But you did list a bunch of scriptures, and make a quick reference to the “appointment” of elders, which is what usually happens in these kinds of conversations…

I’ve found that whenever engaging in the conversations with those who have accepted this modern concept of “church leadership”, (and I was in that position for most of my life…) that this is what we do. We simply point to quick proof-texts that say something about the “appointment of elders”, or, “those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel”, and then that settles it, right?

But do we ever stop to consider what those texts are really saying, or how much we may be reading into them?

What does it mean when it says “appoint” an elder anyway? Was it really a title, with a list of expectations and powers?

What does the scripture mean by “receive their living from the gospel”? Does it really mean that people should be paid a salary, or one-time fee, for preaching the gospel? Or is maybe it describing the reality that those who were traveling around, planting and building up churches, could simply expect to get room and board (the basic definition of “living”) from the churches they were visiting?

Do we honestly believe that any of the apostles, or deacons, or elders, in the early Church, made contractual agreements to receive money from the people they were serving??? (as is the accepted practice today…)

Dick, in that verse in Hebrews you quoted it says: “not greedy for money, but eager to serve”… But if we allow ourselves to take money from the people we are “serving”, and then turn around and say, “well, I’m not being greedy for money, just taking what I need”, then that whole warning becomes useless and meaningless. Where is the line for “greediness” drawn? How much is an “acceptable” amount of cash to take from God’s people?

Also, in those verses you quoted, it really opens up the fuller picture…
We must keep in mind what it says in 1 Peter, when we read a verse like Hebrews 13:17! Particularly, where it says, “not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock”

“Lording” one’s authority over someone else, that is the essence of a hierarchical leadership approach. Living as an example, is a completely different thing altogether. You said yourself Dick that: “This authority goes no further than the Word of God… if the pastor in his injunctions were to go beyond the Word of God we must disobey him

But right there, the whole appeal to an office-oriented approach to leadership falls apart! That is not some small caveat to be thrown in at the end, just to deal with a few “extreme” situations, but it actually affects everything!

It’s like saying, “submit to their authority, and obey whatever they say, but only when they are right”… Huh? How is that supposed to work? Well…. it doesn’t, and history has proven this over and over again…

What happens within a hierarchical leadership structure (like, say, the Catholic Church…) when that institution teaches false doctrines, and someone (like say Luther) stands up and says, “This is not what the bible teaches!”? Usually, they try and squash the “insurrection”, right? So that voice of protest leaves the hierarchy, and then goes out and starts a new one, with new leaders in new offices of authority… But what happens when they themselves teach something contrary to scripture? The same thing, over and over and over again… Every new denomination that has formed was an attempt at created a “solid” bullwark to protect the truth, by putting it in the hands of some “ordained”, select few who had the scholarship or wisdom to “protect” it from being ruined by the common folk. The Holy Spirit of Christ has been considered untrustworthy in protecting His own Gospel, His own church, and we incessantly defer His role to our devices…

Most of the time, when new false teachings or heresies have arisen, it was introduced to the church through someone in an official “leadership position”. This is because that all too common idea of “obey your church leaders, unless they teach something contrary to scripture”, is a completely schizophrenic way of thinking! Why do people look to an official “clergy” in the first place, huh? Why do they think there is a need for a special class of “ordained” Christians at all? Because they are pointed to as the ones who “have the answers”. They are the ones who have the “specialized” training and abilities beyond the average believer. If there was no existence of this belief in the minds of the “laity”, then these men would simply not have jobs.

You pay an electrician to come out an fix your wiring, because it is something that is beyond the understanding or ability of the average person. But the kind of “leader” that is described in the NT, is much more like a neighbor, who comes over when he hears your electricity is out, and takes a look. He invites you to come and watch, while he inspects your electrical system. He shows you what to look for. He shares whatever he knows. He helps you fix it, and makes sure you understand enough so that the next time it happens, you won’t need him to be around. He doesn’t accept any offers of money, but happily enjoys the lunch you made for him while he was there. He leaves, and the impression you are left with afterwards is, “I want to be someone like that”…

5 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
(1 Pe 5:1).
Heb 13 17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
(Heb 13:17). DR- This authority goes no further than the Word of God- per the Brief Statement- if the pastor in his injunctions were to go beyond the Word of God we must disobey him.
As you noted per Hebrews the whole congregation is being chastised- rebuked for not maturing to be teachers of the Word to others.

Elder- Overseer- Bishop- Pastor- Shepherd are all the same- they are asked by the “2 or 3″ to serve. Like Zecariah- John the Baptizer’s father- it is for the time of service- not for life.
Just because there is abuse and neglect by those in the Office and those out of the Office- which there is- of how this is to be done- doesn’t mean God hasn’t given us a balanced standard.

What was the primary difference between Deacons and Elders in Acts? Why?
Who chose/called/ordained (set apart)?
What did the Deacons also do while doing what they were Called to do?
Acts 6 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Who were the 8.4 and What did the 8.4 do? 4 Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.

what resulted from the preaching and teaching of the people? Acts19 Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. 20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.

21 The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

I believe Scripture sets a standard for a called priesthood.

there were also fulltime pastors as well as worker priests.
1 Cor 9 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
15 But I have not used any of these rights.

No one may ever go beyond the Word’s authority.
The Sheep are to Judge the Shepherds.
more later….

And then we have the Augsburg Confession, Article XIV, “Concerning church order they teach that no one should teach publicly in the church or administer the sacraments unless properly called.” Also, Article XXVIII outlines the power of bishops and the Church, and it is asserted that such powers (of the keys of or bishops) “depend… on one’s calling” (8).

Further, Luther says in the Book of Concord in “Treatise on the Power and the Primacy” [of the Pope], 70, “The most common practice of the church also testifies to this, for in times past the people chose pastors and bishops. Then the bishop of either that church or a neighboring one came and confirmed the candidate by the laying on of hands.” And moreso, in the Apology of the Augsburg confession, Article XIII, 12 “For the church has the mandate to appoint ministers, which ought to please us greatly because we know that God approves this ministry and is present in it. Indeed, it is worthwhile to extol the ministry of the Word with every possible kind of praise against fanatics who imagine that the Holy Spirit is not given through the Word but is given on account of certain preparations of their own…”

When we take even a cursory glance at what the NT has to say about teaching, it is clear that everyone who was mature in the faith was expected to be able to teach others. It was not some special privelage, resigned to only a select few. It was something basic, (and so not surprising that we find it listed as a requirement for elders…) Certainly the scripture speaks of those of us we seek to be teachers, and how those who teach will be judged more severely, but we must not let our modern day conceptions misguide our understanding of what the scriptures really teach. Just because some receive a special spiritual gift of teaching, that doesn’t mean that they are the only ones who are ever allowed to teach! Also, just because some aregiven the gift of teaching, that doesn’t mean that whatever they say/teach must be received by everyone else as “authoritative”… It simply means they have been given a special heart and supernatural empowering to do it more than the average member of the Body. Similarly, never in the days of when the NT was written, did anyone have the concept of needing to be “invited” to teach. It was not some super exceptional privelage which needed some kind of official invitation, but instead the scriptures teach that if anyone in the meeting receives a word of prophecy, then as long as things are being done in an orderly way, everyone gets a turn to speak, and what is spoken was also weighed by the group as a whole.

There were no “scheduled messages”, or sermons as we think of them today. Teaching was something that came through ordinary men and women as they were prompted by the voice of the Holy Spirit. Essentially, it was something that is almost altogether inconceivable to the contempary American church-goer…