IMPORTANCE NOTICE:

If you wish to read the Greek and Hebrew characters employed in
this essay, you must download (free) the Greek and Hebrew fonts listed on my home page.

 

Thrust statement: Elders are to lead, not dictate.

Scripture reading: Hebrews 13:17.

INTRODUCTION

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 (Hebrews 13:17).[1]

This essay seeks to explore the role of leaders within the Christian community of the Churches of Christ. In this investigation, the objective is to analyze the function of power seized by many leaders/elders/preachers/editors within the Churches of Christ and also to look into the key Scriptures cited by the select few for their justification of dictatorial powers. There is a positive side of leadership as well as a negative side. This paper seeks to look at both sides from a biblical perspective. On the downbeat trait, the person in charge is dictatorial; on the upbeat quality, the guide is a model to be imitated in his/her daily walk with God. On the negative side, the leader is viewed as ruler, boss, director, executive, manager, chief, and master. However, on the positive side, the leader is viewed as guide, advisor, beacon, counselor, teacher, lighthouse, and guidepost.

LEADERSHIP IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY

Dictatorial Leadership

            The question that confronts many sincere Christians is: Is biblical submission blind obedience to whatever the leaders believe the Bible teaches? Or does biblical surrender to the leaders negate allegiance to Christ in every facet of one’s life? Can the leaders stand in judgment for another’s actions? Or does each person give an account to God for his/her own dealings? Are there any infallible interpreters in the Churches of Christ? These are questions that everyone must deal with in his/her own life. Is your faith in the leaders? Or is your faith in God? Which? Are leaders infallible interpreters of God’s Word? Are Christians responsible to God for their actions? Are Christians to blindly follow whatever the leaders tell them to do or believe?

            Has God authorized high-ranking individuals to occupy a tyrannical position within the Christian community? It is not uncommon for elders, within the Churches of Christ, to hire or dismiss preachers without the consent of the congregation. Once they make the decision, then that judgment is final—no recourse, case closed. Can elders appoint other elders without the consent of the congregation? This scenario happened recently in a congregation in Birmingham, AL. As a result of high-handedness, the body of Christ split. Has God endorsed a select few to exercise lordship over the consciences of other believers? Are believers to unscrew their heads and let a certain group of men behave as a board of directors? When the board of administrators interprets Scripture, should one accept their views as ex cathedra? Is it sinful for one to disagree with the chosen shepherds and still remain within the fellowship of God’s people, that is to say, the local congregation? Does God require blind conformity? Is one to be fully persuaded according to the thinking of the elders/preachers/evangelist, regardless as to what they teach? Or should Christians exercise some judgment in keeping with their own minds? Do the Scriptures teach a sort of sightless submission?[2]

            The positive aspects of leadership promote responsible direction in order to encourage others to put forward a life dedicated to holy living. There is a need for older men to give guidance in the way of devoutness (see Hebrews 13:1-17). Leaders need to encourage Christians through their trials and tribulations. The church needs godly men to train other Christians to become soldiers for Jesus Christ in the conversion of the world.

Congregational Leadership

            This composition is not written to castigate holy men in their roles as servants of Christ nor is this essay written to deny that congregations need leadership. Rather this paper is concerned with “power religion.” Power religion is the same thing as exercising lordship over God’s children. Lording it over people is spiritual abuse.  Peter warns leaders not to engage in such high-handed tactics:

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: 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; not lording (katakurieuvonte", katakurieuontes) it over those entrusted to you, but being examples (tuvpoi, tupoi) to the flock (1 Peter 5:1-3).

Peter wants the elders to be models or patterns to the flock, not individuals who lord it over the ones entrusted to them. Since there is a trend among some leaders that Christians are to give blind obedience to whatever they teach, then this issue of the proper role of leadership must be dealt with.  Some leaders assume the role of Pope in their relationship to the people. It is wrong for leaders to bind their interpretations upon other Christians.[3]  The philosophy of “individual non-responsibility” advanced by many leaders is unbiblical. Leaders are not infallible interpreters. Every person should search the Scriptures for himself/herself and draw his/her own conclusions based upon the context (See Romans 14:1—15:7).

Paul sets an example of this kind of reasoning in his letter to the Christians at Rome and Corinth. There were many differences over doctrinal matters within the congregation at Rome. Some of the believers were correct in their interpretation of the issues discussed in Romans 14 and some were wrong. But both were wrong when they tried to impose their views upon other believers.  Thus, Paul dealt with diversity of opinions this way:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.  The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.  Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand (Romans 14:1-4).

Paul did not say that the shepherds were to enforce the correct interpretation dealing with “disputable matters.” The person with deficiency in understanding is still acceptable to God. Paul says “no” to judging: “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant?” (14:4). But is that all Paul says about this issue of unity in diversity? Again, the answer is “no.” Listen once more to Paul as he speaks of the standing of individuals with imperfection in their knowledge: “To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (14:4). Some of the Christians wanted to force their own views in these matters of differences, but again Paul says, “no”: “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5). He concludes his discussion about diversity this way: “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God” (15:7). Has God accepted you with imperfection in your life? Has God accepted you with imperfection in your understanding? If so, then Paul says that believers should “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.”

