Posted on 05/03/2005 1:55:42 PM PDT by suzyjaruki
You presume much in your wholesale condemnation of churches that are successful. I dare say that most Christian Churches that have large memberships (at least the ones that I'm intimately familiar with) started out with the goal to reach as many people with the gospel message as possible. And when you preach the gospel, you will get a response.
I find these threads to be unseemly. The author and many of the posters assume that because a pastor has to take on some additional responsibilities and delegate some of the pastoral duties to other members of the body, that somehow the pastor is shirking his duty and the flock is going to slip into spiritual darkness BECAUSE THE PASTOR ISN'T DOING HIS JOB. Well, I believe that keeping people in spiritual light is not the job of the pastor, but of the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit can use the janitor to be a spiritual light as much and perhaps more than he can use a guy with THD from DTS. In many cases the janitor is better suited to minister to the flock than the THD from DTS and the THD from DTS is better suited to running the church on the business end.
That being said, I find that this thread is just another attempt to tear down the work of God that is going on in many churches that are geared towards attracting people to a place where they will hear the gospel preached. Paul said that he was willing to use "all means" to get the message across so "that I might by all means save some."
Why don't you just clean up your own house and quit trying to clean up everyone else's. If you don't like mega churches, then don't go to them. But quit judging the motives and spiritual condition of those who do. You know nothing about whether they are walking close to the Lord. By my experience, most of the people I have met at these mega churches are spiritually on fire for Christ. Who are you to say otherwise?
I have been advised to avoid posting to you. I did ping you to my prior post, but I felt compelled to respond to your post to me.
You may want to take a look at Revelation. There were several churches there that God did not have kind words for. Or the list of false teachers Paul talks about to stay away from.
God is sovereign. That doesn't mean there aren't wolves out there and that every place that calls itself "Christian" is really so. And that's just the way He planned it.
Well, thankfully the Lord and Moses disagreed with you.
Numbers 11: 16-17
And the Lord said to Moses, Gather for Me [a]seventy men of the elders of Israel whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them; and bring them to the Tent of Meeting and let them stand there with you. And I will come down and talk with you there; and I will take of the Spirit which is upon you and will put It upon them; and they shall bear the burden
Why don't they ask themselves why their churches aren't numbered among the most sucessful? Heck John Piper's church is one of the largest in the nation. What's he doing wrong? D James Kennedy has one of the largest churches in the world. What's he doing wrong? I don't see those questions.
The criticism appears aimed at the churches of He-Whose-Book-Must-Not-Be-Mentioned and other un-affiliated churches that tend to reach out to the community to compel unbelievers to come in.
Jesus was criticized for the people he spent time with.
***Well, thankfully the Lord and Moses disagreed with you.***
Well, that is funny because I was citing Scripture. You can reference it at Hebrews 13:17. This was also the scripture which the author cited, whom P-Marlowe accused of heresy for the very sentence in which he used the scripture.
Besides, your numbers verse doesn't do anything to overthrow my position and the author's position. Rather, it is yet another verse which proves my position.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
Mt 23:15 -
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as fit for hell as you are!
The pastors sole job is not evangelism but to equip the saints for those roles.So many failing churches today blame the pastor for their failings but if the saints would get off of their pews and do what they are called to do the church would not be failing.
I agree with all of your post.
We try to say what is a successful or not a successful church buy growth or programs. I say that a successful church is a Faithful church.
The pastor should have the final say on what happens in the local body of believers because he is ultimately responsible. At the same time the pastor needs to be sensitive to the congregation and not be a total authoritarian.
I would not want to walk in my pastors shoes but I do pray for him on a daily basis.
I am totally against churches having a 501(c)(3) exemption. I heard Larry Burkett say, and lawyers supported him, that churches are naturally exempt from taxes and do not need a 501(c)(3) exemption. All that serves to do is give the government a potential string to pull to make your church dance to their tune.
Thanks for the ping suzy!
Does it make you feel better to degrade other Christians? You have no idea what he is or is not doing to help his Pastor out.
And I believe that God gave that answer by given Moses the pattern to deal with the volume of people for whom he was responsible.
Who are you to say God isn't doing that in today's larger churches?
Any church IMO that applies for 501(c)(3) status is making one of two religious statements about the relationship of Church and State, either:
"Today, we voluntarily place our local church under the authority of the Civil Government. We voluntarily place the Civil Government as the head of our local church.
