What church calls leadership is a corrupt theology

[Justified112]

Do you deny that "pastor" is an honorific title? It is used in the same sense that Jews refer to the rabbi. Jesus forbids the use of such titles. If you wish to do so because of your tradition in violation of Jesus' command, that is certainly your prerogative.

Wrong. "Pastor" is not an honorific title. Most pastors do not view that way and do not exalt themselves above the rest of their congregations. It is not at all like "Rabbi." The term "pastor" is applied by the writers of Scripture to leaders of congregations. Pastor means "shepherd" and a shepherd feeds the people. The pastor is a servant, not an overlord. It is not a rank, nor is it a badge of pride.

I do read but if anything your church would be the exception rather than the rule so that is the indictment of the modern church system which I've critiqued.

Where do you go to church?

 

[Archivist]

Do you deny that "pastor" is an honorific title? It is used in the same sense that Jews refer to the rabbi. Jesus forbids the use of such titles. If you wish to do so because of your tradition in violation of Jesus' command, that is certainly your prerogative.

You do understand what honorific means? Pastor as we use it means neither a title or high respect, nor is it a position with few duties. It is a job description; it simply means Shephard.

I do read but if anything your church would be the exception rather than the rule so that is the indictment of the modern church system which I've critiqued.

No, my church is not an exception. What happens at my church is common practice in the ELCA.

 

[Paidiske]

Part of what you write is true but the main question in my mind is what percentage are we referring to? Do you think Paul was referring to 100% participation in Rom 14:26? Including other days of the week, does 100% of the congregation get involved in some way, shape or forrm?Notice that Paul states "when you meet" implying a meeting of the church which does not include work/ministry outside of the church meeting which normally takes place on Sundays. Does the adage apply that 20% of the congregation does 100% of the work/ministry as has been my experience?

In my experience, church size is a big factor here. In bigger churches (by which I mean, average Sunday attendance above 200 people or so), there are more people who just come to services and don't get involved. In smaller churches, (which is most churches, as already noted in this thread), most everybody does something. I would have a hard time thinking of a member of my parish who doesn't do something; even the very elderly ladies who have mobility issues knit blankets to be given away, for example. There are one or two for whom significant disability means they are no longer able to contribute, but that wasn't true all their lives, either.

It is true, of course, that not everybody contributes the same amount and there is a small group who do a lot more than many. But this is part of the reality when they're not dominated or controlled but free to choose their own level of participation.

I disagree that we can take Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 14 as saying that, in our own context, every single person should be doing something individual in our main worship service. I take that as being about order and edification rather than chaos and ego being the focus of attention. But there should be room in the church for exercising all the gifts he talks about in that passage, and more.

 

[Justified112]

Im not judging anyone - Just being a sign post.

Your posts indicates that you are out of touch with what is really happening in churches today.

I have tasted this approach to fellowship about 30 years ago and seen the fruit.

So you say, but I have been in church for nearly 50 years and I see the amazing fruit that has come of it and paying pastors a wage was never a hinderance to the advancement of the Gospel. If you were actually looking at fruit, you would have seen that.

I am not saying that churches are perfect; they're not. But the Church's shortcomings have nothing to do with pastors receiving a wage. We are all human and are imperfect and those imperfections unfortunately afflict local churches and will continue to do so as long as the Lord tarries.

You talk of qualifications - we are in danger of missing His voice when we fail to give ear to the least.

It is not a matter of being the least; rather, it is about being uninformed.

I have never said we should leave those called to serve Him full time, high and dry.
It is how we do it that I am questioning.

Yes, I know. You think it should be just voluntary offerings. But that completely disregards the fact that the pastor's practical needs are the same as anyone else's. He still has to feed his wife and children, pay for their health insurance, clothes, medicine, etc. He still has to pay for a car, a house and insurance for those things. He still has to pay taxes. So how does he do that when people just throw whatever pittance they see fit on Sunday morning???

So, should the pastor remain unmarried, homeless and living on streets and just eat the scraps from someone's table when it suits them?

I am not judging any particular church but if the sandal fits...

It feels like you are judging the rest of us as if we have left our first love and that we are disconnected and basically being unbiblical if we pay a pastor a living wage.

