seeming harsh because I care and love the Lord, the truth, and God’s people. I am convinced that LaGard’s teaching demands vigilance and inoculation and quarantine. Churches need shepherds who care enough to talk about the house-church-meal-eating-denomination and confront it’s smooth words and fair speeches BEFORE they begin spreading and deceiving the hearts of the simple and causing unnecessary divisions. Elders should be on guard for the heresies that are developing as some grievous wolves come in among the flock unaware, in sheep’s clothing, and devour the flock with such erroneous ideas as:

1) Churches should meet only in houses,

2) House churches must be small,

3) Houses are by nature the best "setting" for churches,

4) The Lord’s Supper is an integral part of a common meal,

5) Common meals are "fellowship meals" demanded by God, and

6) Elders can oversee more than one church.

The ideas are wrong, and the attitudes that promote them are deadly. They will wreak havoc in churches that do not detect the unrest in members influenced by this teaching. Already there are divisions caused by either LaGard’s book or the similar misguided ideas spread in various areas of the country. They promise liberty (2 Pet.2) and "reform", "change", and "radical restoration", but strap on a set of misguided concepts that "seem right". In the end they have harnessed themselves and others with errors that are divisive and deadly. The attitudes of discontent are promoted in the interest of reform and radical restoration, and spread as a gangrene unless there are leaders who will cut it off by sound teaching on these matters.

In earlier chapters LaGard hinted strongly that elders and preachers are "clergy", but in this chapter seems to want shepherds. But, when you have some members shepherding and some members just being sheep, doesn’t this, to use his earlier reasoning, create a "clergy-laity"? Why did he bring that argument up if he was not going to consistently use the argument? Of course, I do not believe that having teachers, preachers, elders, or deacons creates any kind of "clergy-laity" system, but I am amazed that a man of LaGard’s knowledge and ability would use such an argument in earlier chapters but not see his inconsistency in failing to use it in this chapter. The bottom line is that false arguments cannot be used except to make a prejudicial, self-serving point when it is convenient. A leader is not a separate "priesthood"(clergy) from the rest.

Unorganized Shepherds?

LaGard says "we love organization", but he mentions that "between a shepherd and his sheep, there is none of that"(p.170). He has a point, but overstates the case. Shepherds do not merely mingle among the sheep, hugging each one and hand-feeding each one. They have organized times to graze the sheep, organized times and methods of shearing the sheep and selling wool, and looking for markets to buy from, organized times to bring the sheep in to the corrals, and planned times to lead them out to new and fresh green pastures and still waters. The shepherd does not personally feed each by hand, but he does lead them to places where they can graze safely for themselves. Shepherds were not unorganized, and lack of organization would not tell us that a shepherd really cares for his sheep. In fact, lack of organization may well tell us that a shepherd does NOT care for his sheep. It does not have to be visible "flow-charts", but evident forethought and planning is a must for families and churches.

District Elders?

LaGard likes to plant questions that leave implications. He may not come out and say something directly, but he leaves the question unanswered and readers wondering where he stands. For example he asks,

Were there elders in each one of the house churches; or only one set of elders for the entire metropolitan area...? (P.171)

First, the question assumes that all churches were "house churches". The assumption cannot be granted.

Second, the elders oversee "the flock among you"(1 Pet.5:1f). There are not flocks (plural) among them. There are no other flocks among them, and there are no plural "house-churches" they can oversee in a man-determined area or district.

Third, the spiritual Israel is not laid out into identical towns, lots, and tribal areas as were the physical Israel of the Old Testament. We occupy a spiritual domain in heavenly places, and the only indicator of a shepherd’s place of oversight and rule is the flock that they were "among" and which flock sees their work and qualifications.

LaGard will have more hints and imagined ideas later. For now, we answer his question that elders were only overseeing the one local church they were among.

We’ve Already Seen?

LaGard asserts next, regarding the elders at Ephesus, that "we’ve already seen that they, too, met in various house churches"(p.171). But, we did NOT see that! Where does the Bible say or imply that the elders at Ephesus were a unit spread among various house churches? Where did LaGard prove that the elders met in various "house churches"? We are amazed that our brother can build so much verbiage out of sheer imagination and then have the gall to say that we’ve "seen" a point he has not proven in the least.

Again, he asserts, regarding the elders in Jerusalem, "What’s more, their wider influence even beyond Jerusalem can hardly be denied."(p.172). But, no one denies that any present or past elders can have wider "influence". We all should have wider influence than just our local congregation. However, "influence" is not the same as "rule over". The Jerusalem elders did not "rule over" flocks that they were not "among".

One Group of Elders Over Several Churches?

By implication of question he asserts that one group of elders were over a district of churches. He asks, "Does this mean all the house-church elders in Jerusalem (collectively); or perhaps only one group of elders over all of the house churches in Jerusalem?"(p.172).

First, we keep reminding everyone, because LaGard keeps repeating the assumption that there were a lot of "house-churches" in Jerusalem, that from the assumption he frames his questions. This is like the old familiar trick-question, "Are you still beating your wife"? If you answer "no", it implies that you have been beating your wife and have now stopped. No one can appreciate questions that are first assuming of a point not established.

