Thursday, December 17, 2020

Gerald Weston On Democracy


 

From an LCG source:

(Gerald) Weston said,

"But neither democracy nor a military approach correspond to the model Christ gave us."

I agree with the military comment, but the democracy comment is 100% incorrect.

Jesus used the Greek democratic "ekklesia/ecclesia" to describe his model. Even if he didn't intend for every detail of a Greek ecclesia to be mimicked, his first followers would have immediately associated it with a democratic approach. 

From “The Assembly,” C. Blackwell, ed., Dēmos: Classical Athenian Democracy :

The Assembly (ecclesia) was the regular opportunity for all male citizens of Athens to speak their minds and exercise their votes regarding the government of their city. It was the most central and most definitive institution of the Athenian Democracy.

From Encyclopedia Britannica entry "Democracy":

What political institutions are necessary for governing?—the Athenians adopted an answer that would appear independently elsewhere. The heart and centre of their government was the Assembly (Ecclesia), which met almost weekly—40 times a year—on the Pnyx, a hill west of the Acropolis. Decisions were taken by vote, and, as in many later assemblies, voting was by a show of hands. As would also be true in many later democratic systems, the votes of a majority of those present and voting prevailed. 
 
Aside from the question of whether Jesus and the Apostles restricted participation to only males, the pertinent issue in this discussion is whether Jesus endorsed a democratic model. If he did not then he would not have used "ecclesia" to describe what he was building, because the people of his time would have known exactly what an ecclesia was, and that it involved direct participation in decision making by all the members of the group, so it would not have made sense to use "ecclesia" if he meant an elite hierarchy or corporation.

If Jesus had meant to adopt a human hierarchy with governance by a few then he would have used another term besides "ecclesia" to describe what he was building such as "dikasteria," which was a smaller group that served as a powerful court, or "aristocracy," “the rule of what Herodotus called ‘the one man, the best’” Ancient Greek Democracy

Or Jesus could have said he would build his "boule" which was a "council of 500 men, appointed annually by lot from among citizens aged at least thirty, and with severe restrictions on repeated membership. Its chief function was to prepare the agenda for meetings of the ekklesia, and to undertake certain routine administrative duties, in particular, that of coordinating the activities of numerous boards of minor officials" A Glossary of Athenian Legal Terms

King James I had the same concern about government and ecclesiastical authority that Gerald Weston has, and so when he authorized the English translation of the Bible, he made sure to give the translators the rule:
"The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation etc."

This is where King James insisted that when the translators find the word ecclesia that they make sure to substitute the traditional institutional word "Church" and not use a proper translation of "congregation" like Tyndale used and was murdered for. What would be King James’s motive for forbidding the proper translation of ecclesia and using "Church" instead? I think the answer should be obvious, but it has to do with maintaining a separation between clergy and laity and ensuring that the authorized translation supported ecclesiastical authority over and repression of the masses. The COGs today fall right in line with King James’s rule when they insist that their groups must use the term "Church of God" to be valid.

Even the popular ISBE (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) says this in the first line of the entry “Church”:

The word "church," which is derived from kuriakos, "of or belonging to the Lord," represents in the English Versions of the Bible of the New Testament the Greek word ekklesia; Latin, ecclesia.” 
 
What this is saying is that “church” is not derived from ekklesia, and that English Bibles substitute (“represent”) the Greek word ekklesia with the English word “church.” So, if Jesus had meant “church” then he would have used the Greek word kuriakos.

Democratic ecclesia didn't mean lack of leadership as would be the accusation to this by the aristocracy in the COGs, and it’s why teaching discernment to the followers of Jesus is so important. The Greek ecclesia had heralds whose job it was to make sure everyone who wanted to speak had an opportunity. This freedom to speak presented the risk of an ecclesia getting out of control, thus,

  This freedom to speak was not absolute or without regulation. Aeschines tells us, for example, that in the early democracy (before the 5th century) citizens over 50 years of age could speak first, and only after those had their say could younger men speak. Other formal restrictions could apply, such as decrees limiting discussion of certain topics to certain meetings of the Assembly (C. Blackwell).