            Not only did Paul deal with unity in diversity with the church at Rome, but he also had to address this issue of how Christians should react when some defect in knowledge is quite apparent to the know-it-alls. He begins his treatise on the sacrificing of foods to idols: “Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge” (1 Corinthians 8:1). In other words, it is true that some understood the issues very clearly while others did not comprehend. Paul admits this up front. But he does not drop the ball with that statement. He goes on to say: “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (8:1). It is not uncommon for Christians who think they know everything to manifest an attitude of aloofness toward those whose knowledge does not measure up to theirs. Paul goes right to the heart of this problem: “Knowledge puffs up.” For Paul, if one loves others in spite of differences, then, this condescension is the outcome of love—“love builds up.”

            Paul nips this know-it-all-attitude in the bud. He writes: “The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know” (8:2).  Christians are in a state of growth. But Paul does not want Corinthians to make a test of fellowship out of spiritual digestion. What does matter is the state of the heart. Again, Paul points out that that which is acceptable to God is love for God: “But the man who loves God is known by God” (8:2). One may be deficient in knowledge but, at the same time, if one loves God, then, this individual is the one to whom God extends His love.[4]

If there were elders in the congregation at Corinth, they were not advised to take a negative action against the weak but rather to love them. Paul later wrote Titus on the procedures to follow if a person became divisive: “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10-11). This warning would apply to any of God’s children—leaders or lay people.  If one is not willing to follow the counsel of Paul to the Romans and the Corinthians, then Paul says that one should have nothing to do with the disruptive person—none are excluded, which includes elders, preachers, and editors of Christian journals. The so-called ruling class does not frequently heed this warning; they themselves become very troublesome when they do not get their way. They themselves are frequently divisive. Unseeing submission on the part of the congregation discourages personal accountability to God; this sightless resignation is not a mark of true Christian maturity. Raymond Brown is perfectly right when he insists, “The Christian is answerable to Christ alone.”[5]

CONTROVERSY AND MISUNDERSTANDING

OF BIBLICAL LEADERSHIP

            Much of the controversy and misunderstanding concerning the proper role leaders play within the local body of believers revolves around an interpretation of Hebrews 13:17: “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.” Many well-meaning leaders to substantiate their dictatorial leadership with the Churches of Christ, as well as of many other Christian ecclesiastical structures, quote this passage. Many godly men cite this Scripture with almost literal crudeness. Certain Scriptures, on first reading, appear to uphold the position many leaders advance within the local congregation. But before one offers an interpretation, one should consult the context. One goal of any interpreter should be to ascertain what the original writer sought to communicate through his use of words.

            The arguments that are usually advanced to maintain lordship over the congregation are so fragile that one is reluctant to let too much credence rest upon them. Nevertheless, because of current arguments advanced by a few, this subject of authority exercised by a small number of leaders must be dealt with. Part of the problem today is that the traditions of the church sometimes make it difficult, is not impossible, to read the Bible without “glasses.” Truth is too often the projection of the particular views and interests of the powerful. The powerful, often times, have difficulty in hearing God accurately. The “faith of the fathers” becomes the watchword of orthodoxy. Without intending to, “we bring our theological heritage, our ecclesiastical traditions, our cultural norms, or our existential concerns to the Epistles as we read them.”[6] The words of Jesus should ring loud and clear: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Revelation 3:6).[7]

            In seeking an answer to the phrase, “Obey them that have the rule over you” (Hebrews 13:17, KJV),[8] every interpreter must initially pursue the meaning intended for the original audience. Too often Christians find things in biblical narratives that are not really there (eisegesis); they read into the Bible their own notions rather than read out of (exegesis) the Bible what God wants them to know. Christians should not be “monkey-see-monkey-do” readers of Holy Scripture. God’s words are to be found in the intent of His Revelation, not man’s interpretation of His Word.

            Since words operate within a context and receive meaning from that context, then an exegete (interpreter) must recognize that words can change from situation to situation. Words do not automatically have meaning; they receive meaning from their author. To make the text say something that the author did not propose is to abuse the text. The message of the passage cannot be properly interpreted in isolation from the historical context. As a result of misreading the text, it is not uncommon for leaders to labor under the impression that God has given them authority over other Christians. Their voices are equated with the Word of God. Their interpretations are identified with Scripture. No one is allowed to be “fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5). But the evidence does not support the traditional attitude and position maintained by many elders. It is imperative that Christians learn to reevaluate and reinterpret what has been handed down to them through the years.

Ultimatums of Conformity Issued

By Many Religious Leaders

It is not exceptional for leaders (elders and preachers) to issue an ultimatum to other Christians who do not concur with their particular brand of orthodoxy to either shape up or ship out. The rule of thumb is: one must submit, never question. One is not allowed to disagree with the so-called leadership and still remain within the fellowship of the local community. In order to justify such ungodly behavior by the leaders, the nonconformist (one that thinks for himself/herself) is often referred to as “not sound in the faith.”

This mind-set is especially true within the various factions that exist within the Churches of Christ (at least twenty-five or more divisions). One’s acceptability depends on the position that one maintains concerning the following issues: one’s understandings about divorce and remarriage, instrumental music in the so-called worship service, the use of the Sunday school versus the non-Sunday school position, individual communion cups versus the one-cup practice, the Scripturalness of Bible colleges, the support of orphan homes, views on the return of Christ (premillennial), handclapping in the assembly, solo singing in the assembly, and so on. Christians are not allowed freedom to decide for themselves; the beliefs espoused by certain individuals must coincide with partisan leadership. 

