Destructive Model of Church

[Episaw]

A church shouldn't have more than 100-200 active members. Beyond that you get too much of an impersonal, authoritarian structure where people tend to become passive consumers, or the church has to be broken up into cells, which sort of defeats the purpose of having one church congregation.

In the New Testament, there was only one church in each town as in the church at Corinth, the church at Ephesus. In each town, the church met in homes and if you studied the architecture of the day you will see that the upper room was where most of them met. This room usually could accommodate 30 people for a meal which was central to the meetings of the New Testament Church.

They did not talk in terms of the church on Straight Street, the church on Back Street. It was always the church at Corinth etc. of which the gathering at Straight Street was part of.

In the epistles you will see a common phrase which is "the church in thy house." This suggests that this was the common location of a meeting.

We do see however that Paul often used public buildings to share the gospel, not teach the saints. When he arrived in town his first port of call was the synagogue which indicates that he saw the message of "The Way" essentially to be preached in the Jewish context.

As for active members, I do not have any concept that anyone in the New Testament Church was not active as unlike today, being a member of "The Way" was a way of life so one could not be inactive.

 

[Episaw]

My brother, enjoy your vacation!! May our Lord Jesus be with you always

Why did you say "May our Lord Jesus be with you always?" The scripture says that he will never leave us or forsake us, so it is obvious that he will always be with us?

 

[Episaw]

The churches of China are in chaos. First and foremost, they need our prayers because of the persecution. These small illegal Protestant home churches are sometimes led by controlling charismatic leaders (the slippery slope to a cult). Because they have simply been separated from the church around the world for too long, they have no doctrinal oversight, and heresies sometimes slip in, i.e. non-trinitarian heresies. (But then I've seen this happen in non-denominational churches here in the US too.) Furthermore there are essentially two Catholic churches in China -- the government approved version where the communist party appoints the bishops, and the Catholic Church in hiding, which is illegal and martyred.

That is not what is being reported to me from China. The ministry that is working there amongst the Chinese Church (Derek Prince Ministries) which is a literature ministry, is experiencing growth on a daily basis because of all the hungry Christians wanting to grow in their faith.

They have gone from printing Derek's books in the Chinese language to putting them on USBs which makes it easy to distribute.

There is no sense whatsoever of controlling charismatic leaders, just hungry people.

 

[Episaw]

On the flip side, the bills do have to be paid. Even in home churches, someone is hosting, which means they are paying a mortgage or rent that others are benefiting from. Most likely there is some sort of hospitality going on. The various ministers do their work somewhere other than the gutters and streets, all involving money. In many places, by law, that also includes utilities. In very small churches, clergy may be part time and support themselves via other employment. But if the congregation is large and need full time clergy, they will need to support them as commanded in the Bible. This too is money. Finally, those with funds are to care for those without.

Your diagnosis is based on the modern day church, not the one in the New Testament.

Whether one has a meeting in their home or not makes no difference at all to mortgages or bills. They still have to be paid. I have had meetings in my home on several occasions, but not once has it meant my mortgage costs more or my electricity bill is higher.

The New Testament church was large (3,000 converted on the first day) but they didn't need full-time clergy as they had a plurality of Elders all of whom were chosen from within the congregation and were not paid.

Nowhere in the New Testament is there any reference of ANYONE leaving their job to become full-time leaders of the church.

And of course no one was paid to be a pastor in the New Testament Church because pastors did not run the New Testament church, unpaid Elders did. Their role was to oversee, correct, teach and shepherd.

 

[Episaw]

It's good to support those preaching the Gospel, no matter where they are. But Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he had 'robbed' other churches to serve the Corinthians.

II Corinthians 11:8
I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you.
(ESV)

The implication is that it is the duty of those being ministered to in that local environment to support those who preach the Gospel. Since apostles and evangelists could go into unreached areas, churches should provide them as they go on their way.

But he did not say that local pastors had to be supported financially. If you read the New Testament in its totality, you will find those that were supported financially were the traveling ministries and that was because they could not work because they were traveling, and widows who committed themselves to praying for the church, so they could not work.

You will notice that when Paul was not traveling, he settled down to preach and teach in a town, he supported himself financially by making tents.

 

[FireDragon76]

Paid ministry denies the priesthood of all believers which is the only priesthood recognized in the New Testament.

This is simply nonsense.

