God's Laws Within Relationships (Organizations)
by Dave Brown
Return to the Bible Authority landing page
See page on difference between Individual and Church responsibility
Note: this is a long article but we hope you will be patient as you wade through it. An understanding that Gods laws are given within the context of certain relationships is essential to our not taking what God has commanded within one relationship and misapplying it to another. The words "relationship" and "organization" are almost synonymous, the one implying the other. May God bless you in your search for the truth.
There are certain relationships that all men have, and Christians are no exception. I am sure that most can recall the following familiar story …
Matt 22:17-22
17 Tell us therefore, What do you think? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. 22 When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left him, and went their way.
This last verse is quite telling, for quite often when we hear this story, we too are in such awe that we go our ways and miss some major points that Jesus was making.
GOVERNMENT
Jesus is stating that God works through the political powers, but that we need to understand that there is a distinct difference between our serving (or perhaps refusing to serve) the dictates of our government and our personal relationship with God. This is not to say that they are in totally separate realms – that we can serve our government six days of the week and serve God on Sunday – or anything like that. In fact, God has given us very specific instructions regarding our service to the government, so that when we serve the government (e.g., pay taxes or whatever else), we are, in fact, serving God (if we do it in accordance with His will). For example:
Romans 13:1-7
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Will you then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and you shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that do evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
But these commands are not without qualification. In matters where the edicts of the government conflict with the commands of God, the New Testament is quite clear:
Acts 5:29
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men.
One of the things that Jesus was clarifying in Matthew 22:17-22 was a contrast between two of the several relationships that we have. Recognize that when we refer to relationships we are talking about how we are to work together, and thus subject ourselves to one another. In this case, subjecting ourselves to our government as opposed to (or perhaps concurrently with) subjecting ourselves to God. Think about it: all organizations create relationships, and they require a certain degree of subjection of their members. This is an inescapable truism.
In addition to government there are several other relationships that Christians cannot avoid. When Jesus said: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's,” he was expressing not only a specific command about two relationships, but a general (extremely sublime) principle that also applies to all other relationships that we have in this life.
The relationships that all Christians have in this life are with respect to:
With regard to God and the government, Jesus put them into perspective: render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (i.e., what God has given to Caesar), and render unto God the things that are God's. This is an argument from the lesser to the greater. We obey our rulers because God told us to (Romans 13), but we are commanded to disobey them if their commands force us to violate God's will. If we are to obey our rulers, how much more should we obey God. Let’s now look at the other relationships.
FAMILY
Let's take a look at the family relationship see how it follows the same pattern. One example (there are many) of where God has given directions as to how we are conduct ourselves in the family relationship is:
Ephesians 5:21-6:4
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
[This is an interesting introduction to this passage in that all "relationships" involve people subjecting themselves to each other. That is what the government relationship is all about, and so is it in the family relationship, and all other relationships for that matter. "Relationship" implies some type of subjection, as does organization. Continuing on in Ephesians 5 ...]
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. 1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. 4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
The passage above is extremely sublime, but we present it only as an example to prove that God has regulated our conduct within the family relationship.
Question: is a wife to obey her husband it he commands her to curse God? Of course not. So, as with the government, these are not absolute, unqualified commands. It is assumed that what the husband requests of the wife and the children are good and right, or at worst, neutral matters of judgment.
Now to illustrate how the principle that Jesus gave regarding Cesaer in Mt. 22 applies, consider the question: does a government official have the right to come into your house and tell your kids when to go to bed? [Granted, we can see in exceptional cases of child/wife abuse where some action of the government might be in order, but we are assuming the normative situation here.]
The question is obviously rhetorical – of course not. No one would or should tolerate it. Why? Because there are things of the family and there are things of the government. Render unto the family the things of the family and to the government the things of the government. Conversely, can a man rationalize that since his wife and kids will be taken care of by the government, he can up and leave them and they do not have to be his concern? Of course not, it is our responsibility to raise our own children, and to take care of our families ...
1 Timothy 5:8: "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever."
Even most unbelievers understand that they should take care of their families and not push it off on the government or anyone else. Unfortunately, believing is not always doing.
CHURCH
Paul also talks about the church in the context of Ephesians 5, and this would seem to be the next relationship in importance, so we will take that up next. This church can be viewed as the relationship that we share with fellow Christians. We might have other relationships with them – they might be family members, or we might be in business with other Christian, etc. But these different relationships should not be confused. There is a special church relationship that is governed very definitively by God, just as the family and government relationships are similarly governed.