            The subject of divorce and remarriage has wrought havoc within the body of Christ. If one divorces without the approval of leadership, then warnings are issued concerning their marital status. In other words, the eldership can issue an ultimatum—divorce and remain celibate or face dire consequences—ostracism. The leadership determines whether one should remain single, or if remarried, whether one can remain married. Whatever leadership decides, the people must obey without question. For one not to obey the elders is tantamount to not obeying God. No one is allowed to disagree with the “chosen few” without incurring the wrath of God, at least according to the leaders. The dictatorial powers are not limited just to this one issue—divorce and remarriage—but it can be applied to any position that the leadership decides upon.

Sightless Conformity Demanded

By Some Leaders

A host of Christian leaders today teach sightless conformity to their biblical interpretations. The kind of concord demanded by many church leaders—elders, preachers, and editors of religious journals—is not the same intent of the author of Hebrews. many church leaders today—not all—have the concept of compliance that demands conformity and resignation to party orthodoxy. The battle cry is: submit or be kicked out of the synagogue. This attitude is the same mindset of the religious leaders in Jesus’ day. As a result of the misuse of the Greek text, recent scholarship has focused on this issue of “obey” and its semantic[9] meaning. According to Owen L. Crouch, the “verb means ‘persuade.’ When you persuade yourself you obey. . . . They are not dictators over your spirits but are ‘leaders’ for your lives.”[10] Another scholar, Philip Hughes, is perfectly right when he insists: “The authority our author is commending must not be confused with authoritarianism.”[11] It is in this same vein that Leon Morris draws attention to the fact that “authority” is not a part of the Greek text. For instance, he writes:

The readers are to be obedient to their leaders. In v. 7 the leaders were men who had died. Here, however, those alive and currently in places of authority are meant (At the same time we should perhaps notice that there is nothing in the Gr. to correspond to NIV’s ‘their authority’).[12]

Thus, Schuyler English, too, explains: “It is self-evident, or should be, that such obedience will not be in the form of blind and unqualified compliance with the whims of self-appointed authority.”[13] Why did the author of Hebrews write verses 7 and 17 in chapter 13? Just a casual glance of the Book as a whole seems to convey the author’s appeal to the believers who had previously responded to the good news of God not to return to legalism, that is, Judaism. The new covenant demands, even as the old covenant, high moral standards, but at the same time, the new covenant does not involve Mosaic rituals, holy days, and formalities. In other words, the new covenant with God through Jesus Christ is internal, not external ritualism of animal sacrifices. He draws attention to the crucifixion of Jesus, but, in doing this, he cautions them about the possibility of crucifying the Son of God afresh by returning to Judaism.

He wants the Hebrews to continue to trust in Jesus as God’s atonement for the sins of humanity. Not only does he want these believers to turn to Him for salvation, but he also wants them to lay aside every sin that causes one to stumble so easily. This faithfulness to Jesus is what verses 7 and 17 are all about in chapter 13 of Hebrews. Listen once more to the author of Hebrews:

Keep on loving each other as brothers.  ² Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.  ³ Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering. ⁴ Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.  ⁵ Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” ⁶ So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” ⁷ Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.  ⁸ Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. ⁹ Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them.  ¹⁰ We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. ¹¹ The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp.  ¹² And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.  ¹³ Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.  ¹⁴ For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. ¹⁵ Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name.  ¹⁶ And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. 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 (Hebrews 13:1-17).

Letter to Dallas Burdette from Abused Preacher

            This author recently received (December 23, 2001) a letter from a brother who has suffered tremendously from abusive power exerted by the powerful. I am withholding this brother’s name in order to protect him, as much as possible, from the powers that be. As one reads his letter, one can sympathize with the abuse he has received from individuals who have mistreated him—all in the name of faithfulness to the Word of God. Listen to this brother as he describes his encounter within the Churches of Christ. He writes about his pilgrimage of faith as he left the Baptist movement to work among the Churches of Christ:

Dear Brother Dallas:

First, I want to sincerely apologize for my apparent poor demeanor in my E-Mails to you. I ask that you forgive me of this wrong! Permit me to briefly explain that I came amongst the churches of Christ meek, humble, rejoicing & happy. In a matter of a few short months I had been torn to shreds, me & my wife & family. The radical “anti’s” looked at every corner for anything of disagreement they could find to beat me with. I endured it for a time, confusedly. Yet, after a while I figured I had to take up for myself & defend myself. This has been a constant fight for me now for over 3 years. As you know, & as you stated in one of your E-Mails, if one does not line up & agree with them on EVERY single point then one is a false teacher & open game. They totally refuse a personal thinker & do everything in their power to gang up & kill him! I’m sure you know exactly what I am talking about. My growing up in a religion that held the Ministry in high esteem & reverence into the Church of Christ who are the total opposite was a tremendous shock, to say the least! This is what led to the writing of my book. I am a child of God that has been beat up on so much that I have so much anger & hostility in my heart for church of Christ people. I am a Preacher walking around with a chip on his shoulder ready at any time to fight, as I have been made to react. I am sorry that I have become this way. It’s like if a father or mother literally beats their child it will turn out to beat others as well because that’s how they have had to learn to react. I am not the man I use to be prior to entering the Church of Christ denomination. I don’t know if I’ll rebound back from it! It appears that the “knee-jerk reaction” I spoke to you about just happens to be me! I ask for your forgiveness in Christ Jesus.