BTW, at most mainline Protestant churches elders still run the churches. The pastor is a specific kind of ministry but he doesn't necessarily rule the church. He represents apostolic teaching authority and oversight, but this is not the same as "running the church".

 

[Episaw]

I think a full-time paid pastor is not a bad notion, although I disapprove of mega church pastors who seem to be churning dollars. Paid pastors can be fully devoted to ministry. My dad was a pastor in a denomination that expected pastors to have regular jobs to support themselves while ministering evenings and weekends. He soon changed denominations, not so much over belief or practice, but to a denomination that had a paid pastorate so he could more fully devote himself to ministry rather than it being a part-time pursuit. He was a small church pastor who never made a decent living, but what he earned allowed him to totally devote himself to ministry.

According to scripture, all believers should devote themselves to ministry. It is known as the priesthood of all believers and the Greek uses the word for sacred when describing this. In the New Testament there was no secular/sacred divide.

For this reason, there is no need for anyone to be employed as the "sacred" minister and if you disagree with this the Brethren are a classic example of this working. No one is employed by the church. They are run by a plurality of Elders which is scriptural, none of which is paid.

 

[Episaw]

This is simply nonsense.

BTW, at most mainline Protestant churches elders still run the churches. The pastor is a specific kind of ministry but he doesn't necessarily rule the church. He represents apostolic teaching authority and oversight, but this is not the same as "running the church".

So you are saying that the Bible is wrong to recognize the priesthood of all believers because the modern day church doesn't?

In Pentecostalism, there is a concept of the pastor being the first amongst equals. What that means in practice is that if they cannot agree on anything, what he says goes.

In one AOG church that I attended the pastor sacked the Eldership because they would not rubber stamp his ideas.

In nearly all the protestant churches that I have been involved in or studied, only those who are ordained can occupy the pulpit and most weeks it is the senior pastor that holds sway in this area.

I have yet to see a man who is anointed to teach by God who is not officially ordained given the opportunity to fulfill his gifting. He could be the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company but if he is not ordained by some denomination his gifting is not utilized.

In my local Anglican church, no one preaches except the vicar unless a bishop is visiting.

 

[FireDragon76]

In Pentecostalism, there is a concept of the pastor being the first amongst equals. What that means in practice is that if they cannot agree on anything, what he says goes.

In the Lutheran churches, the laity and elders have more representation. Nevertheless, the pastor is given alot of respect because he has been trained theologically and pastorally to carry out his specific ministry.

In one AOG church that I attended the pastor sacked the Eldership because they would not rubber stamp his ideas.

The reverse is usually more common in Lutheran churches.

 

[Episaw]

And Paul commands that the church pay the minister his/her wage ...

Where does it say that?

 

[Episaw]

Just because it has been said does not make it biblical.

Paul said a worker is worthy of his wage and he was quoting Jesus verbatim from Luke 10 where Jesus clearly explains that is being fed food.

Paul does not command the church to pay money anywhere in scripture.

The notion of full time ministry is a fallacy. Why is it that in Ephesians it says we are given Apostles, Prophets, Evangelist, Pastors and teachers yet the only full time ministry is pastor? My guess is it was an idea of men.

Agreed.

 

[Episaw]

In the Lutheran churches, the laity and elders have more representation. Nevertheless, the pastor is given alot of respect because he has been trained theologically and pastorally to carry out his specific ministry. The reverse is usually more common in Lutheran churches.

I did not know this was a discussion about the Lutheran Church.

 

[FireDragon76]

I did not know this was a discussion about the Lutheran Church.

Likewise I didn't know it was a discussion about the Pentecostal churches.

Your point that traditional church structures are inefficient just doesn't seem true, in my experience. It speaks more to the religious culture that you come from. There are many benefits to having a community church in a dedicated building that may not fit into an American utilitarian, individualistic ethos. And that's a good thing, frankly. The Church is entitled to its own institutional life in the world beyond just being an activity people do in their basement or loft.

 

[LinkH]

Pastors in the New Testament were not paid a salary because pastors in the New Testament did not run the churches, the Elders did.

There are 23 verses in the New Testament that talks about leadership. Each one mentions Apostles, Prophets and Elders. Not one mentions pastors.