 

[FireDragon76]

Our pastor isn't even the "leader" of our church, that misunderstands how authority actually works in most churches. He's just entrusted with authority to preach the Word and administer the sacraments. But our church council has significant power in its own right. They even decided to allow firearms on the church campus (with some limits, only bonded, trained laity may carry them), despite the fact my pastor was not exactly thrilled with it, he had to accommodate it because he doesn't determine those decisions.

 

[Alithis]

That is the shoe the system wears.

But you are lumping both together...

 

[Archivist]

Our pastor isn't even the "leader" of our church, that misunderstands how authority actually works in most churches. He's just entrusted with authority to preach the Word and administer the sacraments. But our church council has significant power in its own right. They even decided to allow firearms on the church campus (with some limits, only bonded, trained laity may carry them), despite the fact my pastor was not exactly thrilled with it, he had to accommodate it because he doesn't determine those decisions.

Same at my church in terms of the role of council. The pastor is not the head of the church, that role belongs to Jesus.

 

[Alithis]

“That mindset” is the more Hebraic approach as opposed to the Greek model. Have you ever heard the term Rosh Yeshiva? (Head of the training school)

Paul pattered his New Covenant Gentile assemblies similar to the Jewish synagogue. The Rabbi (teacher) was a Rosh Yeshiva in a small sense for each congregation. Head - not the tail or the underpinning.

The hebrew religious system was entrenched in the same error .. It ledto them crucifying JESUS. Dont ever use thier example as justification when its ultimate outcome led to murdering the only begottenSon of God
And many sons thereafter

 

[Carl Emerson]

Hello. The choice is ultimately up to you, but I find this topic very interesting. I am curious as to how do you fellowship with other believers without the church? (I am not judging, just curious).

Depend on how you define Church. When two or three gather in His name He is there. We have three families in fellowship, as it grows the gifts and callings will become apparent and be supported. I avoid the term church because it has unbiblical connotations. We break bread, share scripture, rejoice in what He is doing in our lives, sing, pray for each other, support each other, reach out to neighbours, have a meal, meet in each others houses, host the less fortunate, encourage each other. It is early days but we are headed in a good direction.

Blessings,

Carl Emerson.

 

[Alithis]

He's just entrusted with authority to preach the Word and administer the sacraments. But our church council has significant power in its own right. They even decided to allow firearms on the church campus (with some limits, only bonded, trained laity may carry them), despite the fact my pastor was not exactly thrilled with it, he had to accommodate it because he doesn't determine those decisions.

Based upon what scripture that says one needs the authority of men to administer sacrements..
That's all just the exact picture of dominance and control .Where does it come from .? From a theology taught by Men from outside the scripture
A flawed theology formulated to control.

 

[Ing Bee]

The Simon Magus story certainly is relevant to this.

Again, the points in the story do not match up with your claim. Peter says exactly what Simon's sin was in Acts 8:20 and it has nothing to do with tithe. No Christian of any denomination or polity that I have ever met has ever thought of their giving as "obtaining the gift of God with money". As you see from my comments below I agree with several of your points, but misapplying text is a poor way to serve your purposes.

We now pay a tithe for a spiritual service.

Sounds like you have had a poor experience with churches. I agree that "tithe" is not a New Testament command per se, but I think others in this thread would say that you are over-generalizing. by saying "we". Perhaps that has been your experience. It is not mine. I have heard teaching about giving and tithing that is not biblically grounded, but that is another issue.

We were meant to be a community of Jesus love supporting those who He was using to further the gospel.

Absolutely. I think most if not all believers would agree with this.

Our present system has muted His voice to the world because the world has nothing attractive to see.

Again, the use of "our" is over-generalizing. If you were to explicitly frame the "present system" that you refer to we could see

The world does not see believers relating together in His love.

Again, a massive over-generalization. It is simply not true. The world might not see "church-goers" relating together with love, but I can personally attest to the reality that people continue to come to faith in Jesus because of the love (shown in all kinds of ways) between brothers and sisters in Christ. If that has not –or never – been your experience, then I understand your tone.

I am in the process of reading a book by Frank Viola ("Pagan Christianity?"), a leading voice in the home church movement as well as being familiar with Jeff Reed (BILD International) who champions a Pauline model of church establishment through networks of small house communities. Are you familiar with either of these? What resources have you and your house church members found helpful in your process?

