What church calls leadership is a corrupt theology

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Healings didn't spring from unity in the early church. The miracles were the result of God confirming the preaching of the apostles with signs and wonders. This was necessary to establish the authority of the apostles as men who were sent by God. It was not at all dissimilar to the miracles that happened in the days of the prophets to confirm their authority as God's mouthpieces.
Forgive me if I speak from my own experience, I have noted over the years that when folks come together in unity, the blessing comes which includes healing.
Case in point a fellowship in the centre of Christchurch - open 24/7 for the inner city dwellers - we had folks there from all christian backgrounds around the table breaking bread. Jesus was spontaneously healing the desperate. A prostitutes room became our chapel. sometimes His grace fell with such effect that healings of the back could be physically heard.

I am not coming with a message from theory - we got out there and did it learning while we did.

Please hear my heart. There was a huge disconnect between what Jesus was doing with us and what was understood in the church. This was confirmed by the paster of the church I attended.

Unquestionally our fruitfulness was because we had a foundation of unity and Love that created an atmosphere in which the gifts could operate. The 'least' were heard. The hard part was finding churches that would accept the raw converts coming into the Kingdom.

I still feel that in general modern church structures employ a model that is not suited to the cutting edge of the kingdom. I love the church but it suffers from systems and structures unsuited to reaching the lost. The model in Acts I have referred to is much better suited for this purpose - maybe that is why He invented it.

Blessings,

Carl Emerson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NBB
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Thus instead of making our congregations larger and meeting at a central location, we should have focused on smaller groups of disciples meeting from "house to house" where all can learn to participate.

There are strengths and weaknesses to both, and my opinion is that it's good to have both; larger gatherings and smaller; more formal and more informal; and so on. That way we can draw on the strengths of the different approaches and use all to edify.

If they don't exalt themselves, then why do they allow lay persons to refer to them by the title of pastor or reverend? Why doesn't everyone in your church just call them by their name without the title? Why don't you try it yourself and tell me what happens?

People in the congregation here call me by my first name without a title. The title is useful when dealing with people outside the church who need to know who I am in dealing with me, but inside the church it is seldom necessary or, indeed, used.
 
Upvote 0

Justified112

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2019
526
276
47
Midwest US
✟25,034.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I agree with you on that. However that is not the practice in all or even most churches in my opinion. I never liked being called "pastor" either when I was on full-time church staff but I had to accept it as I realized that it is just customary for people to do so. The problem in my mind though is that our practices should reflect our beliefs. In our orthodoxy we proclaim the priesthood of all believers but in our orthopraxy we distinguish between clergy and lay person by our practice of using titles which promulgates a two-tiered system. We don't intend to but that is the practical result.
There is nothing wrong with showing due respect to whom respect is due. But I don't know any pastors who see it as "honorific" or something that exalts them. I have never seen a two-tiered system unless you get into the high church denominations. But even then, it is rare that the pastors ever see their role as exalted and tend to be far more humble and try to just be regular down-to-earth people.
 
Upvote 0

Alithis

Disciple of Jesus .
Nov 11, 2010
15,750
2,180
Mobile
✟94,492.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Sunday culture can be a way for non-Christians to have a place to hide from the Jesus people. They are not controlled, at all, in a number of cases. They can go where they go, but all week do what they jolly well please, because their pastors have no say about them, do not know them personally, and have no legal or other power over them. Ones might put in a dollar.

But in case ones believe the Bible is God's word, and they and the pastor know each other and other leaders and members, ones can keep track of them, so they can feel social pressure to do things the pastor and others say a Christian has to do. It can be obedience because of feeling pressure. Some might even be told to search the scriptures to see if they are being told to do what they do; but they feel pressured not to differ from what they have been told.

But Hebrews 13:17 does say >

"Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you." (Hebrews 13:17)

So, God does have His rulers whom He Himself trusts to take care of us. So, we need to find out who these people are. And He leads them to have His sheep doing what He is leading His sheep to do.

But yes there are less mature pastors who still need to find out how to walk with God; they are not mature examples like Paul describes in 1 Timothy 3:1-10. So, we do need to be able to tell the difference, about what is God leading us and what isn't >

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Well, what is the first issue?

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

And we have who is qualified just to be considered to "take care of the church of God" > 1 Timothy 3:1-10.

These are leading by example. But they do rule. Paul says a man needs to know how to rule his own house, or else how can he know how to take care of God's people? But ruling is not only controlling. Control is or can be mainly an ego problem. Jesus has so much more than only control. But He does have all-control. But what is God really about? > we are destined to be conformed to the image of Jesus > Romans 8:29. And I see this is the focus of the ministry of Paul > Colossians 1:28-29.