I totally enjoy your writings. You work very hard & I am proud to have them in my library. Thank you so much. Brother Dallas, I want to go to heaven, I want to love the Lord & His people. I want to serve Him & them all the days of my life. Yet, I must somehow work through this bitterness. I ask for your humble prayers on this behalf. Dallas, behind all this bitterness, hatred, evil, & paranoia is a kind-hearted child of Christ who loves Him with all his heart.

My God truly & richly bless you & yours with happiness & long life in His service.

DALLAS BURDETTE VERSUS ELDERSHIP

Membership in Local Congregation

            As one reflects back on the KJV rendering of Hebrews 13:17, one is confronted with the words: “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account.” Many Christian leaders read this verse with wooden literalness. Several years ago, this author (Dallas Burdette) sought to place membership with one of the local congregations in Montgomery, AL. This particular fellowship of believers was associated with the Stone/Campbell Movement of the nineteen-century. This group identified itself as a Church of Christ. Once I had made known my desire to place membership and work within this congregation, the elders informed me that they would need to meet with me before they could give their consent. I agreed to this meeting, but they informed me that this would have to be done on a Wednesday evening during the congregation’s regular Bible study groups. They refused to come to my home or allow me to meet with them in their homes. This meeting, since it occurred on Wednesday evening, only lasted for about thirty minutes.

I finally agreed to meet with this board of directors—commonly called eldership—to discuss my becoming a member of this local congregation. After going to the office of the pulpit minister, we all set around a conference table. Then, the meeting began like this: “We understand that you have a problem with obeying them that have the rule over you.” Ultimately, they wanted to exercise mind control over me. I was informed that they would accept me on certain conditions. The conditions were: (1) You cannot invite members of this congregation into your home if you have certain individuals visiting you, namely, Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett; and (2) You can never give any religious journal or book to any member of this congregation without our approval.

            I found this extremely interesting, especially the one about not giving books to anyone without the permission of the “ruling elders.” One of the “ruling elders” owned one of the largest Christian bookstores in the South. He could sell the books, but I could not give them away without his permission. This group wanted to place a “gag order” on my writings or the writings of other men. This group of elders practiced mind control, which is totally unbiblical. These leaders sought to coerce me into accepting their views as infallible, even though some later changed their views on the divorce and remarriage issues that they adamantly argued against me at the time. My views, at the time, were also a bone of contention with these men. Later (several years later), one of the elders who fought my membership in the congregation changed his views concerning the divorce and remarriage controversy. He requested that I write a paper on this subject, which I did.[14]

Mind Control Sought By Elders

Another encounter occurred several years earlier than the aforementioned encounter with the board of directors. In this congregation, I expressed some views, while teaching a Bible class, on the marriage and divorce debate that did not coincide with the “ruling class.” One of the elders came to me and informed me: “You are never to tell anyone anything in this congregation that disagrees with what the elders have said.” Once more, one is confronted with the “obey them that have the rule over you.” This is the same congregation that called in a preacher from Atlanta, GA to get the congregation back on track—in spite of the fact that many members objected. After his arrival, he and the elders, one evening, raided the library and confiscated all of the books that I had donated to the Church, which had been previously approved by the same elders. These books were then placed under lock-and-key. The members were not allowed to read them.  One of the deacons found out that I picked up my books, but he was never told that, prior to my asking for my books back, the leadership impounded the books to protect its members. Again, one witnesses the cult mentality of mind control on the part of leadership.[15]

DALLAS BURDETTE VERSUS CHRISTIANITY UNIVERSITY

Essays Banned

Mind control is the major key to keeping its membership under control. One of the major Christian universities in Montgomery, AL also plays the identical mind control game that elders, preachers, and editors of religious journal exercise—agree or face excommunication or refusal to allow one on the faculty. The President of this particular university issued an executive order that my essays could no longer be required reading by the professors. Prior to this executive order, many of my essays were required reading. After my papers were placed on the prohibited list, I was not even allowed to photocopy papers—not even essays written by others—for the professors. This same Christian refused to allow me on the faculty because I would not write a paper condemning instrumental music.[16] Is this brother sincere? I suspect that he is.  He, like so many of us, allows traditions to mold one’s thinking. These leaders place themselves, not self-consciously, on a level with God. For one to disagree with leadership, then this is the same as disagreeing with God.

Letter from Bill Smith (An Elder)

In spite of the Matthean account of Jesus’ rebuke of superiority among the disciples, nevertheless, Christians still cite Hebrews 13:7, 17, and 24 to substantiate dictatorial, magisterial, authoritarian, totalitarian, and domineering obedience in the absolute. One is still confronted by the demand of some leaders (elders, preachers, and editors of religious journals) to demand blind obedience to group leaders. Having said this, this statement is not a blanket castigation of all religious leaders. This author (Dallas Burdette) received an email (December 25, 2001) from an elder (Bill Smith, Jr.), who is one of the leaders in a congregation in Louisiana. He writes:

Dallas, as you do your paper on “authority” and Hebrews 13:17, you can quote this elder as saying no mere human has authority over another Christian. As an elder, I have inordinate influence, but I have no raw authority to command anyone! Most men who want to argue authority do so because they have little or no influence among God’s people that allows them to lead. Therefore, they want to command. Of course, they do consider themselves to be benefactors for the peoples good, don’t they? This authority thing in my opinion is another of those hangovers from Catholicism. It grieves me that men want to rule rather than serve. This after Jesus made it so clear that his disciple were not to function as the world’s rulers. Do a good job on your paper. Our fellowship really needs to reinvestigate Christian leadership.[17]

HEBREWS 13:17 EMPLOYED BY MANY LEADERS

TO ENFORCE CONFORMITY TO ORTHODOXY

OF ITS PARTICULAR FACTION

            As stated above, the Scripture that is cited to uphold the traditional position of the authority of elders (leadership) within the Churches of Christ is Hebrews 13:17.  Many Christians read this Scripture and automatically identify this passage as authority for insisting that the elders are to be obeyed in toto (completely, fully, entirely, utterly). When one reads this verse without spectacles, one is immediately confronted with the awareness that this Scripture does not mention the word elders. In fact, the word that the Hebrews author employs is the word leaders (hJgoumevnoi", &hgoumenois, “to lead,”  “leading ones”). Even though leaders may include elders, nevertheless, this text does not indicate who the leaders were.

            When one interprets Hebrews 13:17 to teach that Christians must blindly “obey the elders,” then this kind of reading reads too much into the words of this text. Within many segments of the Restoration Movement, this Scripture has lead to the crystallization of error concerning the role of leaders within the body of Christ. Raymond Brown draws attention to the negative interpretation foisted upon this passage:

The writer is not inculcating blind, unthinking obedience to everything a Christian teacher says, otherwise there would be little point in issuing the warning he has just given about ‘diverse and strange’ doctrines. In the New Testament there is clear recognition that discernment is obviously necessary and also that obedience to the revealed word of God is essential.[18]

King James Version: Creation of   Much Confusion

Some of the confusion exists as a result of the King James Version. The word and phrase that contribute to the confusion are: “obey,” and “rule over you.” The English word obey is the translation of peivqw (peiqw), and the words rule over you originate from the Greek word hJgouvmeno" (&goumenos). This essay will explore the use of these two Greek words in order to ascertain the true intent of the author. It appears, so it seems to this author (Dallas Burdette), that the words obey (even though a correct translation) and rule over you are too strong and, thus, do not convey accurately the nuance intended by the author. The traditional emphasis upon the word obey contradicts other plain teachings as expounded by Jesus to His disciples. Also, the English phrase “rule over you” does not carry the sense contemplated by the originator of this Epistle.

The English translation seems to infer a hierarchy within the church, that is to say, a pyramid structure with laity at the bottom and various levels of leadership going to the top of the pyramid. Does the Greek text substantiate this kind of interpretation upon peivqw (peiqw, “persuade”) and hjgevomai, (&hgeomai, “to lead)? As stated above, Matthew records a conversation between Jesus and His disciples about leadership. The disciples were arguing about positions of power. To this Jesus responds by saying:

²⁵ Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. ²⁶ Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, ²⁷ and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— ²⁸ just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28).

            The word rulers is from the Greek word a[rconte" (archontes, which is from a[rcwn, arcwn, “ruler” or “chief”). Then the words “lord it over” are from the Greek word katakurieuvousin (katakurieusousin, which is from katakurieuvw, katakurieuw, “to exercise dominion over”). And finally, the words “exercise authority over” are from the Greek word katexousiavzousin (katexousizousin, which is from katexousiavzw, katexousiazw, “to exercise authority over”). These words employed by Jesus in His conversation stands in stark contrast to what the author of Hebrews is reputed to have written. The author of Hebrews did not use a[rcwn, arcwn, “ruler” or “chief,” or katakurieuvw, katakurieuw, “to exercise dominion over,”  but rather he uses the word hJgevomai (&geomai, “to lead”).  The Greek text in Hebrews 13:17 does not substantiate the prevailing error (“rule over you”) advanced by many elders and preachers within the Churches of Christ. In fact, the general interpretation contradicts what Jesus says in Matthew 20:25-28.

            Before advancing into an analysis of Hebrews 13:17, one’s attention is called to another Scripture that is relied upon to uphold the so-called “authority” of the elders. Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 5:17 is also utilized by many sincere Christians to maintain the status quo of the Churches of Christ. Paul writes: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine” (KJV). The NIV translates: “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.”  The Greek word proestw'te" (proestwtes, which is from proi?sthmi, proisthmi, “to manage,” “to direct”). The Message translation translates this way: “Give a bonus to leaders who do a good job, especially the ones who work hard at preaching and teaching.”[19]

King James and the Divine Right of Kings

The divine right of Kings, as maintained by King James, rings loud and clear in the translation of Holy Scripture.[20] King James wanted his subjects to “obey” him and his appointed bishops. It appears that the KJV has not seized upon the shade of meaning intended by Paul. The Greek word proisthmi may be translated as “direct” or “manage,” which communicates the idea of “to lead” or “to care for,” not “to rule.” The context of First Timothy does not exhibit the concept of the ruler and the ruled. This word will be dealt with more fully later in this essay. It is also worthy of note that Paul in his second epistle to Corinth addresses this very issue of “lording it over” God’s children: “Not that we lord it over (kurieuvomen kurieuomen) your faith, but we work with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm” (2 Corinthians 1:24).  But for the time being, it is necessary to draw attention to a more exhaustive study of the English words obey, and rule over you.

