Although my wife and I are nominally attending an SBC church (I say this because I find my gripe inherent in the SBC mindset), I have a problem with the idea of attending college/seminary for six to eight years, graduating with an MDiv or PhD, and then announcing to the world that you are "called" and then spend alot of your time trying to work up the corporate ladder to larger churches and six figure salaries.
I am a firm believer that if you are called by God to do something, it is through His work in our life to shape us into whatever vessel it is that we need to be. An overnight revelation, which I don't dismiss entirely, that you are saved, annointed, and appointed to preach the gospel is completely suspect. You cannot preach God's word if you don't intimately know Him and crumble to His will. Even Nebuchadnazer(sp?) was broken and humiliated before he praised the Father.
Sorry for my rant, but I've seen much abuse throughout the church (and on CF) and it breaks my heart that people are being led to focus on things that are not relevant to our relationship with Him.
Good response.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm new to this board but I saw this subject (which is near and dear to my heart) and thought I'd just dive right in.
The concept that all church leaders are unquestionably called of God is definitely false. Not to throw a blanket on the subject but it has been my experience that a Christian leader who habitually crows about his authority in the church (kingdom?) needs some deep introspection on his/her motives for holding their position. To quote Shakespeare, "methinks he doth protest too much".
The truth of the matter is a truly God-called man (or woman) doesn't need to announce their authority on a regular basis. The mantle of leadership should be evident to anyone who is truly seeking after God. Their attitude and actions (referred to as "fruits" and/or "spirits" in the Bible) should be all the evidence needed for the discerning child of God to make a godly judgment of that person's credentials.
There are pulpits all across the world filled with man-called ministers. Power is an extremely attractive commodity to a large number of the populace and far too many see the pulpit as a place of power. The truth is the titles of authority listed in the Bible (Ephesians 4:11) are not positions of lordship in the kingdom; they are positions of servants.
In fact, if you pay attention to the examples given in scripture, most of the men and women who held these positions were not seeking prestige, position or prominence in Judaism/Christianity. In fact, most of them didn't desire the office they operated in at all. But they were "called" by God to perform the thankless task of speaking hard truths to a stiff-necked audience or walking away from everything they ever knew to follow a path of suffering, sacrifice and (in most cases) certain death.
If you listen to a lot of preachers today you'd come to the conclusion that suffering is the polar opposite of service in the kingdom. This is simply not true and there are plenty of scriptures to support that (2 Timothy 3:12; 2 Cor.12:7-9, just to name a couple).
So, in short, all of God's people need to learn to discern when it comes to choosing who to follow in the Body of Christ. "Try the spirits" as John instructed us to do (1 John 4:1). That means pay attention to the attitude and the actions of the leader. You don't have to be a theologian to sniff out a bad leader.
Listen to that little voice in your spirit. You'll find he's right more often than not.
Sorry for preaching. I get carried away sometimes and this subject is right in my wheelhouse...
The concept that all church leaders are unquestionably called of God is definitely false.
I think the definition of "church" is key here. Yes, I believe God calls all leaders of his "church", but that our definition of church could be different than what God sees as his church.
The rest of your post has a lot in it that is important and food for serious thought.
__________________ But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23
I think the definition of "church" is key here. Yes, I believe God calls all leaders of his "church", but that our definition of church could be different than what God sees as his church.
The rest of your post has a lot in it that is important and food for serious thought.
Hmm...perhaps I should've replaced "church" with "Christian". I agree, the concept of "church" has definitely been through the mill over the centuries so that it is virtually unrecognizable from it's original incarnation.
I've been saying for years that the first sound that will be heard in Heaven when all of this is said and done will be billions of palms slapping against billions of foreheads once we are enlightened to God's way of viewing things.
As for the rest, I thank you for your kind response. I am curious as to what, specifically, is the area that gave you "food for thought". I ask because I am in the process of writing a book on fallen pastors and am interested to hear feedback (this subject is one of the foundational planks of the work).
Hmm...perhaps I should've replaced "church" with "Christian". I agree, the concept of "church" has definitely been through the mill over the centuries so that it is virtually unrecognizable from it's original incarnation.
I don't think replacing "church" with "Christian" would change the main point at all. Especially in America since the late 20th century, the term "Christian" has come to represent a variety of beliefs, many of them opposed to others claiming the same identity. It's become quite confusing!
I've been saying for years that the first sound that will be heard in Heaven when all of this is said and done will be billions of palms slapping against billions of foreheads once we are enlightened to God's way of viewing things.
Yes, I agree. I think "gnashing of teeth" might be more the reaction, which would indicate a lot of people who thought they got it right will have gotten it terribly wrong.
I am curious as to what, specifically, is the area that gave you "food for thought". I ask because I am in the process of writing a book on fallen pastors and am interested to hear feedback (this subject is one of the foundational planks of the work).
I think this comment by Humbleman earlier on this thread says a lot about what is wrong with Christian ministries today:
Originally Posted by Humbleman
Although my wife and I are nominally attending an SBC church (I say this because I find my gripe inherent in the SBC mindset), I have a problem with the idea of attending college/seminary for six to eight years, graduating with an MDiv or PhD, and then announcing to the world that you are "called" and then spend alot of your time trying to work up the corporate ladder to larger churches and six figure salaries.
Christians are defined, I believe, by two basic things: the message they preach, and the enemy they fight.
