Let's discuss this. Is the concept of the single pastor leadership within a congregation biblical? Can one man scripturally make the decisions concerning the function and direction of a church? What are your thoughts on this matter?
Single Pastor Leadership?
- Thread starter Disciple2003
- Start date
- Status
I am not sure the poll gives the right options. To my mind, single pastor leadership is only observed in the bible in the exceptional circumstances where he has himself founded the church. But even Paul acted in concert with others, and not just by himself.
Where you have an established church, then the church ought to be governed by elders and not one man. Its so easy for any one man to make mistakes, and what with the inexperienced (and conceited) people they throw out of bible college these days, the presence of elders must be almost mandatory.
Another interesting question, is does a pastor have the right to stop anyone else in the church from exercising the gift of pastorship? And even more to the point, does a pastor have the right to stop anyone else from preaching or teaching? There is no biblical basis at all, yet the bible college pastors usurp authority over the congregations to such an extent, that the only role of many men in the church is sit in the pew in silence, and ponder the answers to intractable questions, such as "Why don't the women in this place have their heads covered like they are commanded in 1 Cor 11;2" and "Would I be better off in a church which believed the bible"?
Upvote
0
Hi Undead (interesting name, by the way),
I agree with most of your post. I think the main aspect that we might disagree on is the directness of scripture toward the plurality of elders within any congregation. The word "Pastor" is only used once in all of scripture, Eph 4:11. And it's use there in no way indicates authority as it is used today. In the book of Acts, there is not one example of one man overseeing any church, nor is the word 'Pastor' ever used. In every case where leadership was established, it was always a group of elders.
This is confirmed in Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus. He lists qualifications for elders (and even deacons), but never even mentions any criteria for pastors. The idea of 'pastoring' is simply shepherding. Someone who thinks they should be a Pastor actually should be pursuing how he can shepherd a flock. And he would do this as part of a group of elders. When Paul called the elders of Ephesus to himself (notice he called the elders, not the pastors) in Acts 20, he told them, "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Verse 28) The inspired apostle instructed the elders that they were to be the shepherds (or pastors) of the flock.
I believe that there is good reason why Jesus wanted it to be this way in His church. And you actually said many of the reasons yourself in your post. Thanks for taking time to respond.
I agree with most of your post. I think the main aspect that we might disagree on is the directness of scripture toward the plurality of elders within any congregation. The word "Pastor" is only used once in all of scripture, Eph 4:11. And it's use there in no way indicates authority as it is used today. In the book of Acts, there is not one example of one man overseeing any church, nor is the word 'Pastor' ever used. In every case where leadership was established, it was always a group of elders.
This is confirmed in Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus. He lists qualifications for elders (and even deacons), but never even mentions any criteria for pastors. The idea of 'pastoring' is simply shepherding. Someone who thinks they should be a Pastor actually should be pursuing how he can shepherd a flock. And he would do this as part of a group of elders. When Paul called the elders of Ephesus to himself (notice he called the elders, not the pastors) in Acts 20, he told them, "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Verse 28) The inspired apostle instructed the elders that they were to be the shepherds (or pastors) of the flock.
I believe that there is good reason why Jesus wanted it to be this way in His church. And you actually said many of the reasons yourself in your post. Thanks for taking time to respond.
Upvote
0
Something which seems to escape us is that the spiritual gift of the undershepherd is "pastor" while the office is that of elder/bishop. A plurality of elders is a necessity, because no pastor can truly minister to more than perhaps two dozen people effectively (one-on-one), and the principle of plurality was strongly entrenched since the time of Moses, because he went to Lord and told Him that he could not handle the burden on his own. A single pastor church puts a huge burden on one man and also robs all believers of their functions as Royal Priests.
I agree with all the points raised by Undead. One of the reasons we do not have a Scriptural pattern of church leadership is because of Bible School/Seminary training having become a "qualification" for pastor/elder/bishop. If you trace this to its roots, it goes back to Roman Catholicism through the Reformation Churches, and the Catholic priesthood had already robbed believers of their high and holy calling as King-Priests. Until this teaching is restored, we will have unbiblical church leadership in evangelical churches.
I agree with all the points raised by Undead. One of the reasons we do not have a Scriptural pattern of church leadership is because of Bible School/Seminary training having become a "qualification" for pastor/elder/bishop. If you trace this to its roots, it goes back to Roman Catholicism through the Reformation Churches, and the Catholic priesthood had already robbed believers of their high and holy calling as King-Priests. Until this teaching is restored, we will have unbiblical church leadership in evangelical churches.
Upvote
0
tulc
loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
"If you trace this to its roots, it goes back to Roman Catholicism through the Reformation Churches, and the Catholic priesthood had already robbed believers of their high and holy calling as King-Priests."
I'm not sure that's compleatly true. In the Roman Catholic church priests were part of an hierarchy of priests who were (in theory) under supervision by those over them, leading all the way back to Rome. When everyone became responsible FOR themselves they abandoned responsiblity TO each other. That's why we need to learn about being in a body of believers and learning to trust each other. Not easy, and defiantly not popular now a days.
tulc(just my opinion)
I'm not sure that's compleatly true. In the Roman Catholic church priests were part of an hierarchy of priests who were (in theory) under supervision by those over them, leading all the way back to Rome. When everyone became responsible FOR themselves they abandoned responsiblity TO each other. That's why we need to learn about being in a body of believers and learning to trust each other. Not easy, and defiantly not popular now a days.
tulc(just my opinion)
Upvote
0
I think that a single pastorate backed by deacons is fine. However a pastor that doesn't seek out his deacons is heading for trouble.
Upvote
0
4sightsounds
Not playing games...
Ezra said:
That is dead on. Could not agree more. Vaticanus - The 1st institutionalized church.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