 

[FireDragon76]

Based upon what scripture that says one needs the authority of men to administer sacrements..
That's all just the exact picture of dominance and control .Where does it come from .? From a theology taught by Men from outside the scripture
A flawed theology formulated to control.

It's not dominance if the pastor is called through our congregation. We assent to him being there. If we did not want him, he would be gone.

The hebrew religious system was entrenched in the same error .. It ledto them crucifying JESUS. Dont ever use thier example as justification when its ultimate outcome led to murdering the only begottenSon of God
And many sons thereafter

Jesus died because of sin, not because Jews went to synanogues and had rabbis.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

1 Corinthians 9:14
So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel

Amen.

Paul here refers them to the rule which should always be observed, that congregations should supply their pastors' bodily needs.

He speaks of the Temple service, especially that connected with sacrifices. The men engaged in this work obtained their support from the temple, from the people. And those that are engaged in performing the rites have their portion with the altar, a part of the sacrifice being reserved for their use.

According to this precedent the rule holds true also in the NT.

☆ This is God's command, and may not be set aside with impunity. Since all things in the world are God's, entrusted to the users for the time being, so it's God's to decide how the world's goods should be used. The pastors being engaged in preaching, devoting their time to the message's study and to its truths' application, God wants their physical wants supplied by the people that are served with the Gospel. ☆

 

[Justified112]

Depend on how you define Church. When two or three gather in His name He is there.

That is not how the Bible defines a church.

We have three families in fellowship, as it grows the gifts and callings will become apparent and be supported. I avoid the term church because it has unbiblical connotations.

"Church" is a biblical word. How could a positive, biblical word have unbiblical connotations???

We break bread, share scripture, rejoice in what He is doing in our lives, sing, pray for each other, support each other, reach out to neighbours, have a meal, meet in each others houses, host the less fortunate, encourage each other. It is early days but we are headed in a good direction.

Blessings,

Carl Emerson.

That's a great start and that is by definition, a church.

 

[Justified112]

The hebrew religious system was entrenched in the same error .. It ledto them crucifying JESUS. /quote] No, Jesus' death on the cross was God's agenda. He sent His Son to die for us on the cross. Jesus was the Father's willing servant and went to cross out of His love for you and me. That's what led to His death on the cross.

Dont ever use thier example as justification when its ultimate outcome led to murdering the only begottenSon of God
And many sons thereafter

Jesus' death was not a murder. It was a sacrifice. Jesus was not a victim. He went to the cross to die on purpose. It was His plan to do so. This is what Jesus said: "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (Joh 10:17-18)

Jesus' death was part of God's plan of redemption and not the agenda of man. Jesus was not murdered, He was not executed, He was not a martyr. Jesus' was a sin offering, a sacrifice to pay for our sin. If Jesus was victim of the Jews, then His death has no value for us.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Your posts indicates that you are out of touch with what is really happening in churches today.

So you say, but I have been in church for nearly 50 years and I see the amazing fruit that has come of it and paying pastors a wage was never a hinderance to the advancement of the Gospel. If you were actually looking at fruit, you would have seen that.

I am not saying that churches are perfect; they're not. But the Church's shortcomings have nothing to do with pastors receiving a wage. We are all human and are imperfect and those imperfections unfortunately afflict local churches and will continue to do so as long as the Lord tarries.

It is not a matter of being the least; rather, it is about being uninformed.


Yes, I know. You think it should be just voluntary offerings. But that completely disregards the fact that the pastor's practical needs are the same as anyone else's. He still has to feed his wife and children, pay for their health insurance, clothes, medicine, etc. He still has to pay for a car, a house and insurance for those things. He still has to pay taxes. So how does he do that when people just throw whatever pittance they see fit on Sunday morning???

So, should the pastor remain unmarried, homeless and living on streets and just eat the scraps from someone's table when it suits them?


It feels like you are judging the rest of us as if we have left our first love and that we are disconnected and basically being unbiblical if we pay a pastor a living wage.

I rejoice with those who rejoice so if you are seeing fruit that's great.

If you dont see the need to review the traditonal structures then that's fine.

Back in the 80's the budgets of a major denomination in one city where compared to the conversion growth and it was around $ 1 Million for each convert.

If there is a healthy loving community supporting ministries there will be no needs unmet.