Before that though, let us clarify that our relationship with God is not only through the church. The idea that the only way we can relate to God is through some organization of men not taught anywhere in the bible. Unfortunately, there are many religious organizations who fail to emphasize this principle. In reaction to this many Evangelicals talk about their "personal relationship with God."
While we have a personal relationship with God, we also relate to God through His church, as it is the Bride of Christ. If we worship in spirit and truth and do all things according to His word, we glorify God through the church. However, often religious organizations go bad. We see the beginnings of this both at Corinth, and in five of the seven church of Asia in the Book of Revelation. People blindly following their church leaders has obviously led to dire consequences in many religious organizations around us, and we are warned against this. Nevertheless, a major part of what God expects of us is through our church activities, and it is this relating to other Christians in the local church that is the subject of this particular relationship. Let us not confuse it with our relationship with God.
To illustrate that God does have a definitive structure for our activities in the church, the book of 1st Timothy can be cited as an example. This becomes particularly explicit in Chapter 3 where the qualifications of Elders and Deacons are given. Paul makes it explicit as well, for right after that he writes:
1 Timothy 3:14-15: These things write I unto you, hoping to come unto you shortly: 15 But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Why was Paul writing on this occasion? “These things write I unto you ... that you may know how you ought to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
This is sufficient to make our point. This article is not interested in what all the laws are, just that the bible is explicit in stating that these laws do exist. In particular, in this case we get back to the issue of subjection once again – we are to subject ourselves to the Elders and the Deacons, for they both are also servants subjecting themselves to the best interests of the church. It is stated that the Elders "rule" the local church. In other words, they are the final authority in matters of judgment. There should be no issue over matters of doctrine – nothing should ever be taught as doctrine that cannot be proven by the scriptures, so the only concern of the Elders is to see that all of the Bible is taught, and that ONLY the bible is taught.
Back to the subject. We have a relationship with other Christians, and part of it involves the authority and rule within the local church. Does this rule go beyond the church? Can the elders come into your home and tell you how to set up your furniture? (They can in the church meeting house.) Can they tell you when you should have a family meeting? (They can for the church.) We could go on and on, but hopefully these example will sufficiently illustrate the point. We can clearly see that it is not the function of the elders to exercise their authority outside of the context of the church.
Hopefully this brings to light again the point that Jesus made in Matthew 22: “Render unto Ceasar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are Gods.” Render unto the church the things that are the church's and unto the government the things that are the government’s. It is wrong for woman to give orders in the church, but not outside of that context unless violating some other principle. It is right (indeed, an obligation) for an elder to pronounce matters of judgment within the context of church activity, but not outside of that context unless there is another relationship authorizing such (e.g., family or business).
God may have a different set of rules for each relationship. We might listen to country music and enjoy it without sin in the family context or in the social context. That does not authorize it to be brought into the church. Just because something is innocent in the family context, does not mean it is authorized in the church. There are dozens of obvious examples of things that are perfectly right and good in the context of the family, but would be totally wrong if practiced in or by the church. Why is it that some would justify church activities by stating that they are right in another context? If one activity can be justified this way then all family activities would also be authorized as church activities. Would it be right for the church to take over all family responsibilities and begin raising the children? Of course not. So why take a step in this direction by transferring even one family responsibility over to the church?
An example of the early Christians violating this principle is given in 1 Corinthians 11:18-34. They were eating a common meal in the church and calling it the Lord's Supper. The rhetorical question of Paul sums it up perfectly: "What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?" (1 Corinthians 11:22).
It is very important to recognize at this point that the big difference between an individual (or even a family) activity and the church practicing the same thing. When we bring an activity into the church, it forces it upon all members (we say it binds it upon all members of the local church). This is a very big and important difference. Those who would needlessly offend others with their preferences are not doing it out of love – they are doing it out of pride. this is one of those situations in which something totally right per se becomes wrong because personal judgments are being forced upon others. Here is what Paul stated in this regard ...
1 Corinthians 4:6: "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."
When we go beyond the things that are written as far as work, worship or doctrine of the church are concerned, we are acting out of pride and not love, and it will always cause division and trouble. If we can prove all of our practices by the things that are written, there is no such trouble because we all have a common respect that the things that are written in the Bible are from God.
Now consider 1 Timothy 5:16 “If any woman that believeth hath widows , let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.”