Second, the statement "and all the elders were present"(Acts 21:18), could mean all the elders over the one church that still held assemblies in a disciple-familiar location, or, it could mean all the elders in the local church of which James (to whom Paul, Luke, and others came to visit) was a member. It is not a necessary inference that all the elders over a district of churches were present.

Third, where do we read of a plurality of churches in Jerusalem? We read of "churches of Judea" and "churches of Galatia", but where do we read of "house churches in Jerusalem"? Does LaGard invent district elders over a district of churches? By what authority?

Along this line he further says, "...we’ve simply never given much thought, if any, to city-wide elders. We’ve always assumed that "the flock of God among you" must surely apply to each congregation". (p.173). But, he has assumed that there were scriptures upon which to "give much thought" about "city-wide elders". He has also assumed that there were scriptures that said there were many churches in the city. How can we give much thought to something that is not even stated or implied? If there is nothing that indicates a board of elders or many churches in the city or elders over a lot of churches in a city or district, then all we have are scriptures that do not force us to think about such. We’ve never given much thought to state-wide and nation-wide elders simply because there are no scriptures to force such thoughts or possibilities. LaGard starts with an assumption he cannot prove, and then lets his imagination run wild.

He further asks, "Did a number of different house churches ever collectively comprise a larger "congregation"?(p.173). To this we answer that there is no evidence of "different house churches", and therefore there can be no evidence that there was an organization of these churches into a larger district association of churches. LaGard is hinting strongly that a diocese of churches might be scriptural. He has left Jerusalem and is on his way to Rome, and we should see him offering apologies to the Roman Catholic organization of churches if he keeps heading in the direction he is wanting to lead others.

Comparing To Elders In Physical Israel?

On page 175 he looks at the various levels of elders in national Israel. They had "tribal elders" and "national elders", and he hints that the early church may have had house-church elders and then possibly a board of elders over them per "metropolitan area", and then, by the same logic, there could have been a universal board of elders over the universal church. With such speculations, how could he criticize the Roman Catholic structure?

LaGard comes again to "the question about city-wide elders"(p.176), but offers nothing about the church and the evidence of it in the New Testament. He merely tries to draw an imaginary parallel between Israel’s town elders and the elders in each church. On page 177 he is forced to admit that "there is no compelling reason" to think the church followed the Jewish pattern in physical Israel. So, the evidence forces us back to realizing that city-wide elders over a number of churches has no biblical evidence and therefore no biblical support. This should have caused him to leave the idea alone. But, the silence of the scriptures is not going to stop him.

He says, "...no single model of eldership responsibility (whether in the Old or New Testaments) is conclusive on the issue of "jurisdiction""(p.178). We beg to differ. The "jurisdiction" is set. It is "the flock among you" and "over which you are overseers". One flock per group of elders. That is all the model shows. He admitted there was "no compelling reason" to imagine a structure like the Jews had in Israel. And, if he had more evidence to form a "model" of larger jurisdictions of elder-rule, then he would have shown us the scripture. Therefore, he is left bewildered and saying there is no model. But, if there is no model, then there can be no limits, and if no limits, then we cannot object to the Roman Catholic model. LaGard is simply wrong about this. 

Nothing To Rule It Out?

Still not content with the biblical pattern, he says, "There is nothing to rule out the possibility that the role of elders in the early church might well have encompassed more than one level of involvement --even simultaneously"(p.178). But, everything is ruled out that cannot be ruled IN. Get this point! Everything is automatically ruled out that cannot be ruled in. LaGard will admit that instrumental music in worship cannot be ruled in. Therefore he would use the logic that whatever cannot be ruled in is automatically ruled out. At least on that question. Perhaps he would use the same logic on the question of infant baptism. Whatever cannot be ruled in is automatically ruled out. If the evidence does not support it, then we cannot assert it. But, for some strange reason, LaGard does not use the same logic when it comes to the question of the role of elders. If LaGard could have ruled in such structures as city-wide or district-wide or county-wide or state-wide elders and levels of elder jurisdictions, he should have offered the evidence that ruled it in. His argument is the same as the argument that says there is nothing to rule out the possibility that early Christians counted beads as they prayed, said prayers to Moses or Mary, etc. LaGard really knows better than to use this kind of argument. At least I hope so! Everything that we cannot definitely rule in, must be ruled out.

LaGard knows the principle of the authority of silence when it comes to the questions of sprinkling or pouring for baptism or instrumental music, popes, cardinals, and a host of other things. We are made to wonder why he has lost sight of it on this issue! Still, he insists "nothing necessarily precludes ‘Jerusalem’s elders’ from being gathered from among elders in a multiplicity of house churches"(p.178). But, by that same reasoning, what precludes, other than the silence of the scriptures, that there were not state and national and universal levels of elders too? We cannot "preclude" it if you think silence permits us to imagine it and then employ it. But, if you believe that the reason God was silent about such organization is because He did not want it enough to reveal it, then silence "precludes" us from seeing that "Jerusalem’s elders" were gathered from among a multiplicity of "house churches".