The way you present this information is confusing. Paul commands elders to pastor the church in Acts 20:28. I Peter 5 also commands elders to pastor the church. The English translation of 'feed' or 'tend' is unfortunately, IMO, because it obscures the relationship between the Greek word and the noun for pastor. Ephesians 4:11 refers to 'pastors and teachers.' If that doesn't refer to the elder/overseer role, then it refers to gifts closely associated with this role.

Historically, the role was called 'elder.' The word 'priest' derives from the Greek word for 'elder.' But then translators started using that to refer to Old Testament 'kohen' which was confusing. The Reformed movement in Geneva named their city leaders 'elders' and had a theocratic approach to government. They renamed their church elders 'pastors', maybe due to confusion resulting from the translation issue of priests being used for the OT role, Luther's priesthood of all believers teaching, etc.

The Presbyterians took the church and city government structure of Geneva and made a church system out of it and made the city government official role into a church office of the non-pastoral elder. The late Reformed scholar FF. Taurence's writings are useful to learn about the history on this.

Many churches have copied the Reformed system. Baptists have a similar system but renammed the non-pastoral elder role as 'deacon.'

 

[nomadictheist]

I would like to bring this point for your consideration, brothers and sisters.

To run a church today according to the popular model, you must use this simple algorithm:

1. There should be enough attendees in more or less good financial standing.
2. There should exist motivation for the attendees to give.
3. If not (1), then grow the church in order to collect more money.
4. If not (2), then keep motivating the attendees to give.

This model works only in places that satisfy the following conditions:

1. Sizable Christian population
2. Good stable economy
3. Lack of strong persecution of the Christian faith

Many countries do not have all of the above Conditions 1, 2 and 3. They have to operate with a different model of church.

Example 1: PR of China. Very small home churches. No paid ministers. Local ministers only. True believers filtered by strong persecution. Church growing rapidly.

Example 2: Kazakhstan The majority of churches are organized according to the popular model. A large percentage of foreign ministers. Financially supported by churches or Christian organizations from abroad. A small number of self-supported home (cell) churches that refuse any foreign or local external support. Very slow growth of church, fully dependent on presence of foreign Christian capital - much decreased since 2008.

Origins of such model of Christian church

Where are the roots of the popular model of church? Dedicated building and paid, professional ministers. I think, from the era when Christianity was strongly supported by the state in countries of Christian majority population. Examples: Roman Empire, England, Russia, Spain, France. As European colonial powers spread Christianity to the new colonies, they brought their model of church and its cultural practices to wide geographical areas, such as in the Americas, Africa, South-East Asia, Australia.

Problems with imposing a single model of church operation

1. Such model makes churches in places where conditions 1-3 are not satisfied fully dependent on foreign support. This single fact poses the biggest hindrance to spreading of the gospel, as locals resent the invasion of a foreign faith.
2. It also corrupts local church, as it is seen as source of easy money by local Christian ministers and a pathway to immigration to first world countries.
3. It corrupts foreign missionaries and ministers residing in the field because of the strong temptation of huge financial support amidst local poverty and zero control from the sending church or organization.
4. As economic conditions in the host country(ies) can vary, churches risk losing their financial support and disappearing as the result (sad reality).
5. This model proves to be unfeasible in countries with strong persecution against Christianity. Thus, such countries effectively have extremely small Christian population, and slow growth. PR of China is an example where local Christians had to devise and adopt a more Jesus-like model of church, which was found to be exceedingly successfull.

Conclusion:

Money is a very bad fuel for spreading and sustaining Christian faith. Only unpaid, volunteer, free of charge Christians are able to carry out a lasting and real impact on individual souls and society as a whole. I think the best and the right kind of fuel is human hearts with true and strong faith in Jesus Christ.

Would you agee?

As a whole, I agree with the analysis. Taken separately, there are things that should be considered when it comes to ministers.

First, in the New Testament we see a model of collections being taken for people who have devoted their life to the work of Christ. This is not to say that they cannot do other work as well, but it does show that it isn't wrong for them to at least receive some help from the church.