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nothing upsets Weston more than criticism of himself or the church. Members should not have that right. Whatever he and the ministry do or say should be taken as a direct action from God, no questions asked. This tactic has backfired on Weston and all the other COG's out there. They are being held accountable for their actions and they do not like it!

Anonymous said...

GW always prided himself as a good second banana. He used the example of himself working under Kermit Nelson at SEP. It was interesting to hear him say this as he in essence believed himself as one of the called and chosen, ie, minister and no one dared challenge his authority.

I’m sure working under RCM, he presented himself in the same way.... totally subservient to the authority, but having known him for over 30 years, democracy would be a dirty word, as long as he remained in the pecking order of those in charge. Being in charge now, he gets the full impact of derision for every decision he makes, which I’m sure is gut wrenching and confusing how someone who has always done things right, could be seen in such a way. I’m sure the old adage “Satan is attacking” is used quite often rather than any self examination.

Anonymous said...

GW always prided himself as a good second banana. He used the example of himself working under Kermit Nelson at SEP. It was interesting to hear him say this as he in essence believed himself as one of the called and chosen, ie, minister and no one dared challenge his authority.

I’m sure working under RCM, he presented himself in the same way.... totally subservient to the authority, but having known him for over 30 years, democracy would be a dirty word, as long as he remained in the pecking order of those in charge. Being in charge now, he gets the full impact of derision for every decision he makes, which I’m sure is gut wrenching and confusing how someone who has always done things right, could be seen in such a way. I’m sure the old adage “Satan is attacking” is used quite often rather than any self examination.

Anonymous ` said...

From the book "Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of our Church Practices" by Frank Viola and George Barna:

"Decision making in the New Testament church fell upon the shoulders of the whole assembly. Traveling church planters would sometimes give input and direction. But ultimately, the whole church made local decisions under the lordship of Jesus Christ. It was the church's responsibility to find the Lord's mind together and act accordingly."

My ancestors were Quakers, as were HWA's, and they followed a model similar to this NT model. It is remarkable that HWA moved so far away from it.

The challenge to all those Armstrongists, who are going to be preaching the paganism of Christmas in the new few weeks, is to delve into the origin of some of the practices in the Western Church and preach against those practices with just as much fervor as will be directed towards Christmas. It is from the Western Church that the Millerites adopted many of their organizational and denominational practices.

Note: I have to admit that the way the NT Church did things would probably not work in our modern American churches. It is likely that the churches would never find agreement and come unhinged without some kind of over-arcing governance. Modern Christians and Armstrongists are not as strong as those in the early church - IMHO.

Great exposition on the word ekklesia.

******* Click on my icon to view my Disclaimer

nck said...

NEO dec 17

Perhaps its a matter of perspective.

Try and look at it from hwa's perspective. The radio church of god was a "local" church, confined to the limits of a radio studio.

All decisions were made locally......in Pasadena, where the ONLY temple edifice was based.

When the IRS demanded local congrgations in 1953 for compliance with tax rules, the culture had already been set for 20 years.

Nck

Anonymous said...

Governing what exactly? Weston pontifys like a King in charge of a cluster nations.
The is nothing hardly left of the WCG lump to actually justify governing.

Pastors in all groups have to pastor people who live nowhere near them and who they differ with in all kinds of ways. Culture, language, local traditions, you name it. Members spread all over. How exactly does this really work?
Pastors in recent decades become either international jet setters pastoring or overstretched and overworked pastoring a few here and another 50+ miles away.

Anonymous said...


John 8:50 But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges.

Self-styled messiah's always do it for their own glory, not the Father's. Beware of a ministry where the main focus is on the authority, power and giftedness of the leader, not on God.

Tonto said...

People vote. If not by an election , then with their feet, and in their heart.

If you do not win the hearts of the people, then all you have left is force. Force is not enlightenment and accomplishes nothing except creating "yellow pencils", and inertially reluctantly given compliance.

Since the ultimate fruit is individual children for God, in a stand alone basis, and not corporate group think, then what good does all of this "top down" government produce?

Anonymous said...

I agree Tonto but communist rule is not the answer either.

TLA said...