Other groundless assertions are made like, "As we’ve already seen, the Corinthians almost certainly met in house churches for the weekly love feast"(p.178). Yet, he offered no proof of this either. The bulk of LaGard’s book is built on assumption on top of assumption. We marvel that with such imaginary gymnastics he has not found room to exonerate the Roman Catholic Church. With just a little more imagination he could.

Preachers Are "Pastors"?

On page 184 he says, "Much has been said about the incorrectness of addressing preachers as "pastors". But if we’re truly honest, who today is feeding the flock? Whose voice, both figuratively and literally, is being heard week-in and week-out?"

First, we find that Timothy preached the word where elders were appointed and that did not mean that he was a "pastor", nor that the elders were not feeding the flock directly in other ways and indirectly through the support of Timothy. While it is good for elders to do more personal teaching, they do not have to do all the public preaching in order to "feed" the flock. They are "feeding" the flock by providing and directing all the teaching that goes on, whether directly by them or indirectly through them. They can lead the flock to green pastures by coordinating the teaching and preaching materials to address specific needs. They can do the teaching themselves or assign the task to more skillful men. The elders in Jerusalem did not do all the teaching. The apostles also preached, and other men like a Stephen or a Barnabas taught. Feeding the flock does not mean to personally hand-feed, necessarily. It includes providing other teachers and preachers when such is deemed important to the diet of spiritual food for the flock.

Was Timothy A "Pastor"?

A huge part of Timothy’s work was toward the brethren there at Ephesus. He was told to "instruct the brethren in these things"(1 Tim.4:6), and if he did he would be a good "minister of Jesus Christ". A preacher is a good minister or servant if he warns the brethren of deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. But, Timothy had the approval of the eldership (1 Tim.4:14). Yet, he was meditating, studying, and delivering messages that instructed the brethren and potentially saving "those who hear you"(1 Tim.4:16). While Timothy was instructing the brethren, there were also "elders who rule well" and even elders "who labor in the word and doctrine"(1 Tim.5:17). Yet, Timothy could rebuke an elder who might be sinning and do so "in the presence of all"(1 Tim.5:20). Yet, Timothy could do all these things and still not be a "pastor" or shepherd. Timothy was still a young man (1 Tim.4:12), and a shepherd or elder had to be an older man. An "evangelist", as we shall see in the next chapter, does not deal exclusively, nor necessarily primarily, with teaching the lost, but he also deals heavily with keeping the saved and "correcting" those who have itching ears to hear something other than the truth of the gospel. But, not leaving our topic, we see that Timothy worked among pastors, but was not himself a pastor. And, we also make note that the pastors did not do all the feeding of the flock directly because we see Timothy doing a major portion of it. Had he left all the feeding of the flock to the elders there, LaGard might have a point. But, LaGard does not have a valid point because Timothy fed the brethren where elders were present. Therefore, preachers are not "pastors" unless they are older men who have been qualified and appointed to be pastors or shepherds (elders).

Some Great Points

The rest of the chapter is filled with good material on the work of elders and their relationship to the flock. I am amazed that one so wise and scriptural on some things can be so careless and unscriptural on other things. Brethren should not have to sift through false teaching and groundless imaginations to get to the good stuff when a preacher of the gospel is writing or speaking. LaGard has a lot of good ideas, but I hate that I had to sift through so much bad to get to the good. There is so much that could have made his book excellent, but he inserted too much opinion and out-right error to make it commendable at all.

But Spoiling Errors Ruin The Good

We found so much to commend in LaGard’s book, but it was ruined by the subtle and not so subtle errors that were mixed in. The following are some of the "traditions of men" found promoted to one degree or another in LaGard’s book. They can spoil the salvation of any who follow them. The traditions of men are:

1) Churches should only meet in houses,

2) Those house churches must be small,

3) Houses are by nature the best "setting" for churches,

4) The Lord’s Supper must be an "integral" part of a common meal,

5) Common meals are "fellowship meals" commanded by God,

6) Elders can oversee multiple churches in a district or metropolitan area,

7) Preachers are pastors if they preach to the brethren, and they are usurping the role of the elders if they preach regularly to the local brethren.

LaGard has given his support and influence to the promotion of these traditions of men. Therefore, we must mark and avoid such teachers of error (Rom.16:17f). Those who promote unrest and divisions in churches must be warned, and if after due warning (first and second admonition) they persist, we must "reject" them knowing that "such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-11). Here is a point of "radical restoration". When we see a need to get back to Paul’s divinely inspired instructions to "reject a divisive man" we may be getting ready to radically restore the pattern of true discipleship. How many churches are willing to "restore" these kind of "radical" instructions to a modern church?

If ever there was a time for these instructions to come into play, it is surely when a man begins creating unrest in a church by asserting the doctrines of men listed above. It may be time for shepherds to look around and quit being "sheepish" about such issues. It may be time for drastic measures to be taken. This is surely a spiritual "hoof-and-mouth" epidemic in some places, and we may be able to trace some of this coming from a teacher in a small cottage in England who passed it along in a book purporting to be about "radical restoration". Shepherds, beware! --- Terry W. Benton

Terry's Website and E-Mail Address

www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

terrywbenton@bellsouth.net