So, there is the world's focus on control, and Christianity's focus on conforming to the image of Jesus. Control does not produce this. Plus, copy-catting doesn't :) So, we can spend all day talking about what worldly people are doing, in their control gaming, and this can keep our attention away from what needs our attention . . . what does work, what God is doing.
This is a more indepth reply but there is a thread through all of it which displays the error of churched leadership theology in contrast to the scriptures..
All of the "examples" of leadership are only reinforcing the error
Such leaders are considered good exampkes by what measure?
The size of the congragations?
The size of the buildings
The glamour of the show..

Instead of the example of the apostles we read about in scripture.. Because they had entered into true communion ..to eat of his life and drink of his cup.
To go where he led and suffer as he suffered.
Being a burden to none.
 
Upvote 0

Justified112

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2019
526
276
47
Midwest US
✟25,034.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The meeting of the church need not take place just on Sundays or always in a building.
It does need to be that way given that most people work 5 to 6 days a week and have families and responsibilities in those areas that they must attend to. There is nothing unreasonable about meeting on Sundays and there is much good historical precedent for it.

Acts 2:46 "And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts," Acts 5:42 "And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus."
You can't make a doctrine out that and hold it up as the model we should all be employing. The Bible doesn't make that case. It simply relates how they conducted themselves at that time. Life was different and we can't carbon copy that into our context. It simply doesn't work.
The NT model is the perfect model because it is flexible in terms of meeting times as well as it allows people to participate since the smaller group size is dictated by the size of the house - usually small.
That is not a "model" per se. The Bible sets up no particular model that is best. People work various shifts throughout the week. Some work graveyard or whatever. We also live much further away from each other, as well. I don't live in the same city I pastor in and I work as well. So meeting at various times is simply not possible. Most people find the current model the best for our modern context.
In larger congregations, not to even mention mega-churches one can easily not participate. One could sit in the back seat sing along to the worship and listen to the preacher and just leave once the service is over.
But that is your choice. You can choose not to participate. But larger churches do have more to offer.

The fact that you note "most larger churches are starving for more people to step up...." demonstrates that most people don't but instead remain glued to the pews.
But you could do that in any church model. You could simply come for the service and leave. That has nothing to do with a given church model, but one's willingness to serve.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There are strengths and weaknesses to both, and my opinion is that it's good to have both; larger gatherings and smaller; more formal and more informal; and so on. That way we can draw on the strengths of the different approaches and use all to edify.
As practiced in the NT as in Acts the believers met at the temple courts and in their homes (Acts 2:46; 4:42).
People in the congregation here call me by my first name without a title. The title is useful when dealing with people outside the church who need to know who I am in dealing with me, but inside the church it is seldom necessary or, indeed, used.
Agreed but whether your personal experience is representative of the whole is debatable.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is nothing wrong with showing due respect to whom respect is due. But I don't know any pastors who see it as "honorific" or something that exalts them. I have never seen a two-tiered system unless you get into the high church denominations. But even then, it is rare that the pastors ever see their role as exalted and tend to be far more humble and try to just be regular down-to-earth people.
In my opinion, just using the term pastor, reverend or father creates a two-tiered system as it plainly distinguishes a lay person from a member of the clergy. If we believe in the universal priesthood of all believers why don't we practice what we preach? After all, words do have meaning.
 
Upvote 0

Oldmantook

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2017
3,633
1,526
64
USA
✟99,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It does need to be that way given that most people work 5 to 6 days a week and have families and responsibilities in those areas that they must attend to. There is nothing unreasonable about meeting on Sundays and there is much good historical precedent for it.
I never wrote nor implied that is unreasonable to meet on Sundays. You were the one who brought up the issue of people who have to work on Sundays. House churches can meet on Sundays or any other time of the week that is most convenient for them.

You can't make a doctrine out that and hold it up as the model we should all be employing. The Bible doesn't make that case. It simply relates how they conducted themselves at that time. Life was different and we can't carbon copy that into our context. It simply doesn't work.
Indeed it does but you choose to minimize it which is your prerogative. Doctrine is not only found on the pages of Scripture but it was modeled by the practices of the apostles. Believers are commanded to hold to the teachings and practices of the apostles.
1 Corinthians 11:2
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

Philippians 4:9
Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you.

That is not a "model" per se. The Bible sets up no particular model that is best. People work various shifts throughout the week. Some work graveyard or whatever. We also live much further away from each other, as well. I don't live in the same city I pastor in and I work as well. So meeting at various times is simply not possible. Most people find the current model the best for our modern context.
The model of the big tent meeting on Sunday only as you point out does not fit for all people.

But that is your choice. You can choose not to participate. But larger churches do have more to offer.
More programs in a larger setting do not logically entail more learning or participation. In a Bible study or house church, participation is facilitated by small group size.