This is talking about a family relationship – if a woman is responsible and has the means to support a family member who is a widow, she is to do it. In this case, the church is prohibited from supporting this widow. Why? So that the church will have the resources to take care of those who are truly destitute and have no family – Paul calls them widows indeed. While that is a good practical reason for God's law, the fact that it is God's law is the more compelling reason for us to conform to it. This passage (1 Tim. 5:16) and its context makes it very clear that church responsibility and family responsibility are two different things and they should not be confused. Most parents understand that the church is not responsible for raising their children.
BUSINESS (EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE)
The next relationship that we have listed is that of the employer-employee, or we might call it the business relationship. Paul addressed this after he discussed the family relationship.
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6 not in the way of eye service, as men-pleasers; but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7 with good will doing service, as unto the Lord, and not unto men: 8 knowing that whatsoever good thing each one does, the same shall he receive again from the Lord, whether (he be) bond or free. 9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, and forbear threatening: knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him."
Again, we see that the relationship has everything to do with subjection. We can argue from the lesser to the greater here, for if Paul gave such instructions to bondservants, how much more would this be true of those of us who have jobs and who are quite free to leave our jobs for other opportunities whenever we should choose to do so. So it is our responsibility to work "as unto the Lord" (Eph. 6:7), and to obey those who are set over us in the companies that we work for. Similarly, our subjection should be to our customers if we are in business for ourselves (they are the ones paying for our services). This is limited only by the moral law – obviously we are not to violate God’s law in such obedience to our supervisors or customers.
Again, we can clearly see the limitation that must be placed on the business relationship. Those who have authority in the workplace are limited to that realm. That which applies in that realm cannot be extended to other realms, especially the church.
Clearly the church is not a business, is not to be operated as a business, and has no authority to go into any money-making business enterprise. For the church to engage in business enterprise is clearly as wrong as it is for it to get involved with politics. Those who wish to move the church into worldly endeavors see no problem in either, and we commonly see religious organizations being involved in both. Funding for scriptural church activities is from the free will offering of the local church members (1 Cor. 16:1). These members and their elders are in the best possible position to assure that the funds are used scripturally and wisely for the Lord's intended purposes.
SOCIAL (COMMUNITY)
Finally, there are the social relationships that we have, which is sort of a catch-all for any other organized activities that we get involved in that do not fit into any of the classifications above. We typically enter into and exit from these relationships almost subconsciously. For example, if we go out fishing on a party boat, we subject ourselves to the captain and crew on that boat for the duration of the trip. Similarly, if our kids are on a soccer team, for the duration of the game they (and hopefully we) subject ourselves to the umpires.
An excellent biblical example of a social relationship is presented in the context of Jesus’ first miracle.
John 2:1-11: "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 and Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 Now there were six waterpots of stone set there after the Jews' manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the ruler of the feast. And they bare it. 9 And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants that had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast calleth the bridegroom, 10 and saith unto him, Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when (men) have drunk freely, (then) that which is worse: thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him."
Note the term: “ruler of the feast.” This implies that this person was recognized for the duration of the feast to be empowered, and that the participants would voluntarily be in subjection to him. We observe the same thing today in the context of a wedding. In most cases when we enter the wedding place we are escorted by an usher and we subject ourselves to him and sit where we are led to sit. This is so taken for granted that most of the time we fail to recognize it as a temporary organizational relationship. But our society would be chaos without such rules of behavior being understood.
Note the inter-relationships that were in effect during this event:
It should be quite clear that the fact that Mary had temporary authority (even over Jesus himself) within the context of this social affair would not confer to her authority in the Synagogue. This example cannot be used, for example, to authorize female elders in the church (for their qualifications see 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1). While there is no doubt that she had authority, it was limited to the social relationship that was created by the wedding.
CONCLUSION
We have attempted to demonstrate that many commands and examples given in the bible are given within the context of the relationships that we as Christians sustain with each other and those of the world in our daily life. In most cases we have seen how absurd it is to take the commands and examples that are given in one relationship and attempt to apply them in another. While all of this might seem to be common sense, we commonly hear statements that ignore this principle. The following are examples:
1. “Whatever an individual is authorized to do, the church is authorized to do.”
2. “I just cannot see anything wrong with the church having a gymnasium.”
3. “Anywhere that several Christians engage in an activity together, that is the church engaging in it.”
Statements such as these illustrate that many people are unable to recognize that biblical commands and examples are generally limited to the relationship in which they are given. Or perhaps they are made by people who have a very good understanding of biblical authority, but they also know how to lead people away from the truth.
