Eph.4:11 Gifts. What is the work of a pastor today?

[quietbloke]

Even though the Scriptures tell us that each local congregation is to be governed by a plurality of Elders, along with the support of the Deacons, it is interesting that Paul does not go any further with any suggestions that there should be a president appointed from amongst the Elders. This may have been a pragmatic choice on his part as the authority of any local assembly of Elders would be controlled by the social setting that the local church finds itself within.

In my opinion, I would like to see a rotating presidency where the presidency is shared by various Elders over a period of time, though not all Elders would be necessarily suited to this role.

You suggest a rotating presidency and yet you do not believe there should be a leading elder?

 

[Biblicist]

You suggest a rotating presidency and yet you do not believe there should be a leading elder?

Even though I reject the notion that the Scriptures speak of a single salaried permanent ‘pastor’ as the el-supremo; as I mentioned in my previous post, which I grant was not overly clear where I made mention to Pauls possible pragmatic approach to the structure of the Eldership, I suspect that he has allowed for various cultural sensibilities where he would undoubtedly warmly accept a consensus approach but some social groups may be inclined to accept a rotating presidency.

In those societies that had a church residing in a large residence, this would automatically give the home owner a higher degree of responsibility for the running of the Church. Then we have the new church plant where an apostle (church planter or missionary) may be compelled to apply more oversight in its initial months until he is able to get the local community leaders up to speed where they could take over the leadership and the church planter could then move on.

PS. This will probably be my last post for the day.

 

[Dave-W]

Dave, as Simpson was one of the notorious five ministries that promoted the horrid discipleship movement that began in the 70's, then many of us who sufferred through this heretical movement would struggle to accept anything that comes from the pen of these individuals, particularly when it comes to church ministry and government. It seems that Simpson was the only one of the five who have failed to repent of the destruction that their heresies caused throughout the 70's and 80's.

Sorry but I strongly disagree with that. I was in that movement as well; for about 14 years. ('74-'88) I got to know Prince and Simpson and was in a band with Basham's son and son in law.

If you remember in Bob Mumford's letter of repentance, he stated there was "nothing wrong with our orthodoxy but our orthopraxy" got screwed up. When I read that I had to look up "orthopraxy" which simply meant practice. IOW, what they taught was right but how it was carried out was not right. I can agree with that. One of the interesting things in my own life from that experience was that I believed and put into my own practice what Simpson, Prince et al taught; and did NOT practice how the local congregation re-intrepreted it. That got me into a little trouble at times. But they could not do much about it since I followed the plain meaning of the teaching of the Lauderdale 5. My home group leader often sat in on the elders meetings and he told me they discussed me often, not knowing what to do with me since I followed Prince and Simpson's teachings.

Our congregation had ALL of Basham's children in the '80s; and their report back to dad as to how the CGM teachings were being applied was a major factor in collapsing the network.

So I got to see the best of it and the worst of it. That book is in the good part. If the content of that book had been taught AND FOLLOWED in 1973 instead of 1986 (when it was published) at the local congregational level, much of the hurt from the excesses might have been avoided.

 

[quietbloke]

Quote from Dr.David Petts in his book,'Body Builders - Gifts to make people grow'. The pastors referred to in Eph.4:11 are elsewhere in the New Testament called elders or overseers and that these three terms are in fact interchangeable'. Whatever our view on this may be,it is generally agreed that the only practical guidance given to us with regard to the role of pastors is that which was given to elders and overseers.'

 

[quietbloke]

'Guard yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,which He bought with His own blood' (Acts 20:28)

 

[quietbloke]

Because of some church tradition we think of leaders as pastors only. In the New Testament pastors were elders or overseers. N.T elders were in the plural. In each local church there were elders. (1 Tim.5:17) says,'that all elders were to be honoured but that those who worked extra hard at preaching and teaching deserved double honour or pay. Apostles,who were elders too (1 Pet.5:1 ) had authority over churches they started. Elders were appointed who shared in responsibility of church,but the apostle was given respect. James is mentioned (in Acts 15:13 and Acts 21:18) by name with all the elders. 'First among equals?' Dr Petts says 'this principle could easily be applied to those who are full-time pastors today. There was no one set model for church leadership in the early church. We see in Acts that its' government developed dynamically,being adapted,according to the church's needs. This means that there was great flexibility,not a rigid pattern.In practice it is generally recognised today that one person needs to be ultimately responsible for vision and leadership. In my view there is no clear evidence for this in the New Testament,but it is not out of harmony with the above. However,in my view it is not wise to call that one person pastor and the rest elders,as all elders have pastoral responsibility. Appropriate terms should be chosen to suit the local situation in line with the overall biblical principles. In my view,within the biblical principle of team leadership,there is ample scope for a variety of systems,including that of seeing one person as the overall leader of the church'.

 

[Biblicist]

Sorry but I strongly disagree with that. I was in that movement as well; for about 14 years. ('74-'88) I got to know Prince and Simpson and was in a band with Basham's son and son in law.

If you remember in Bob Mumford's letter of repentance, he stated there was "nothing wrong with our orthodoxy but our orthopraxy" got screwed up. When I read that I had to look up "orthopraxy" which simply meant practice. IOW, what they taught was right but how it was carried out was not right. I can agree with that. One of the interesting things in my own life from that experience was that I believed and put into my own practice what Simpson, Prince et al taught; and did NOT practice how the local congregation re-intrepreted it. That got me into a little trouble at times. But they could not do much about it since I followed the plain meaning of the teaching of the Lauderdale 5. My home group leader often sat in on the elders meetings and he told me they discussed me often, not knowing what to do with me since I followed Prince and Simpson's teachings.

