Its just what men do, we tend to organize, structure and make rules which in many cases become the letter of law all over again only in a new/different package.

We have the Holy Spirit which can give us freedom but depending on Him to many is a risky somewhat terrifying prospect......we shun His Guidance for fear His Liberty will lead to disorder.

God forbid we actually lose control and give it to and trust God! 

Not only that but for some people, the NT is only the OT repackaged to be more attractive with Jesus as the spokesperson....

When in fact the NT is Gods True Intent and Plan for mankind as He purposed from the beginning.

Therefore one can say that the Covenant of Moses was super imposed upon God's original Plan and Purpose and was more or less a deviation from His Original Intentions, the Truth of His Character and His Desires regarding His Relationship with Mankind

Yet many Christians clamor scuffle debate and go into hissy fits over a Covenant that was not ever intended for ever given to them....

I submit
We can only appreciate the True value of Our Salvation when we realize the key aspects of what the whole thing is all about and for God's sake,

Put the New Wine in the New Wineskin before your  old one bursts! 

As "organization" increases "religion" replaces relationships and life in the Spirit shrivels.


Here's a quote from a dead Trapist monk;



Religious structural organization is more a reflection of people's need to exert control.

The apostles didn't inculcate either religion or organization in the way that DCR is asking his question.

Is it not both?

Probably true...not so much an "either/or". 

I think the strength of the statement is that if you see the church as the center of the dynamic, then you'll find yourself investing energy into programs and structures.  In contrast, if you see the ekklesia as a "product" of what God and His Spirit is doing in the lives of individuals and groups of individuals, then our greater investment will be in relational dynamics.

I think it's significant that of the four Gospel accounts only Matthew records Jesus using the term "church", and that only twice.  If "church" as organization and structure were supremely important to Jesus, then why didn't he talk about it more?


V




P.S.  A. and I are getting some hens.  We're missing the livestock.

DCR
There are 15 different Greek words rendered apoint or appointed.  When talking about elders it is more helping the congregation to reconize those who already, by their life, are elders.

Sorry, I sometimes don't intend to come across that way. 

See my response to him above this.  What do you think about that?

<2,,2525,kathistemi>
a strengthened form of No. 1, usually signifies "to appoint a person to a position." In this sense the verb is often translated "to make" or "to set," in appointing a person to a place of authority, e.g., a servant over a household, Matt. 24:45,47; 25:21,23; Luke 12:42,44; a judge, Luke 12:14; Acts 7:27,35; a governor, Acts 7:10; man by God over the work of His hands, Heb. 2:7. It is rendered "appoint," with reference to the so-called seven deacons in Acts 6:3. The RV translates it by "appoint" in Titus 1:5, instead of "ordain," of the elders whom Titus was to "appoint" in every city in Crete. Not a formal eccelesiastical ordination is in view, but the "appointment," for the recognition of the churches, of those who had already been raised up and qualified by the Holy Spirit, and had given evidence of this in their life and service (see No. 11). It is used of the priests of old, Heb. 5:1; 7:28; 8:3 (RV, "appointed"). See CONDUCT, MAKE, ORDAIN, SET.

"episkopos" is the word used in 1 Timothy 3 and in Titus 1.

ἐπίσκοπος,n  {ep-is'-kop-os}
1) an overseer  1a) a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done  by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or  superintendent  1b) the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a Christian church

(http://www.greekbible.com/index.php)

A popular term I've heard used in recent years for "elder" is "shepherd."  A shepherd's role is to protect the sheep from the wolves and guard the sheep from going astray.  Peter (I think it was) warns against elders "lording over" the flock though.  So, there is a boundary placed even on these overseers... so that they might not "micro-manage" (to use a business term) the church.

...a chief metaphor for the church is that of a living family. For this reason, the Biblical model for Christian leadership is that of a spiritual mother and father (1 Thes. 2:6-12). Notwithstanding, even the parental image of leadership can become distorted and turned into cold prose if not viewed against the backdrop of the general priesthood of all believers and our primary relationship with one another as brothers and sisters (Matt. 23:8). Plainly stated, the leaders of the New Testament church led in a non-hierarchical, non-aristocratic, non-authoritarian, non-institutional, and non-clerical way. Moreover, the leadership that is envisioned in the New Testament is primarily functional, and more importantly, it is relational.