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?
There are certain relationships that all men have, and Christians are no exception. I am sure that most can recall the following familiar story …
Matt 22:17-22
17 Tell us therefore, What do you think? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. 22 When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left him, and went their way.
This last verse is quite telling, for quite often when we hear this story, we too are in such awe that we go our ways and miss some major points that Jesus was making.
GOVERNMENT
Jesus is stating that God works through the political powers, but that we need to understand that there is a distinct difference between our serving (or perhaps refusing to serve) the dictates of our government and our personal relationship with God. This is not to say that they are in totally separate realms – that we can serve our government six days of the week and serve God on Sunday – or anything like that. In fact, God has given us very specific instructions regarding our service to the government, so that when we serve the government (e.g., pay taxes or whatever else), we are, in fact, serving God (if we do it in accordance with His will). For example:
Romans 13:1-7
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Will you then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and you shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that do evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
But these commands are not without qualification. In matters where the edicts of the government conflict with the commands of God, the New Testament is quite clear:
Acts 5:29
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men.
One of the things that Jesus was clarifying in Matthew 22:17-22 was a contrast between two of the several relationships that we have. Recognize that when we refer to relationships we are talking about how we are to work together, and thus subject ourselves to one another. In this case, subjecting ourselves to our government as opposed to (or perhaps concurrently with) subjecting ourselves to God. Think about it: all organizations create relationships, and they require a certain degree of subjection of their members. This is an inescapable truism.
In addition to government there are several other relationships that Christians cannot avoid. When Jesus said: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's,” he was expressing not only a specific command about two relationships, but a general (extremely sublime) principle that also applies to all other relationships that we have in this life.
The relationships that all Christians have in this life are with respect to:
- God
- Family
- Church
- Business (includes employer-employee)
- Government
- Social
With regard to God and the government, Jesus put them into perspective: render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (i.e., what God has given to Caesar), and render unto God the things that are God's. This is an argument from the lesser to the greater. We obey our rulers because God told us to (Romans 13), but we are commanded to disobey them if their commands force us to violate God's will. If we are to obey our rulers, how much more should we obey God. Let’s now look at the other relationships.
FAMILY
Let's take a look at the family relationship see how it follows the same pattern. One example (there are many) of where God has given directions as to how we are conduct ourselves in the family relationship is:
Ephesians 5:21-6:4
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
[This is an interesting introduction to this passage in that all "relationships" involve people subjecting themselves to each other. That is what the government relationship is all about, and so is it in the family relationship, and all other relationships for that matter. "Relationship" implies some type of subjection, as does organization. Continuing on in Ephesians 5 ...]
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. 1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. 4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
The passage above is extremely sublime, but we present it only as an example to prove that God has regulated our conduct within the family relationship.
Question: is a wife to obey her husband it he commands her to curse God? Of course not. So, as with the government, these are not absolute, unqualified commands. It is assumed that what the husband requests of the wife and the children are good and right, or at worst, neutral matters of judgment.
Now to illustrate how the principle that Jesus gave regarding Cesaer in Mt. 22 applies, consider the question: does a government official have the right to come into your house and tell your kids when to go to bed? [Granted, we can see in exceptional cases of child/wife abuse where some action of the government might be in order, but we are assuming the normative situation here.]
The question is obviously rhetorical – of course not. No one would or should tolerate it. Why? Because there are things of the family and there are things of the government. Render unto the family the things of the family and to the government the things of the government. Conversely, can a man rationalize that since his wife and kids will be taken care of by the government, he can up and leave them and they do not have to be his concern? Of course not, it is our responsibility to raise our own children, and to take care of our families ...
1 Timothy 5:8: "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever."
Even most unbelievers understand that they should take care of their families and not push it off on the government or anyone else. Unfortunately, believing is not always doing.
CHURCH
Paul also talks about the church in the context of Ephesians 5, and this would seem to be the next relationship in importance, so we will take that up next. This church can be viewed as the relationship that we share with fellow Christians. We might have other relationships with them – they might be family members, or we might be in business with other Christian, etc. But these different relationships should not be confused. There is a special church relationship that is governed very definitively by God, just as the family and government relationships are similarly governed.
Before that though, let us clarify that our relationship with God is not only through the church. The idea that the only way we can relate to God is through some organization of men not taught anywhere in the bible. Unfortunately, there are many religious organizations who fail to emphasize this principle. In reaction to this many Evangelicals talk about their "personal relationship with God."