But you could do that in any church model. You could simply come for the service and leave. That has nothing to do with a given church model, but one's willingness to serve.
We teach new believers to be spectators and listen to the Sr. pastor teach when they first come though the doors of the building and then later on we expect them get involved. Problem is as the old adage goes 20% of the people do 80% of the work in the church. Go figure.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 11, 2019
147
254
Texas
✟46,915.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The meeting of the church need not take place just on Sundays or always in a building. Acts 2:46 "And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts," Acts 5:42 "And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus."
The NT model is the perfect model because it is flexible in terms of meeting times as well as it allows people to participate since the smaller group size is dictated by the size of the house - usually small.
In larger congregations, not to even mention mega-churches one can easily not participate. One could sit in the back seat sing along to the worship and listen to the preacher and just leave once the service is over. The fact that you note "most larger churches are starving for more people to step up...." demonstrates that most people don't but instead remain glued to the pews.

True, but Acts 2:46 does not exclude weekly meetings either. We should absolutely gather as believers outside of Church services to grow closer as a Body, as well as to talk about God and His Word. This is what Bible studies, church socials, and even just casual gatherings among Christian friends are for. However, none of that means we shouldn't have organized meetings once a week.

The NT model is a great model for how the church ought to behave, but that doesn't mean every church has to be small or meet in homes. The Early Church met in the way it did in part because it was so young and small, small enough to be viewed as a strange offshoot of Judaism that was allowed all the legal exceptions given to mainstream Judaism (at least for a little while).
Furthermore, the Church was forced to meet in secret until the reign of Constantine. It was dangerous to meet in specifically designated buildings, so people met in houses, catacombs, etc. It's telling that pretty soon after Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire, congregations began building churches because the risk of being found out was no longer present.

Arguably, the problem with most megachurches is not the size, but that they tend to water-down or otherwise compromise on doctrine and the Gospel. There are active megachurches that preach a false gospel. The problem is not what they are doing but why they are doing it.
I'd also like to point out that just because someone is not actively serving in their own congregation does not mean they are not actively serving in other ways, such as through Christian organizations not based in a particular church, but I digress.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Supporter
May 19, 2018
10,947
11,699
Neath
✟1,002,593.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Man has...
Thanks for reinforcing that point.
Its mans doing
Mans traditions
Mans system.

God does not inhabit a temple made by mans hands.
Dont knock me. Its God that said so.

God made Solomon buid a Temple remember?
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It is the same with house groups, as with churches on Sunday. You need to find the one which is about worship and prayer and God's word. And with really Christian people I keep finding that no one can make it every time, and we understand this; because we all have real lives :)

With one exception, the house groups I have been to have tended to be a bit ingrown - I was accused once of spoiling an already established 'sense of community'. That is going to happen when someone new joins any group that's been going a bit. I always greeted people by name in the group. The exception was one that was being led by a chap who was in pastoral training - it was a bit more welcoming. I just feel these groups spoil it for folks who want to have fellowship at the Sunday service - because the home-groupers are focused on others in their groups, I think it changes the dynamic of fellowship in a church. It becomes less outgoing.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
In larger congregations, not to even mention mega-churches one can easily not participate.

I really am unsure if megachurches are a good thing, when for every megachurch there are dozens of smaller churches dying. I read recently in a communication I get from a christian ministry - that there are dozens and dozens of churches closing in America each year.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Natsumi Lam

Preparer of the Bride
Supporter
Jan 31, 2015
1,543
682
✟120,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
People are free to come up with different church structures, we don't disagree with that. But we find the structure we have acceptable and serving our needs.

May I ask who is "we" and "our"? Why are you speaking in plural?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Natsumi Lam

Preparer of the Bride
Supporter
Jan 31, 2015
1,543
682
✟120,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
This is a twice dead horse. What is in the Church now is wirchcraft, and people don't realize they are under a spell because they don't believe in what is exploiting them.


It may not be accurate or wise to say a blanket statement that churches as a whole are under a curse of witchcraft. Yes some but not all.
 
Upvote 0

Natsumi Lam

Preparer of the Bride
Supporter
Jan 31, 2015
1,543
682
✟120,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I have experienced both, a pastor who does a 40 hr week and a pastor who does a one hour week. God Bless :)

Being a PK, I have seen both too. I know my father puts in heart, soul and many hours of study and communion with God.
 
Upvote 0

Giacinta

Active Member
Jul 12, 2015
79
36
✟18,228.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The entire system of sunday meetings and buildings is based upon a principle of Control and money.

It does two things JESUS said are NOT to be so.

It exercises dominion OVER people
And Lords it over people.

Jesus said that is the ways of the gentile
Heathen to exercise authority and lord it over.. But with YOU...it is not so.

Yet the entire sunday and saturday system is based upon a theology that opposes the words of JESUS.

Your idea will lead to anarchy and division, that's evil and are not what Lord Jesus wants either. Talking about corrupt...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
"Pastor" is primarily a job description, just as "rabbi" is. It is honorific only in a derivative sense.

Jesus often speaks in a hyperbolic way. Even Jesus did not object to being called "rabbi".

These crusader people forget that even Jesus in the Bible was called rabbi a few time and he accepted that designation!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0