The best way to identify whether the message is false or not is to compare the message to worldly aspirations: do they focus on power, control over society, a sociopolitical ideal, or security here and now? If yes, then this is no different than the forces and desires that have informed sociopolitical systems since the dawn of civilization. Each one has their own "ideal" but the idea is to promote their own, to gain control of the masses with their own.
But, the focus is on this world now and how it operates, not on eternity and the Kingdom of God (which is comprised of those only who desire to live by covenant with God.) They confuse the two by teaching that the Kingdom of God is the finished product here and now (as if it comes to be by forcing everyone to fit the mold in society.)
And the enemy too changes depending on the focus of the message. Again, if the enemy is characterized by what it threats, then the enemy of the false church will be anything (or anyone) that threatens the "ideal" constructed by the church group (or sociopolitical system.) Evil then becomes anything (or again anyone) that counters this. The way we fight this evil changes too. Instead of standing firm in ones covenant convictions to follow Christ (and all the weapons we would need to stand firm as defined by Ephesians 6:
10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
The enemy defined by the false church becomes one we must use worldly weapons against: carefully constructed arguments, actual swords, actual shields, actual weapons that are aggressively used to kills human lives deemed expendable because they fit the definition of "enemy."
I do believe the references in the New Testament to "the world" refer more to Christians aligning to sociopolitical structures similar to the one Humbleman pointed out. Many churches become nothing more than corporate businesses where congregations are encouraged to feed the bottom line (profits.) What happens is that the product being sold (the message) must then tickle the ears and feed the basic appetites of the congregation if numbers and profits are to remain competitively strong.
Thankfully, the best way to measure whether we are following a church or Christianity of the world is to compare its teachings and enemies against the teachings of Christ, not just in what he taught, but by his actions as well, how he answered questions posed to him, by the people he chose to follow him, the people he chose to protect and why.
But even here, I wonder if one can only see this if the Lord has opened their eyes to it, so that they can see and hear the message Jesus meant for his followers to understand.
__________________ But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23
Regardless of whether originally "called by God" or not, it is possible for anyone to lose his way, perhaps through pride or secret sin. We need to be respectful of church leadership even when we think they are wrong or if they become overbearing.
David said of Saul, "I will not touch God's annointed", even after the Holy Spirit had abandoned Saul. It is our responsibility to use discernment and make our best judgment whether church leadership has departed from the straight and narrow. If they have, our first response should be prayer for them.
We have the right to express our concerns, but with a humble spirit and with due respect. If leadership is leading the church astray and there is nothing we can do to overcome it while acting in love and submission, then we need to pray more, and be prepared for God to lead us from that congregation. We should leave as peacefully as possible without causing contention.
I'm afraid that a lot of church leadership in evangelical circles is
a) self-referencing in terms of authority
b) very possessive about power and the pulpit
c) unwilling to disciple replacements, move on and get out.
d) unable to cope with strong figures from the congregation
e) bad at managing people
f) too keen to pull the authority argument when there are leadership problems
g) full of loners and one-man bands
h) without external accountability.
I'm afraid that a lot of church leadership in evangelical circles is
a) self-referencing in terms of authority
b) very possessive about power and the pulpit
c) unwilling to disciple replacements, move on and get out.
d) unable to cope with strong figures from the congregation
e) bad at managing people
f) too keen to pull the authority argument when there are leadership problems
g) full of loners and one-man bands
h) without external accountability.
Pretty much hit it right on the head.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'm afraid that a lot of church leadership in evangelical circles is
a) self-referencing in terms of authority
b) very possessive about power and the pulpit
c) unwilling to disciple replacements, move on and get out.
d) unable to cope with strong figures from the congregation
e) bad at managing people
f) too keen to pull the authority argument when there are leadership problems
g) full of loners and one-man bands
h) without external accountability.
I agree with all of this but there's a two-edged sword at play as well. Evangelical Christian leadership is a very mixed bag of trials and troubles, particularly when one factors in the complete misuse and misunderstanding of the scriptures concerning what a pastor is and isn't. Modern American Christianity (and I am sure we aren't alone in this) has elevated the pastor from the scriptural role of shepherding the flock to the role of CEO of a (non-profit?) corporation. We all are guilty of empowering (i.e. employing) one man to do the job of the church while the church sits back and watches, judges and in many cases fights with the leadership whenever he/she "steps out of line".
Of course the "line" is very fluid. When one realizes the incalculable amount of private interpretations of scriptures in your average church coupled with the American right to voice one's opinion on any given subject regardless of understanding or expertise, the hoops these CEOs have to jump through to keep the flock happy (and themselves employed) are as numerous as the stars.
That's why the pulpit has become less a place of uncompromised truth and more of a political position. Grease the right palms and all is well in the house. Tick off the wrong family/power group and Katie bar the door. While I do not condone the reaction of most pastors who become power-mad dictators or political gamesmen, I do understand how the church climate can produce such responses.
Returning to the fundamentals of scripture, particularly when it comes to the full understanding of church leadership and governance according to scriptures is the only way the abuses in the church from pulpit to pew will be corrected.
Just my .02. Do with it what you will.
ASW
__________________ The proof of the church's divine origins lies in its continued existence after two millenia under man's stewardship.
Last edited by Andy S. Wright; 16th September 2009 at 03:17 PM.
__________________ But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23
Linear Mode