While we have a personal relationship with God, we also relate to God through His church, as it is the Bride of Christ. If we worship in spirit and truth and do all things according to His word, we glorify God through the church. However, often religious organizations go bad. We see the beginnings of this both at Corinth, and in five of the seven church of Asia in the Book of Revelation. People blindly following their church leaders has obviously led to dire consequences in many religious organizations around us, and we are warned against this. Nevertheless, a major part of what God expects of us is through our church activities, and it is this relating to other Christians in the local church that is the subject of this particular relationship. Let us not confuse it with our relationship with God.
To illustrate that God does have a definitive structure for our activities in the church, the book of 1st Timothy can be cited as an example. This becomes particularly explicit in Chapter 3 where the qualifications of Elders and Deacons are given. Paul makes it explicit as well, for right after that he writes:
1 Timothy 3:14-15: These things write I unto you, hoping to come unto you shortly: 15 But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Why was Paul writing on this occasion? “These things write I unto you ... that you may know how you ought to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
This is sufficient to make our point. This article is not interested in what all the laws are, just that the bible is explicit in stating that these laws do exist. In particular, in this case we get back to the issue of subjection once again – we are to subject ourselves to the Elders and the Deacons, for they both are also servants subjecting themselves to the best interests of the church. It is stated that the Elders "rule" the local church. In other words, they are the final authority in matters of judgment. There should be no issue over matters of doctrine – nothing should ever be taught as doctrine that cannot be proven by the scriptures, so the only concern of the Elders is to see that all of the Bible is taught, and that ONLY the bible is taught.
Back to the subject. We have a relationship with other Christians, and part of it involves the authority and rule within the local church. Does this rule go beyond the church? Can the elders come into your home and tell you how to set up your furniture? (They can in the church meeting house.) Can they tell you when you should have a family meeting? (They can for the church.) We could go on and on, but hopefully these example will sufficiently illustrate the point. We can clearly see that it is not the function of the elders to exercise their authority outside of the context of the church.
Hopefully this brings to light again the point that Jesus made in Matthew 22: “Render unto Ceasar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are Gods.” Render unto the church the things that are the church's and unto the government the things that are the government’s. It is wrong for woman to give orders in the church, but not outside of that context unless violating some other principle. It is right (indeed, an obligation) for an elder to pronounce matters of judgment within the context of church activity, but not outside of that context unless there is another relationship authorizing such (e.g., family or business).
God may have a different set of rules for each relationship. We might listen to country music and enjoy it without sin in the family context or in the social context. That does not authorize it to be brought into the church. Just because something is innocent in the family context, does not mean it is authorized in the church. There are dozens of obvious examples of things that are perfectly right and good in the context of the family, but would be totally wrong if practiced in or by the church. Why is it that some would justify church activities by stating that they are right in another context? If one activity can be justified this way then all family activities would also be authorized as church activities. Would it be right for the church to take over all family responsibilities and begin raising the children? Of course not. So why take a step in this direction by transferring even one family responsibility over to the church?
An example of the early Christians violating this principle is given in 1 Corinthians 11:18-34. They were eating a common meal in the church and calling it the Lord's Supper. The rhetorical question of Paul sums it up perfectly: "What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?" (1 Corinthians 11:22).
It is very important to recognize at this point that the big difference between an individual (or even a family) activity and the church practicing the same thing. When we bring an activity into the church, it forces it upon all members (we say it binds it upon all members of the local church). This is a very big and important difference. Those who would needlessly offend others with their preferences are not doing it out of love – they are doing it out of pride. this is one of those situations in which something totally right per se becomes wrong because personal judgments are being forced upon others. Here is what Paul stated in this regard ...
1 Corinthians 4:6: "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."
When we go beyond the things that are written as far as work, worship or doctrine of the church are concerned, we are acting out of pride and not love, and it will always cause division and trouble. If we can prove all of our practices by the things that are written, there is no such trouble because we all have a common respect that the things that are written in the Bible are from God.
Now consider 1 Timothy 5:16 “If any woman that believeth hath widows , let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.”
This is talking about a family relationship – if a woman is responsible and has the means to support a family member who is a widow, she is to do it. In this case, the church is prohibited from supporting this widow. Why? So that the church will have the resources to take care of those who are truly destitute and have no family – Paul calls them widows indeed. While that is a good practical reason for God's law, the fact that it is God's law is the more compelling reason for us to conform to it. This passage (1 Tim. 5:16) and its context makes it very clear that church responsibility and family responsibility are two different things and they should not be confused. Most parents understand that the church is not responsible for raising their children.