Yes we do need to return to the biblical unity that comes from a healthy loving community, rather than institutional management - He commands a blessing on unity.

I have seen over the years that when ever there is a return to the unity we read of in Acts, healing breaks out.

Blessings,

Carl Emerson.

 

[Alithis]

You really do need to study the early church, before the new testament even existed. You are in for a surprise.

Look at the earliest documents. Written by those taught by apostles.
From church gatherings for agape and eucharist clearly on the "lords day" (didache)
To the need for bishops in succession to preside over eucharist for it to be valid.(ignatius)
The church presiding over what was true doctrine and looking to Rome for authority over what was true, and what was heresy. (iraneus)

It is why the bible itself says "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church, which is the household of God" (ie physical church)

And it is why our Lord says to Peter and separately to the apostles together they have the power to "bind and loose" which means infallible statement on matters of doctrine and law.

It is also why the bible says "how can they teach if they are not sent?"

And is why the bible says "stay true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter"

Sola scriptura is your problem.

Its funny how you stick in there comnents like..the need for bishops to reside over the Eucharist to make it valid...etc
There is no such teaching from eithin scripture its just more theologies made by men from outside scripture and again for what motive?
Answer..control.

 

[Alithis]

by Rusty Entrekin:
The New Testament Way to Meet

• How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
• If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
• Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
• Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. What! Came the word of God out from you? Or came it to you only?
• If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
• Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently, and in order.
  1 Co 14:26-40 (KJV)

Our Modern Way of Meeting

• How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, the pastor hath a doctrine, and the minister of music hath psalms. Let all things be done unto edifying.
• If anyone besides the pastor hath a doctrine, let him not speak; let him hold his peace. Let him sit in the pew, and face the back of the neck of the person which sitteth ahead of him.
• Let the people keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith church tradition. But if they will learn anything, let them ask their pastor after the service, for it is a shame for a layman to speak in the church. For the pastor, he hath a seminary degree, and the layman, he hath not so lofty a degree.
• If any man desire to remain a church member in good standing, let him acknowledge that what I write to you is the command of the denominational headquarters. But if any man ignore this, he shall be promptly escorted out the door by the ushers.

Well.. This about sums it up.
Except in times past they were not just ushered out.. But imprisoned tortured and murdered.. By the man made church system .
And it will be so again.

 

[Lost4words]

Jesus prayed in the Temple. He taught in there too. A building. A place where people gathered.

 

[Kaon]

Because the establishments had become corrupt. They didn't start out that way as they were established by God and nothing God founds is imperfect. Not only that but you aren't accounting for the Holy Spirit, who gives men the ability to attain true righteousness. Just as the spirit dwelt within the apostles in a special way of establishing dogma through Christ's teachings, and they were especially authoritative in that way, so we're the men they appointed as elders. Why even have elders if they aren't there for guidance and leadership. That verse is addressed to the Church and is surrounded by verses aimed at the church.

If we had chosen the Most High God as our King, we wouldn't have to worry about any corruption of institution. That is part of the point - we never learn. We have a perfectly Good God who wants to be a Father and King to us, and we keep asking for human substitutes for the real thing.

The Word of God Himself said that where two or more are gathered in His name, He is in the midst of them. That means only two people are needed to have Church. Indeed, the Church is beyond an institution; it is a people.

Why have elders indeed? They are there for guidance and leadership, not establishing ecumenical systems of control over laity - deciding which scripture, for example, is good for enrichment for the rest of our souls. We are responsible for the trajectory of our souls. The verse is an allusion to when Israel was a people, when the elders and prophets were not intrusive/imposing and demanding audience for their teaching, and when those leaders followed the Word of the Most High God first, instead of following a system of verification and vindication set up by men.

Everyone has everything to offer spiritually; while leadership and teaching is a distinct quality, there is no reason to make an institution that exalts other humans in a position of power. We see throughout history what that breeds, and we keep running after it! It is lunacy. Our Father gave us a very easy way to have a relationship with Him and we have substituted almost every way for some image we think is more appropriate.

Even a debased leadership all around the world wont get people to stop trusting in systems, and just follow the Most High God? I am not going to argue against someone who wants to be swindled. It isn't "my agenda", "my narrative", or "an incessant sense of pessimism about the Church and its members". This is just history; why do we keep fighting to repeat history - especially when its results are something we see as we live?