Posted on 05/22/2013 7:21:09 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
If a pastor says that he has prayed and sought direction from God, and yet is opposed by the deacon board, should the pastor be able to overrule them? Do deacons occupy a role beyond that of an advisor? Are they equal in authority to the pastor? I'm not saying that a deacon board is no better than dirt (by any stretch of the imagination, as they do have a necessary and Biblical role to fill), but I can't find any scripture where a deacon board has authority equal to that of a psator.
It has been said that the pastor is God's gift to the church, and the board the church's gift to the pastor. Yet the two cannot be equal, as God's gifts are greater than man's gifts, because God is greater than man.
Secondly, if the church is to embark upon a building program, should the decision be left up to the deacon board, with each of them putting down their assets as collateral (which is the case in some denominations depending upon the church's affiliation - be it district or national), or should each tithe-paying voting member have a vote (and thus a say) in any building program, and with enough yes votes, putting the church itself up as collateral?
Should any position (be it pastor or deacon) be permanent and never voted upon?
Honestly, often the biggest donor will eventually become the only donor. I've seen it. That outcome is the Lord speaking to the wise.
What color choir robes do angels wear? That would be the correct color.
Just kidding to make a point. We are living in luxury if we can have a choir. No persecution to drive us to the essentials of the true church. In a sense I consider a choir an extra that may be temporary and/or expendable. And any fighting over robe color is evidence that the choir or robes may not be in God’s will.
We actually had a member complain about the color/design of the roofing shingle pattern, which slightly changed color as the lot color changed. The roofing was done by volunteers, and paid for in cash from donations.
It made that person ashamed to attend in that building.
Something, somewhere along the line was wrong about that whole situation.
Meanwhile, God has quite a task by using humans to get his work done. He knows that we will react differently to the different situations, and ultimately works things together for good. And it is my job to obey Him and listen to the Holy Spirit as best I can. And kill my pride, and change MY ideas as necessary, etc.
There are many independent local churches who reject the concept of a "denomination." Mostly, they agree there is no such Scriptural concept of a ruling body external to the local church intermediate between them and the Head.
First your church, depending on what church it is is ruled by what ever it says it is ruled by. Churches have a legal existence. They are much like corporations in most states. Although the US Constitutions says there shall be no law respecting religion most states do indeed do just that. There are state laws that govern what a church is and isn't. This is not all bad though rarely enforced it is to protect people from the many fakes who preach for gain.
In most states there is a governing board of a church. That board makes all the decisions, ALL. The pastor may make decisions but only with approval of a governing body. They can fire him. Now in most churches where there is a denomination involved then you in order to be a part of that denomination must also follow their rules, so now we have state law and the board of the denomination that must be followed. In most churches there is also a local board of Elders, Deacons or some other group that consists of people who have signed on to the debt of the church. When a building is built the bank doesn't loan money to a church without people with means signing on to the dotted line.
Now having said all this let me throw a monkey wrench into the gears. When Christ left the earth he left the Apostles in charge of the church and made Peter the chief Apostle. Any questions that could not be answered adequately locally went to the Apostles. If the local Apostle could not answer it, then it went to Peter.
The Universal or Catholic church eventually divided up into different sects. For a long time there were only a few of them and the largest was the Church of Rome or what we today call the Roman Catholic Church. All this about the history is a paraphrasing of it, it isn't important how exact that all happened what is important is that the rule of The Chruch does not come from the people, at least it is not supposed to come from the people, certainly it has not always been so.
When Martin Luther took people away from the mother church he made many doctrinal changes and management changes to his church as compared to the Roman Church that he broke away from and that has been the way it has been done ever since in most of Christianity.
People will argue that Martin Luther's methodology is ok if the Holy Bible is used for direction and if that direction comes under inspiration of the Holy Ghost. There are literally thousands of denominations that claim to be Christian and use the Holy Ghost and the Holy Bible for leadership yet they all say different things. Many have some doctrines in common but differ on more than they agree.