Our congregation had ALL of Basham's children in the '80s; and their report back to dad as to how the CGM teachings were being applied was a major factor in collapsing the network.

So I got to see the best of it and the worst of it. That book is in the good part. If the content of that book had been taught AND FOLLOWED in 1973 instead of 1986 (when it was published) at the local congregational level, much of the hurt from the excesses might have been avoided.

As the discipleship movement had created an incredible amount of damage in my part of the world then we will definitely have to agree to disagree; sadly, in my corner of Australia it seemed that no good came from it where its legacy was nothing less than pain and suffering for many. I would say that the 'five' probably played little part in this movement here in Australia where Juan Carlos Ortiz was the primary influence.

Even so, if we lived in the same locality I would certainly relish discussing the history of this movement with you as you would undoubtedly be able to give some interesting insights into it.

 

[Biblicist]

Quote from Dr.David Petts in his book,'Body Builders - Gifts to make people grow'. The pastors referred to in Eph.4:11 are elsewhere in the New Testament called elders or overseers and that these three terms are in fact interchangeable'. Whatever our view on this may be,it is generally agreed that the only practical guidance given to us with regard to the role of pastors is that which was given to elders and overseers.'

By the way, I still owe you a reply to an early thread/post regarding Pett's.

Now here's where we can find some common agreement. When Paul speaks of the elders he certainly speaks of their shepherding function, but this is merely an attitude that they are to have where these men (along with their accompanying Operations of the Spirit and their human abilities) are to corporately care for the church. So Paul does not call them pastors or senior pastors but that each individual, if they hold the Office (1Cor 12:28) of an apostle, prophet, teacher, powers, healings, administrations, helps or tongues that they are each to care/shepherd the congregation.

Here's where James 5:14 comes into play where Paul tells us that when we are sick that we are to call upon the elders (not a 'senior-pastor') for prayer. Now if the elders are comprised of men who operate in the Eight Congregational Offices that the Father has established (1Cor 12:28), along with demonstrating an ability to operate in the realm of the Spirit in faith, wisdom, knowledge and discernment as per 1Cor 12:7-11 then we can each approach the Father with a high degree of confidence.

 

[Biblicist]

. . . There was no one set model for church leadership in the early church. We see in Acts that its' government developed dynamically,being adapted,according to the church's needs. This means that there was great flexibility,not a rigid pattern.In practice it is generally recognised today that one person needs to be ultimately responsible for vision and leadership. . .

You've raised a number of valid points which in my opinion fit well with the Word of God.

With the point that I have picked out, even though this is a common model, I would be more inclined to say that if each local congregation understood that their Elders needed to be working within the 8 Fold Congregational Ministry model of 1Cor 12:28 then vision should be able to flow automatically from within the Elders.

What we would find in such a group, as occurrs within all successful large corporations, is that those who operate in within the Offices of administrations and helps would be able to provide strong and clearly defined articulated vision. Within many of our larger mega-churches where their "success" is often produced by strong personalities along with powerful business savvy boards, then they rarely seem to be able to replicate themselves as the "personalities" and business entrepeneurs can only be based at one location thus limiting their ability to replicate new churches.

This problem has been recognised by many ministries where they have developed the campus model where each new church is fed via video links - which in my opinion is a backward step which heavily restricts individual growth and maturity where the outlying campuses are little more than a collection of star-struck individuals looking for a word from their favourite celebrity ministry.

 

[Dave-W]

As the discipleship movement had created an incredible amount of damage in my part of the world then we will definitely have to agree to disagree; sadly, in my corner of Australia it seemed that no good came from it where its legacy was nothing less than pain and suffering for many. I would say that the 'five' probably played little part in this movement here in Australia where Juan Carlos Ortiz was the primary influence.

Even so, if we lived in the same locality I would certainly relish discussing the history of this movement with you as you would undoubtedly be able to give some interesting insights into it.

I am not saying it did not do damage here. I know many in the US who were VERY damaged from it - but that seemed to be a result of the local and regional leaders application (or misapplication) of what the Lauderdale 5 were teaching.

I remember Ortiz. Never met him but I did read his book "Call to Discipleship" and it was somewhat different from how Prince and Simpson set up their network.

What I find somewhat curious is the fact that this same type of network has been in use in Chassidic Judaism for at least 2000 years; and while their discipleship model is much more intrusive than ANYTHING the Lauderdale 5 could even imagine, they have NOT had the kind of scandal and damage the CGM network wrought.

 

[Biblicist]

. . . What I find somewhat curious is the fact that this same type of network has been in use in Chassidic Judaism for at least 2000 years; and while their discipleship model is much more intrusive than ANYTHING the Lauderdale 5 could even imagine, they have NOT had the kind of scandal and damage the CGM network wrought.

As Judaism (post Ressurection) has been held together not through any fellowship with the Father, but through a curse, then their mode of operation is understandably different to that of the Community of God where we have been joined together through the Work of Christ and united together through our sharing the eschatological Holy Spirit.

 

[quietbloke]

Who were the 'angels of the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation 3?