What this blog post gets wrong is that Jesus was a Jew talking to the local Jews in Aramaic, not Greek.
We only know what He is reported to have said by people who wrote the gospels decades later.
There is no indication that any of His message was written down at the time.

Anonymous said...

I'm not convinced that "ekklesia" conveyed the concept of democracy to Jesus' audience. In the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, ekklesia was often used to translate the Hebrew word qahal (but sometimes qahal was translated to sunagoge (synagogue)). In that Old Testament context, qahal/ekklesia didn't imply democracy, but rather a gathering/assembly of the people.

Having said that, various scriptures such as Matthew 18:17 and 1 Corinthians 5:4 imply a responsibility of the people to act as a collective, and not merely leave it to a leader to run everything.

Having said THAT, various other scriptures still indicate it's God's will for the ekklesia to have recognised leaders among them.

Having said THAT, the scriptures also make it clear that such leaders are not to be authoritarian, but to be servants to the people.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the Bible indicates that there should be leaders among the ekklesia but those leaders shouldn't act as overlords, or hinder the function of the body as a collective. They are there to lead by example, not by compulsion. 1Peter 5:3 I also agree that the term ekklesia, besides referring to an assembly of Greek citizens who functioned as a governing body in the various Greek city-states, can also refer to a gathering or assembly of people for some other purpose, or as William Tyndale rendered it, a congregation.

However, I also don't think you can look at the scriptures and completely rule out the use of certain elements of democratic procedure within the context of how the congregation functions as most of the modern COGs do. As I suggested several days ago in another thread, the example of Acts 6 in particular implies the congregation had a part to play in choosing those who would serve among them as leaders. Acts 6:3 tells us that the congregated disciples were instructed to select or choose seven men who met certain criteria, whom the Apostles would then "appoint" to their responsibilities. The fact that the Apostles appointed them, doesn't preclude the fact that it was the congregation who selected them. When Paul gave instructions to Titus in Titus 1:5 to "appoint" (same Greek word as in Acts 6:3, kathistémi, meaning to set in order, or appoint) elders in every city, he also gave the qualifying statement, "as I directed you" and then goes into certain qualities elders serving among the congregations should have.(verses 6-9) The fact that Titus was told to "appoint" elders however, doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't involve the congregation in their selection, if we take the pattern in Acts 6 into consideration. Titus was clearly given qualifying instructions, which he could have then passed on to the congregations in Crete. In other words, as the Apostles "appointed" the seven, but also involved the congregation in the process, so too could Titus have "appointed" elders, but also involved other congregations in the process.

The pattern in Acts 6 would have been...

1. A need for leadership/service among the congregation is recognized.
2. The congregation is assembled and asked to select candidates who meet certain criteria, i.e. full of the Holy Spirit, not violent, hospitable, not given to drink, etc.
3. The candidates are then presented to the already recognized leaders who then "appoint" them to their responsibilities, done in Acts 6 with prayer and the laying on of hands.

We could also look at Acts 14:23 which says..."Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust." NIV The Greek word translated here as "appointed" is a different word than in Acts 6:3. The Greek here is χειροτονέω or cheirotoneó which by definition means "to vote by stretching out the hand" or as the word studies section of Strong's indicates... [5500 (xeirotonéō) literally means, "'I stretch out the hand,' thus expressing agreement with a motion, then, 'I elect by show of hands' [of popular vote]), 'I elect' " (Souter); properly, 'to vote by stretching out the hand' (practised in the assembly, so Athenian, Lucian, Plutarch)" (Abbott-Smith).] The use of this particular word carries with it then the idea of an election, or "vote" as a means of appointment. Commentators argue about whether this means Paul and Barnabas appointed elders by means of an election which would have involved the congregations, or appointed the elders without the involvement of the congregation. The same word is found one other time in 2Corinthians 8:19, speaking of a "brother, who was chosen(cheirotoneó) by all the churches to accompany us as we carry the offering..." NIV

Concerned Sister

Anonymous said...

Even the military command and control has it's limitations. Soldiers still have freedom of thought, freedom to their own religious and political beliefs, freedom to their own families and friends, and unlike David packs outfit, freedom to their own property. The command and control is restricted to military matters. In the ACOGs, there are no limitations.