When people leave a church either they are wrong in leaving the inspiration led pastor or the pastor was a fake, an impostor, a wannabe or something. There aren't other possibilities. Yes you can say the Pastor was a fallen prophet I guess but grasping at straws won't help your salvation.
People read the Bible and think they want to be a shepherd. How many times have I heard a pastor say he felt led by the Holy Ghost to be a pastor. Just what the heck does that mean. The fact is that we don't choose it is God that chooses. Even Christ did not decide to be a priest, He was called by God to the priesthood. (5th chapter of Hebrews) Aaron who was the father of the priesthood in Judaism as a High Priest and his sons after him did not decide this himself but was told by Moses he would have that office after God told Moses to call him to it.
I think today we take much too lightly the calling of Priest, Pastor, Minister, Shepherd, Deacon, Elder, Bishop or whatever compared to the way Christ did it and to the way it is done today in the Catholic Church.
We have lost it somehow through the ages. I will be very interested when I find a church that says that boldly says “God said” this or that and “God said I was to hold the priesthood and ordained me.” When these things happen I will be very interested indeed.
I have not said that the Catholics have it but I think they or perhaps even the Mormons are closest to it. They both make similar claims. Actually the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic churchs all make similar claims and have similar organizations.
Until God again appears and leads His Church you might as well worship the way you see fit because it won't make any difference until God authorizes again His Church on the earth. His Church will be “One” church.
I love The Lord, I anticipate gladly His 2nd coming. If I die today and bathe His feet with my tears of embarrassment and thankfulness I will know no better then that what I know now. The glass we look through dimly in our old age gets clearer and clearer.
I don't believe that this passage says what you would like. First, this text permits that a local church may have rule by a plurality of elders. It says nothing directly about one titled "Pastor." Laboring in the word and doctrine does not make one a "pastor." Speaking to Simon Peter, His last commands were for an elder to spiritually feed and tend (provide a governing influence) to the flock, both lambs and sheep, individuals and corporate.
Your example, for starters, ought to be the local church at Jerusalem, as it developed. Peter was not its "pastor." How many of the Eleven were titled "Pastor" in that church? None. How many of them were elders? All. At first, how many were deacons? None. Later on (Acts 20, Galatians 2)), were the Eleven speaking for the Jerusalem church after deliberations? James was given the role of voicing the decisions of the unified elders. They all offered the right hand(s) of fellowship.
Paul was a member ofthe local church at Antioch. Were they not his sending authority? Were not he and Barnabas teachers of doctrine in Antioch (of Syria), and were they rulers there? Perhaps you might want to think these things out a bit, before stating more about church polity.
I appreciate your responses, as having a sound basis. After closely studying out the offices in the local church, one comes to the conclusions about Scriptural roles vs titles. Not only did the NT church polity become seriously warped near the beginning, but what has become strongly believed tradition has so seriously bent the customs of Christendom that Christ's commands are followed only in a few local assemblies.
One lengthy comment here builds on the "sacral society"--a continuing attempt to impose the priestly religion of the OT on the NT--by a structure not fit for accomplishing an evangel of discipling to salvation with spiritual maturation as the ongoing process.
A typical Scriptural form is that reinstituted by the brethren of Plymouth, England, about 180 years ago. In these assemblies, rule is by the spiritual men of the assembly, recognised for their corporate influence on the assembly, Christ preeminent, and literal/grammatical/historical/cultural interpretation and application of His Word the Guide. In this context, the questions asked by the poster would not need to come up.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
If that is your experience then quit honestly, you need to find another church that you can call home. There is no way I would ever stick around a church where I heard something like that.
No, all it does is demonstrate that the word “shepherd” is used in reference to a ministerial role only in the instance of The Good Shepherd and Peter, who is told “shepherd my sheep.” (In this instance, the King James translated “poimain” as “feed,” but it obviously relates to “poimen”.)
However, if your intent is to demonstrate a lack of a singular leadership role in a congregation, I would point out that “presbyteros” means “one who presides over,” and that it used many times, and that “presides” refers precisely to the type of leadership role you deny exists.