King James and the Cult of the Bishops

As one peruses the King James’ rendering of these Scriptures in Hebrews, it appears, at least it seems this way to this author, to be a deliberate attempt by those who were in power (King James [1603-1625] and his bishops) to strengthen their hold on usurped authority, an authority traced all the way back to Henry the Eighth (1509-1547)—the divine right of Kings. According to the author of Hebrews, the “ones leading you” were not to be tyrannical in their leadership, but they were to assume the role of servants. In other words, it is not “sightless” allegiance that is spoken of in Hebrews 13:7, 17, and 24, but rather submission to the principles of holiness as exemplified in the lives of the leaders.

            Regrettably, the translators of the King James Version did not capture the mood of the Greek text precisely. If the author of Hebrews wished to communicate the proposal of “rulership,” he could have employed other words to transmit this impression. As stated earlier, the Greek word for “lord it over” is noticeably not present. The current translation of the KJV translation of Hebrews 13:7, 17, and 24 appears to be the attitude of the translators. It is in this vein that Gustavus Paine cogently captures the essence of the “cult of the bishops” mentality, when he writes: “Given the times and the number of bishops among the learned men, the new Bible was certain to sustain the cult of bishops wherever the chance arose.”[21]

TRADITION AND THE INTERPRETATION

OF HEBREWS 13:17

From Hebrews 13:17, many leaders find authority for their dictatorial powers. But does this verse uphold the kind of tyranny that is found throughout the Churches of Christ as a whole? Why do leaders advance this erroneous view? There is just one answer—tradition. This section of this essay seeks to analyze the phrase—“rule over you” in its biblical setting in order to help godly leaders come to a more balanced and correct view of their positions as shepherds.  As stated above, the KJV renders the Greek word hJgoumevnoi" Jhgoumenois (“leading ones”) as “rule over you.” It is significant that the author of Hebrews did not employ the noun ejxousiva exousia (“authority”), the noun a[rcwn arcwn (“ruler”), the verb a[rcw arcw (“rule”), the verb katakurieuvw katakurieuw (“lord it over”), nor the verb katexousiavzw katexousiazw (“exercise authority over”). These words are conspicuously absent in Hebrews 13:17. The word Jhgoumenois is from the Greek word hJgevomai jJegeomai, which means “to lead” or “to guide.”

Unswerving Allegiance to Leaders

Countless leaders still demand unswerving allegiance to their dictates; on the other hand, scores of the so-called select few are not stressing obedience to the truth of the Gospel; that is to say, Jesus as God’s way of salvation. But rather, they are trying to force their understanding of doctrinal issues upon unsuspecting members who are not allowed to think for themselves. Christians are compelled to see everything through the distorted lens of interpretation foisted upon the congregation by its leaders. One almost detects a Jim Jones’ type of mentality—absolute control over the lives and minds of God’s people. Christian leaders frequently manipulate, unconsciously, the text to support blind obedience to their dictates in order to uphold their brand of orthodoxy. There is an utter suppression of freedom. The demands are total submission of one’s conscious and surrender of one’s soul. This Lilliputian lunacy flourishes unchecked and is transmitted to the next generation.

There are over twenty-five divisions within the denominational Church of Christ, each claiming to be the “true” church. In each of these various splinter groups, one finds elders or leaders seeking to enforce their brand of orthodoxy upon the members of the local congregation with threat of castigation if they fail “to obey” them that have the “rule over them.” No one denies that one should obey the teachings of the leaders concerning ethical behavior and Jesus as God’s way of salvation. Elders or leaders in each splinter group want to enforce conformity to their odd interpretation of certain Scriptures that they frequently take out of context.

At the moment, numerous leaders advance the notion that it is sinful to employ musical instruments in praise to God, to use multiple cups in the distribution of the Lord’s Supper, to use wine in the Lord’s Supper, to break the bread or to pinch the bread, to participate in Sunday school, to have a kitchen in the church building (even though these same groups have toilets in their buildings), to take money out of the common treasure to purchase goods for those that are not Christians, and so on. Now, which board of directors should one obey? Each distinct fellowship has its own presuppositions, and when an individual ceases to conform to the dictates of the rulers, then this member is castigated under the charge that he/she did not “obey them that have the rule over you.”

Again, the question is: Are Christians to render “blind” obedience to a board of elders—men who can hire or fire preachers without even consulting the members. Leaders frequently control the finances of the church without any input from its members. It is not uncommon for leaders to exercise an iron fist in its policies. Is this what the author of Hebrews is referring to? Or, is he referring to obedience in reference to clinging to Christ and to holy living? An analysis of the words employed by the author will help to bring one into the consciousness and intention of the writer. As one seeks to understand Hebrews 13:17, one must be conscious that words convey many things to different people as they come to the text.

VARIOUS NUANCES OF THE GREEK WORDS TRANSLATED

BY THE KJV AS “OBEY” AND “RULE OVER YOU”

            In seeking the intent of the author of the Hebrews writer, one must deliberate upon the function or functions of the Greek words employed by the ultimate author of Holy Scripture, namely the Holy Spirit. Several modern scholars have followed this trend of “authority” as advanced by the King James’ scholars. Even the NIV employs the word authority in its translation of this verse: “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority” (Hebrews 13:17). Translators assume, to some extent, the role of an exegete.  Translators are often influenced by other translations when they set forth another translation. A few years ago, this author discussed this presupposition of authority in Hebrews 13:17 with a translator. After looking at the Greek text together, he admitted that he had not looked at the Greek text very closely. He then informed me that his translation of Hebrews stems from other versions.