BUSINESS (EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE)
The next relationship that we have listed is that of the employer-employee, or we might call it the business relationship. Paul addressed this after he discussed the family relationship.
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6 not in the way of eye service, as men-pleasers; but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7 with good will doing service, as unto the Lord, and not unto men: 8 knowing that whatsoever good thing each one does, the same shall he receive again from the Lord, whether (he be) bond or free. 9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, and forbear threatening: knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him."
Again, we see that the relationship has everything to do with subjection. We can argue from the lesser to the greater here, for if Paul gave such instructions to bondservants, how much more would this be true of those of us who have jobs and who are quite free to leave our jobs for other opportunities whenever we should choose to do so. So it is our responsibility to work "as unto the Lord" (Eph. 6:7), and to obey those who are set over us in the companies that we work for. Similarly, our subjection should be to our customers if we are in business for ourselves (they are the ones paying for our services). This is limited only by the moral law – obviously we are not to violate God’s law in such obedience to our supervisors or customers.
Again, we can clearly see the limitation that must be placed on the business relationship. Those who have authority in the workplace are limited to that realm. That which applies in that realm cannot be extended to other realms, especially the church.
Clearly the church is not a business, is not to be operated as a business, and has no authority to go into any money-making business enterprise. For the church to engage in business enterprise is clearly as wrong as it is for it to get involved with politics. Those who wish to move the church into worldly endeavors see no problem in either, and we commonly see religious organizations being involved in both. Funding for scriptural church activities is from the free will offering of the local church members (1 Cor. 16:1). These members and their elders are in the best possible position to assure that the funds are used scripturally and wisely for the Lord's intended purposes.
SOCIAL (COMMUNITY)
Finally, there are the social relationships that we have, which is sort of a catch-all for any other organized activities that we get involved in that do not fit into any of the classifications above. We typically enter into and exit from these relationships almost subconsciously. For example, if we go out fishing on a party boat, we subject ourselves to the captain and crew on that boat for the duration of the trip. Similarly, if our kids are on a soccer team, for the duration of the game they (and hopefully we) subject ourselves to the umpires.
An excellent biblical example of a social relationship is presented in the context of Jesus’ first miracle.
John 2:1-11: "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 and Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 Now there were six waterpots of stone set there after the Jews' manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the ruler of the feast. And they bare it. 9 And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants that had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast calleth the bridegroom, 10 and saith unto him, Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when (men) have drunk freely, (then) that which is worse: thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him."
Note the term: “ruler of the feast.” This implies that this person was recognized for the duration of the feast to be empowered, and that the participants would voluntarily be in subjection to him. We observe the same thing today in the context of a wedding. In most cases when we enter the wedding place we are escorted by an usher and we subject ourselves to him and sit where we are led to sit. This is so taken for granted that most of the time we fail to recognize it as a temporary organizational relationship. But our society would be chaos without such rules of behavior being understood.
Note the inter-relationships that were in effect during this event:
- Verse 4 indicates that Jesus felt some obligation to his Mother, who seemed to have some special relationship with the ruler of the feast.
- Verse 5 indicates that the servants knew Mary and voluntarily subjected themselves to her. She gave a command to them and they obeyed it.
- Jesus then issued commands and they were obeyed by the delegated authority of Mary.
It should be quite clear that the fact that Mary had temporary authority (even over Jesus himself) within the context of this social affair would not confer to her authority in the Synagogue. This example cannot be used, for example, to authorize female elders in the church (for their qualifications see 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1). While there is no doubt that she had authority, it was limited to the social relationship that was created by the wedding.
CONCLUSION
We have attempted to demonstrate that many commands and examples given in the bible are given within the context of the relationships that we as Christians sustain with each other and those of the world in our daily life. In most cases we have seen how absurd it is to take the commands and examples that are given in one relationship and attempt to apply them in another. While all of this might seem to be common sense, we commonly hear statements that ignore this principle. The following are examples:
1. “Whatever an individual is authorized to do, the church is authorized to do.”
2. “I just cannot see anything wrong with the church having a gymnasium.”
3. “Anywhere that several Christians engage in an activity together, that is the church engaging in it.”
Statements such as these illustrate that many people are unable to recognize that biblical commands and examples are generally limited to the relationship in which they are given. Or perhaps they are made by people who have a very good understanding of biblical authority, but they also know how to lead people away from the truth.
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?