That was when I was a kid and growing up Evangelical. I’m Eastern Orthodox now, so if the priest pulls a heretical we just call the bishop. I hear the Greeks have “big donor” issues. Our giant donors give out of guilt for not coming to church. They don’t get special treatment when they do turn up and they certainly don’t change our theology.
That reminds me of a bad joke. How many Orthodox Christians does it take to change a lightbulb? CHANGE?????!!!!
Not only did the NT church polity become seriously warped near the beginning, but what has become strongly believed tradition has so seriously bent the customs of Christendom that Christ's commands are followed only in a few local assemblies.
So the Church that actually discussed, argued and prayed about which texts were and were not a part of what you called "His Word the Guide" was actually a seriously warped polity that bent the customs of Christendom. The New Testament Canon was not compiled until 400 years after Christ, which I would assume would fall outside your "NT church polity near the beginning." That being the case, I would suggest that, perhaps, they not only bent the customs of Christendom, but they also messed up which texts belong in Scripture. If they were as twisted as you suggest, I would argue that not only would they not recognize God's Holy Word, but that such people would insert their own to meet their own purposes.
I was deeply influenced by the Brethren of England soon after I entered the ministry in the mid-60’s, and by the life, ministry and fellowships of Watchman Nee in China which adopted many of the Brethren practices and were also heavily influenced by them.
I have never been a part of the Brethren, or what is left of them as they have far departed from their origins, but they clearly recovered - for a while - much of what was lost long ago to ceremony and tradition.
I have seriously studied and read much of their writings - works at a spiritual level and depth long lost to today’s Christianity (mostly a mixture of Christ and vanity, IMHO).
Of course I totally agree with your analysis of the word “presbyteros”, as the elders (plural) did indeed preside over the church. The word “rule” is also used.
But I can find no example of the use of the word in the NT where it is in reference to the church (as opposed to an individual as in III John 1:1) where it is not plural.
The elders of the early church, as I’m sure you know well, were raised up by God, and recognized (appointed) by an apostle and the local assembly. No apostle ever appointed a single man to rule an assembly in scripture.
Jerusalem was not the “mother church” or model for the spreading of churches, and it appears that Antioch was. Jerusalem was too Jewish, Antioch was free of a dominant Jewish influence, where God could birth something after His design. No mention is made of pastors in Antioch - how strange. Prophets and teachers. Again, plural.
And it was from Antioch that Paul and Barnabas were sent - not Jerusalem, where churches were birthed by God all over Asia from their ministry.
You will find a plurality of elders handling spiritual and people matters and deacons handling the physical needs.
You won't find a single "pastor" acting as a leader over the congregation or the congregations voting on anything.
Depart from that plan and you are just manufacturing your own problems.
Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.
Although raised under Methodist doctrine as the son of an ordained Elder in that denomination, I was led to a salvation moment by the heralding of truly practiced Gospel in the home of one of the brethren (small "b") who assembled in my college community. I have been discipled for many years by teacher/missionary/pastor/translator of the same ilk. Pages and pages of teaching at the Happy Heralds, Inc. site.
God bless you, Arlis, and others through your vision for the lost and wandering.
For those affiliating with such brethren, every year a conference of brethren has met at the Guelph Bible Conference Center in Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Here is this year's announcement: The 57th Guelph Men's Conference; topic = "Moses"
Actually, Timothy is called the first bishop of the Ephesians, and Titus is called the first bishop of the Cretians. This means that one of two things:
1. For at least some time, there was one and only one bishop each of Ephesus and Crete, or:
2. There may have been more than one bishop of each, but Timothy and Titus had some sort of precedent over other bishops.
IN Catholic churches, it is quite the norm to name multiple priests to a particular church, or multiple bishops to a particular see. Hence, terms such as “Parochial vicar,” “Associate pastor,” and “auxiliary bishop.” They can perform all the sacraments reserved to their respective offices, and live collegially, but there is one bishop who rules in the sense of having final authority administratively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.