            Leaders seldom ask what this text means; the interpretation of this passage has become normative and is passed on to other Christians as authoritative. It is difficult for believers to hear God accurately because of traditions.  A part of the dilemma that the church faces today is an accurate rendering of the Greek text. Before one can draw an accurate reading of this text, one must also consult the Greek text in order to discover the words employed by the author(s) so that one may draw conclusions that are in harmony with the Word of God as a whole. To begin with, the English word obey is from the Greek word peivqw (peiqw, “to persuade,” “to have confidence”). The next English phrase is “rule over you,” but the Greek word is hJgevomai (&geomai, “to lead”). The author of Hebrews actually uses the participle (hJgoumevnoi", &hgoumenois, “leading ones”), which simply means the ones leading you. And the third word is the English word submit, which is from the Greek word uJpeivkw (&upeikw, “submit”).

            The problem of confusion over the role that leaders play within the Christian community lies, to some extent, within the translation of the KJV. But this puzzlement is not limited just to the KJV. In fact, as stated above, other translations also contribute to the misunderstanding. The NIV for instance, translates the Greek word peiqw as “obey.” But, on the other hand, the NIV translates the Greek word &geomai as “leaders,” instead of “rule over you.” Yet, after translating &geomai as leaders, then they add the word “authority.” One can quickly see how the reader can draw unfounded conclusions based upon the English translations. So the fault is not necessarily the result of the person who reads, even though one should know that something is wrong with the English translations since the common translations violate another Scripture (Matthew 20:25-28).

            One would think that every Christian is eager to obey God. Thus, it seems, at least to this author, that the traditional interpretation is not based on evil motives. But, nevertheless, the end result of this faulty rendering promotes the usurpation of authority over God’s people. And, as a result of defective interpretation, one’s misguided zeal nullifies the teachings of Jesus against the seizure of power by certain individuals among His people. Even though one may respect Godly men who aspire to leadership, one cannot help but detect difficulties within the current rationalization of one Scripture that cancels out another Scripture. In the investigation of Hebrews 13:17, the study of morphology should shed some light upon the dilemma that individuals face in seeking to be true to the Word of God.

MORPHOLOGY:

THE STUDY OF WORD FORMATION

            Before one embarks upon the words utilized by the author of Hebrews 13:17, one should undertake a study of the formation of words in order to appreciate more fully the analysis of Hebrews 13:17 that is offered in this study to facilitate the correct application of the words utilized by the author to convey his intended meanings by the particular words he chooses. In order to set the stage for a proper interpretation of Hebrews 13:17, this essay seeks to present a brief analysis of the field of morphology (A study of forms that enter into the structure of words in a language.).  This kind of study should lay the scene for a more enlightened appreciation for the various words employed by the author of Hebrews, as well as other authors.

Hopefully, this study of morphology will assist one in his/her search for a clearer comprehension of the import that is attached to any particular word. The primary role that morphology plays in the field of exegesis is helpful for a clearer understanding in one’s interpretation. What is morphology? In the field of science, morphology describes the study of the form of living organisms. On the other hand, in the field of linguistics, morphology pertains to the study of word formation.  Exegesis begins with morphology. In the study of morphology, one is confronted with the words morpheme and phoneme.

Morphemes

What is a morpheme? Neal Windham defines a morpheme this way: “The morpheme is to a word what the arm is to a body; it is a part of the word, distinguishable from all others by its unique makeup and function.”[22] Windham illustrates his definition with the following: “It is of utmost importance that you go well beyond the level of morphological analysis in studying vocabulary.”[23] He then takes the two words utmost and importance to demonstrate what morphemes are. In “utmost” you have two morphemes—“ut” and “most.” Then in “importance” you have three morphemes—“im” and “por” and “tance.”

One does not read in morphemes, but morphemes do contribute to the meaning of words. One may have a root morpheme that forms the nucleus of a word, while, at the same time, morphemes may be added to the root. For instance, morphemes may be added to the root word “obey” and may be called prefixes or suffixes. That is to say, the prefixes or suffixes may be called affixes. For example, in the word obey, one can add an “s,” or “ed,” or “ing” to the word obey—obeys, obeyed, or obeying. The affixes are “s,”  “ed”, and “ing.” These affixes are called suffixes. On the other hand, affixes placed before the root are prefixes; for example, “re” in require, and “un” in unsaved. And finally, affixes appearing in the middle of words are called infixes.