Thus, to have the leadership of the local church function according to the same principles as that of a corporate executive in a business or an aristocrat in an imperial caste-system was never the Lord's thought. It is for this reason that the New Testament authors never chose to use hierarchical and imperial metaphors to describe church leadership. Rather, the leaders of the New Testament church are depicted as slaves and as children, rather than as lords and masters (Luke 22:25-26). While this sort of thinking comes in direct conflict with today's popular ideas of authority, it meshes perfectly with the Biblical teaching of the kingdom of God--the sphere in which the weak are strong, the poor are rich, the humble are exalted, and the last are first.

Agreed.  So, maybe we're not that far apart.  I don't believe in overly authoritarian elderships, if that's what you're getting at.

The chief reason why our ideas of church leadership have strayed so far from the Biblical teaching can be traced to our tendency to project our American political notions of authority, position, and office onto the Biblical writers and read them back into the New Testament text. Hence, when we read words like "pastor," "overseer," and "elder" in the New Testament, we tend to think of them in terms of executive officials like "President" and "Senator." In this way, we regard elders, pastors, and overseers as sociological constructs (offices). We view them as vacancy slots that possess a reality independent of the persons that populate them. Accordingly, we ascribe church officials with unquestioned authority over all other believers in the assembly simply because they "hold office."

The New Testament notion of leadership, however, is markedly different. There is no Biblical warrant for the idea that church leadership is official, nor for the notion that some believers have authority over other believers. The only authority that exists in the church is Christ Himself. Humans have no authority in themselves. Divine authority is only vested in the Head. Therefore, authority in the New Testament is representative. This means that while believers can represent and express Divine authority, they never assume such authority.

The task of Biblical leadership, then, is simply to discover, express, and model the will of the Head. As far as a member of the Body is reflecting the Mind of the Head, to that degree he is representing Divine authority. And to the degree that a member is modeling the will of God, to that degree he is leading. In this connection, Biblical leadership is service-oriented; leaders are those who excel in service and ministry. This enables them to model and pattern how the whole church ought to function. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Apostle Paul never chose to use any of the 40 plus common Greek words for "office" and "authority" when discussing Christian leadership. The startling reality is that Paul's favorite word for defining Biblical leadership is the opposite of what natural minds would suspect--it is diakonos, which means "a servant."

In his beautiful exposition of Mark 10:42-43, Ray Stedman remarks,
Authority among Christians is not derived from the same source as worldly authority, nor is it to be exercised in the same manner. The world's view of authority places men over one another, as in a military command structure, a business executive hierarchy, or a governmental system...Urged by the competitiveness created by the Fall, and faced with the rebelliousness and ruthlessness of sinful human nature, the world could not function without the use of command structures and executive decision. But as Jesus carefully stated, '...it shall not be so among you.' Disciples are always in a different relationship to one another than worldlings are. Christians are brothers and sisters, children of one Father, and members one of another. Jesus put it clearly in Matthew 23:8, 'One is your Master, and all you are brethren.' Throughout twenty centuries the church has virtually ignored these words. Probably with the best of intentions, it has nevertheless repeatedly borrowed in total the authority structures of the world, changed the names of executives from kings, generals, captains, presidents, governors, secretaries, heads, and chiefs to popes, patriarchs, bishops, stewards, deacons, pastors, and elders, and gone merrily on its way, lording it over the brethren and thus destroying the model of servanthood which our Lord intended...Somewhere, surely, the words of Jesus, '...it shall not be so among you,' must find some effect. Yet in most churches today an unthinking acceptance has been given to the idea that the pastor is the final voice of authority in both doctrine and practice, and that he is the executive officer of the church with respect to administration. But surely, if a pope over the whole church is bad, a pope in every church is no better![/color] ("A Pastor's Authority," Discovery Paper #3500, Discovery Publishing).

Let's not forget the fact that New Testament elders were servants of the Master, the Lord Jesus, who alone owned the rights to the church. Thus, throughout the entire New Testament, no church leader is ever referred to as "the head" of a church. Such a title is exclusively reserved for the Lord Jesus. Since the elders of the early assembly did not view the church as belonging to them, they did not push their agendas through by sheer force nor roadblock others into mindless submission by an appeal to "their position." In other words, the elders of the early church did not operate as an oligarchy (absolute rule by a few) or a dictatorship (monarchical rule by one person). 

By the same token, the early assembly did not operate like a modern democracy. The New Testament never envisions the affairs of the church being resolved through majority rule. While we may think that our American democratic system is rooted in Biblical theology, there is not a single example in the entire New Testament where we find decisions being made by a show of hands.