However, here's my problem with the current church model in the U.S. (can't speak for other countries since I've only ever attended church in the U.S. and Japan)

1. Church buildings. It is pretty standard for a church to require a 'church building' once their congregation grows large enough. This has happened since the first couple centuries. However, in the earliest days churches met in houses, generally those belonging to wealthy members. The building itself can be a negative for various reasons.
A. Upkeep. Most church buildings are rather impressive buildings, and therefore expensive to build and maintain. This necessitates a portion of the church funds be put into keeping up the appearance, structural integrity, and cleanliness of the church.
B. Taxes. Church properties also have a rather high taxable value, and the donations received would require the church to pay a significant amount in taxes if it is not registered as a NFP (not for profit) organization. However, the tax-exempt status gives the government power over the church, because in order to keep that status the church must agree to certain stipulations. Right now (in America), one of those is that the pastor must not endorse any political candidate from the pulpit. More could be added in the future that would force the church to choose between its building and Christ.
C. The Poor. In the early church, we see that funds were distributed by an appointed "board" if you will to widows, orphans, and others who didn't have enough. Today, these people are often neglected in a local church while donations go instead toward larger buildings, missions organizations, better worship equipment, or the like.

2. Seminaries. While I believe seminaries were started with good intent, this way of raising leaders in the church is problematic as well for various reasons.
A. Isolation. Seminary students live in general isolation from the ministry they're studying for. Sure, they may be required to preach at a church a few Sundays, but the real ministry - guiding, helping, and mentoring people - are academic during seminary years. The early church leaders were all trained by observing. That is, they went on missions trips or were personally mentored by current leaders.
B. Debt. With the average cost of an M.Div hovering around $40-$60k, seminary graduates have to be paid in order to repay the debt they accrue. If they desire to avoid going into debt, then they must first get a job doing something else and then work their way through seminary, which can take a very long time. This drives the need for money to be funneled into churches and particularly church leaders.
C. Doctrinal Error. Because seminaries are intellectual places, they put a high focus on interpretation. Each seminary relies heavily on the interpretation of specific texts decided on by their denominational 'giants'. Reformed seminaries look closely at the teachings of John Calvin, J.C. Ryle, and other similar giants of the faith. Lutherans focus more on the doctrine of Martin Luther and his followers. The Catholic church relies on the teachings of the early popes, bishops, and other catholic church leaders. Doctrine continues to build over years as each denomination defends its particular interpretation of the Bible, and the intellectualism prevalent in most seminaries urges 'new' ideas to emerge. The end result is that a 'pastor' is not what the Bible calls for (a sober-minded man whose house is in good order), but rather a well-educated man.

As far as the need for growth, I completely agree. I have seen many churches that started small, grew because they were following the commands of scripture, and then suddenly had a building and full staff to worry about. It seems over time churches always become more concerned with the size of the congregation and the size of the wallet than spreading the gospel.

 

[FireDragon76]

B. Taxes. Church properties also have a rather high taxable value, and the donations received would require the church to pay a significant amount in taxes if it is not registered as a NFP (not for profit) organization. However, the tax-exempt status gives the government power over the church, because in order to keep that status the church must agree to certain stipulations.

I don't think this is likely to change any time soon, as churches are non-profits. And frankly it would be sub-christian to endorse political candidates or political parties, a confusion of the two realms of God's activity, and idolatrously binding Christian consciences.

C. The Poor. In the early church, we see that funds were distributed by an appointed "board" if you will to widows, orphans, and others who didn't have enough. Today, these people are often neglected in a local church while donations go instead toward larger buildings, missions organizations, better worship equipment, or the like.

In my experience this is simply not true. The Episcopalian and Lutheran congregations I have been involved with all give large amounts of time and money to help the less fortunate.

A. Isolation. Seminary students live in general isolation from the ministry they're studying for. Sure, they may be required to preach at a church a few Sundays, but the real ministry - guiding, helping, and mentoring people - are academic during seminary years. The early church leaders were all trained by observing. That is, they went on missions trips or were personally mentored by current leaders.

In the ELCA all pastors must perform a great deal of clinical pastoral education, working with individuals in crisis situations, typically hospitals, as chaplains. They do not simply receive intellectual knowledge of doctrines. It's similar in other mainline churches.

 

[nomadictheist]

I don't think this is likely to change any time soon, as churches are non-profits. And frankly it would be sub-christian to endorse political candidates or political parties, a confusion of the two realms of God's activity, and idolatrously binding Christian consciences.

What exactly does "sub-Christian" mean? Are you saying that a pastor shouldn't have the right to tell his congregation who he believes is the better candidate? Or to warn his congregation of a candidate whose campaign ideology would drive the country, state, or county further from God?

