Ed's pragmatic ecclesiology

Ed Dingess

I have pointed to:

The Great Teacher Himself, God the Holy Spirit

How does stressing spiritual illumination bolster Ed's case for elder authority? Didn't Quakers appeal to the "inner light" to oppose church office? 

The promise of Christ that the elect can not be deceived

How does stressing the undeceivability of the elect bolster Ed's case for elder authority? What if a layman is elect while an elder is reprobate?

Safety is found in the perspicuity of Scripture

How does stressing the perspicuity of Scripture bolster Ed's case for elder authority? Isn't that a democratizing principle? The more perspicuous the Bible, the less need for clerical instruction. 

Ed is so focussed on taking aim at AHA that he doesn't pay attention to which end of the rifle he's holding. He keeps pointing the rifle back at himself, then pulling the trigger. 

The consequences will continue to be church hopping on a whim, self-appointed apostles, prophets, and leaders who set out to start ministries like most Americans start a business. The thought of elder sanction and submission rarely cross our minds. Hays completely misses the point when says that his view is not anachronistic. It is his pragmatic and modern way of looking at things that leads him to draw the conclusions about the text that he does. 

Notice how the first sentence contradicts the fourth sentence. He alleges that my position is "pragmatic," yet he complains about the alleged "consequences" of my position. Needless to say, objecting to a position due to the alleged consequences of said position is a pragmatic objection!

The likelihood of a plurality of elders being wrong is very small, godly elders that is.

His safety-in-numbers principle is another pragmatic appeal. Given, moreover, the Biblical doctrine of the remnant, Scripture discourages the faithful from trusting in numbers. 

The Church is filled with self-authoritative individuals from top to bottom.

How does that bolster Ed's case for elder authority. If the church is "filled" with "self-authoritative" individuals from top to bottom, then that would include the leadership. Self-authoritative pastors and elders at the top. Notice how Ed unwittingly sabotages his own position. 

In other words, the one thing Hays admits we must submit to, Scripture, commands us to submit to our leaders. 

Scripture doesn't command unconditional submission to our leaders. It's not "obey your elders, right or wrong." That's not biblical ecclesiology, that's cultic ecclesiology. 

Does a layman decide for himself, or is there more to it than that? Are we free to pick and choose which church we attend based on our own personal preferences?

Before a layman can even submit to his elders, he must decide for himself which elders to submit to. Lutheran elders? Baptist elders? Assembly of God elders? So a layman must render a preliminary, independent judgment on which elders qualify. 

Now, a layman can have good reasons or bad reasons for what he thinks or does. That's why we need to consider the reasons, rather than Ed's fact-free rules of thumb. Ed relies on empty norms. 

Steve makes the point that we must make allowance for the implied situation if we are to properly interpret Scripture. The standard way of saying this is that we must take into consideration the historical context within which the text was written. However, an overemphasis on this principle could lead to situational ethics even within the Christian system of ethics and this could have disastrous results.

Notice that Ed's objection to "disastrous results" is a pragmatic objection. A results-oriented criterion is classically pragmatic. 

BTW, this is what I actually wrote:

But it’s important to keep in mind that Biblical commands and prohibitions typically have an implied situation. An implicit or explicit situational context. To be faithful to Biblical commands and prohibitions means we must make allowance for the implied situation, and apply those biblical injunctions to analogous situations. Far from honoring the authority of Scripture, to disregard the implied situation can make a mockery of original intent.

Let's take a concrete example. Take the biblical command to fence your roof (Deut 22:8). 

That injunction presumes an implied situation. A sunny dry climate where folks built homes with flat roofs. Rooftop terraces, to be exact. 

Clearly that doesn't envision a snowy climate where folks build homes with gabled roofs. So what do we do with that commandment?

i) If you have a roof terrance, then you should put a railing around your roof. 

ii) However, even if you don't live in a sunny dry climate, that specific command exemplifies a general principle. Even if the command isn't specifically relevant to the architecture of your house, you can apply the command to analogous precautions, like childproofing your house if you have a toddler (e.g. outlet covers, safety gates).