Or this
"We acknowledge that the Civil Government is, and has always been sovereign over the affairs of the Church. We confirm that we cannot, and will not, exist as a local church without the express permission of the Civil Government.
If you are going to reference me, it would be nice to ping me. And since we have been advised to avoid each other, it would be a good idea not to reference me or ping me.
That being said, the author has Hebrew 13:17 backwards. This verse is not an excuse to criticize the pastor, but is a requirement to pray for him and to obey him. The pastor is the one who has to give an account for his flock and in essence the verse is saying that when it comes down to it, whether the pastor is a CEO or a Shepherd is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. It is between the pastor and God. And if you can't give your pastor 100% support, then your job is to shut up or ship out.
The verse clearly says that we are not to give our leaders grief in how they are called to minister. But we are to obey them. The verse is not an excuse to publicly criticize those in charge. It is a call to obey them.
"That being said, the author has Hebrew 13:17 backwards. This verse is not an excuse to criticize the pastor, but is a requirement to pray for him and to obey him."
If it is not an excuse to criticize the pastor, then how come you criticize the author, whom if I remember is also a pastor, with these words: "What kind of heretical nonsense is this guy spewing?"
"The pastor is the one who has to give an account for his flock and in essence the verse is saying that when it comes down to it...."
Yes, and that was the point that the author is making. When a church gets to be a certain size, it becomes impossible for the pastor to perform that task. It is also impossible for the pastoral staff to perform that function.
I have been in some really big churches and I never knew a single one of the pastors of any of them. The function of the pastor in the Hebrews verse has been given over to the small cell leader of these big churches. Unfortunately, these people are often more in need than the people in the cells.
Now, I am in a relatively small church and know the pastor on a personal basis. We can have coffee nearly any time I pick up the phone. It is just a shame that he is one of those Baptists who doesn't drink otherwise he could share in the discussions over beer that Christian and I have.
I believe that was the point of the author and I was therefore quite surprised to see that you called that idea heretical, especially now that you are defending the very point that the author was making in the first place.
Perhaps everyone needs to just take a breather. This thread seems like every single other one and is quite contentious.
Colin.
The pastors sole job is not evangelism,or Be the CEO or be the one that sets the rules or anyother thnig that man can think of for a pastor to do.The pastors job is to teach and to equip the saints for certain roles the foremost being evangelism. So many failing churches today blame the pastor for their failings but if the saints would get off of their pews and do what they are called to do the church would not be failing.
We try to say what is a successful or not a successful church buy growth or programs or how well the pastor preaches or visits the sick,ill,and lame. I say that a successful church is a Faithful church.
The pastor should have the final say on what happens in the local body of believers because he is ultimately responsible. To teach the body of believers he has been called too, to be faithful.
My church has approximately 3,000 members and "regular attenders." We have nine pastors, all of whom know me. I am closer to a couple because of the ministries with which I am involved.
I could have come and been anonymous every Sunday, never venturing to be a part of the congregation. But that wouldn't be the pastor's fault.
I think you have missed the point. It is not whether a single person never knows the pastors; it is whether or not a system of church building is specifically designed to create a congregation of anonymous people. And, by admission from the survey that Hybels conducted, he set out to specifically create a church which would allow people to be anonymous.
I also disagree that it is not the pastor's fault that people never venture to be a part of the congregation when the very definition of what it means to be a part of the congregation is to be anonymous. The pastor is responsible for the people over which he has been given charge. This is one of the points of the Hebrews 13 verse. This is impossible with the Hybel's style of seeker sensitive churches.
I've actually been a "member" of a church that had absolutely no church role. IOW, the only requirement to be considered a part of that church was to show up. Of course, that makes church discipline impossible, but that is for another thread, perhaps.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
But, whether you agree with Hybels methods or not, his purpose was to reach those who weren't coming to church at all.
And I say that having been to Willow Creek and having criticized Hybels here before. We were there on a Sunday morning. It was not worship. It was like a Credit Union member meeting. My understanding was that they had other times for "worship." But not when we were there.
FWIW (and yes, it should be another thread), I grew up in a tradition that did not keep a membership role. I was in my 20s before I ever had to "become" a member of a congregation. It's only strange if you're not used to it.
And who's fault is that? I would say it is your fault. Maybe those churches became big is because they disciple their members to serve each other and encourage their members to become involved in ministries. sounds like you expect your pastor to serve you rather than you serving the church.
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.