For a combination of prefixes and suffixes added to a root, look up the word antidisestablishmentarianism (anti dis establishment arian ism), which means

The theory (ism) of those who (arian) oppose (anti) the breakdown (dis) of the organization of church and state (establishment). There are three prefixes (anti-, dis, and e [from ek]) and six suffixes (bl [from able], ish, ment, ari, an, and ism) built upon the root sta [from the Greek I]sthmi (&isthmi, “I stand”).[24]

Black also gives one of the most informative statements concerning the distinction between root and stem that one can read. He goes right to the very core of the difference when he writes:

A root must be carefully distinguished from a stem. A stem is any construction to which an affix can be added. Whereas roots always contain a single morpheme, a stem may consist of a root plus an affix. For example, dress is a single morpheme. In the verb undress, dress is the root to which un—is prefixed. It is also the stem. In undressing, dress is still the root or base, but undress is the stem with the suffix—ing. Thus, all roots are stems, but not all stems are roots. In the word blackbirds, black and bird are roots, while blackbird is the stem to which the suffix—s is attached. Stems that consist of two roots are called compounds.[25]

The Morphological System:

Structure of the Greek Language

To understand the structure of the Greek language, one must visualize the morphological system by which its words are constructed. Since words may be made up of several morphemes, one must have a procedure for identifying these minimal parts. Some morphemes are referred to as free morphemes because they can form words without being attached to any other form. For instance, the word dog is a free morpheme. This word can form a morpheme without being associated to any other morpheme. In the plural (dogs), you have two morphemes: “dog” and “s.” Thus, the “s” is a bound morpheme. Bound morphemes do not necessarily define meaning. 

To illustrate this statement, consider the word hit. “Hit” is a free morpheme; but “hits” contains a bound morpheme (“s”). But what does “hits” mean? Context is the deciding factor. For example, take the sentence, “The car hits the mail box,” or the sentence, “The singer had many hits. In the first sentence, the phoneme (“the minimal unit of speech sound in a given language that distinguishes one utterance from another”[26]) “s” signifies the third person singular, whereas in the second sentence, the phoneme “s” signifies the plural.[27] In like manner, “the ‘er’ in hitter and greater forms two different morphemes meaning ‘one who’ and ‘comparative form of the adjective,’ respectively,” writes Black.[28]

Phonemes

As observed above, in addition to morphemes, there are also phonemes in words. Remember that a phoneme is the minimal unit of speech sounds in a language that distinguishes one utterance from another. Windham illustrates this distinction with the words pie and lie. For instance, the “p” in “pie” and the “l” in “lie,” distinguish these two words.[29] Each phoneme is essential to a correct identification of the vocalization. Phonemes help to convey a specific meaning or concept in a language. Generally speaking, morphemes are longer than phonemes. Morphemes may also help to furnish lexical meaning as well as point toward grammatical distinctions.

GRAMMATICAL ELEMENTS IN THE GREEK VERB LUVW LUW

To illustrate the grammatical elements in the Greek, the verb luvw (luw, “I loose”) is used to draw attention to the importance of identification of morphemes. The morpheme w (w) appears in the present active indicative of luvw (luw, “I loose”).[30] The w informs one that the verb has as its subject an individual person who is loosing. The following chart is listed in order to illustrate how the grammatical morpheme helps the reader to determine whether the first, second, or third person is under consideration and also to determine whether the verb is singular or plural:

Chart: The Verb Luvw Luw, “I Loose”

luv w	luw            “I loose”	lu vo men	luomen   “we loose”
lu vei"	lueis     “you loose”	lu ve te	luete     “you loose”
lu vei	luei      “he looses”	lu vousi	luousi   “they loose”

 

In “I loose,” the grammatical morpheme w (w) identifies this verb as a present active indicative, first person singular.

            To illustrate the lexical elements in the Greek noun, the noun hJgevomai (&geomai)[31] is chosen since this is a form of the word employed in Hebrews 13:17. This Greek word describes “the ones leading you.” By analyzing the lexical morphemes in the word &geomai, this will enable the reader to understand more clearly the import of the word. &Hgevomai (&geomai) is built on the root AG (ag, “drive,” “lead,” “weigh”), which generally has to do with “leading.”[32] Harold Greenlee’s comments are helpful in this particular area:

For words whose derivation is not obvious, the derivation is given in parentheses—e.g., hJgevomai (a[gw, agw). In some instances in which doubt remained, I have consulted other works including the unabridged editions of LS [Liddell—Scott].[33]

The word hJgevomai is irregular, but, nevertheless, the root is AG (ag). The “a” in “ag” changed to long “h” (h). To assist the reader in recognizing the root in various words, the following list is reduplicated from Metzger's book on Lexical Aids:

Chart: The Root AG AG:

Words Formed from This Root

GREEK	TRANSLITERATION	DEFINITION
a[gw	agw	I lead
ajnavgw	anagw	I lead up; middle, I put to sea, set sail
ajpavgw	apagw	I lead away
eisavgw	eisagw	I lead in, I bring in
ejxavgw	exagw	I lead out
paravgw	paragw	I pass by
periavgw	periagw	I lead about, I go about
proavgw	proagw	I lead forth, go about
sunavgw	sunagw	I gather together
sunagwghv	sunagwgh	a synagogue
ajrcisunavgwgo"	arcisunagwgos	a ruler of the synagogue
ejpisunavgw	episunagw	I collect, gather together at one place
uJpavgw	&upagw	I depart
ajgrov"	agros	place where cattle are led or driven, a field
hJgevomai	&hgeomai	I am chief; I think, regard; I lead through the mind
hJgemwvn	&hgemwn	a leader, governor
a[xio"	axios	(of equal weight), worthy
ajxiovw	axiow	I deem worthy, think fit
ajxivw"	axiws	worthily
ajgwvn	agwn	an athletic contest, a contest