As I said, the biggest problem with the tax-exempt status is that it could (and eventually will) be used by government to force churches to choose between following the Bible or the culture. (A good example of this would be the advent of homosexual 'marriage', which churches could be forced to host or lose their tax-exempt status). Simply put, the 'tax-exempt' status is a problem because it gives the government leverage in the church.

Also, even the 'endorsement' clause is a problem, because a partisan government could use that against churches who endorse a candidate they don't like while ignoring endorsement of a candidate they do like.

In my experience this is simply not true. The Episcopalian and Lutheran congregations I have been involved with all give large amounts of time and money to help the less fortunate.

Every church has a large 'poor fund', but it could be larger without their large, ornate church buildings, salaried staffs, and the like. Even the time and money that goes into helping the less fortunate often goes in part to pay for more than just the food, clothing, or other material things being provided.

In the ELCA all pastors must perform a great deal of clinical pastoral education, working with individuals in crisis situations, typically hospitals, as chaplains. They do not simply receive intellectual knowledge of doctrines. It's similar in other mainline churches.

Crisis situations =/= to congregational care. It's part of it, but only a very small part. Seminary students, and past seminary students, that I've spoken to all spent a lot more time in the classroom than in the ministry, and I've seen no evidence that this has changed.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

My answer is based upon the reality of the institutional church in the current era. Being a pastor IS a job in many denomination's churches, with expected duties, expected hours, etc. We are not living in 50 AD anymore. Just because you may not want it to be so, doesn't mean it isn't.

So you are a full time paid pastor?

 

[2Timothy2:15]

First, in the New Testament we see a model of collections being taken for people who have devoted their life to the work of Christ. This is not to say that they cannot do other work as well, but it does show that it isn't wrong for them to at least receive some help from the church.

I have a radical thought. We are all suppose to have devoted our life to Christ not just pastors. You see this is the crux of the issue that there are people who devote their lives to Christ then there are the rest of us.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

1. Church buildings. It is pretty standard for a church to require a 'church building' once their congregation grows large enough. This has happened since the first couple centuries. However, in the earliest days churches met in houses, generally those belonging to wealthy members. The building itself can be a negative for various reasons.
A. Upkeep. Most church buildings are rather impressive buildings, and therefore expensive to build and maintain. This necessitates a portion of the church funds be put into keeping up the appearance, structural integrity, and cleanliness of the church.
B. Taxes. Church properties also have a rather high taxable value, and the donations received would require the church to pay a significant amount in taxes if it is not registered as a NFP (not for profit) organization. However, the tax-exempt status gives the government power over the church, because in order to keep that status the church must agree to certain stipulations. Right now (in America), one of those is that the pastor must not endorse any political candidate from the pulpit. More could be added in the future that would force the church to choose between its building and Christ.
C. The Poor. In the early church, we see that funds were distributed by an appointed "board" if you will to widows, orphans, and others who didn't have enough. Today, these people are often neglected in a local church while donations go instead toward larger buildings, missions organizations, better worship equipment, or the like.

2. Seminaries. While I believe seminaries were started with good intent, this way of raising leaders in the church is problematic as well for various reasons.
A. Isolation. Seminary students live in general isolation from the ministry they're studying for. Sure, they may be required to preach at a church a few Sundays, but the real ministry - guiding, helping, and mentoring people - are academic during seminary years. The early church leaders were all trained by observing. That is, they went on missions trips or were personally mentored by current leaders.
B. Debt. With the average cost of an M.Div hovering around $40-$60k, seminary graduates have to be paid in order to repay the debt they accrue. If they desire to avoid going into debt, then they must first get a job doing something else and then work their way through seminary, which can take a very long time. This drives the need for money to be funneled into churches and particularly church leaders.
C. Doctrinal Error. Because seminaries are intellectual places, they put a high focus on interpretation. Each seminary relies heavily on the interpretation of specific texts decided on by their denominational 'giants'. Reformed seminaries look closely at the teachings of John Calvin, J.C. Ryle, and other similar giants of the faith. Lutherans focus more on the doctrine of Martin Luther and his followers. The Catholic church relies on the teachings of the early popes, bishops, and other catholic church leaders. Doctrine continues to build over years as each denomination defends its particular interpretation of the Bible, and the intellectualism prevalent in most seminaries urges 'new' ideas to emerge. The end result is that a 'pastor' is not what the Bible calls for (a sober-minded man whose house is in good order), but rather a well-educated man.

None of which is found in the bible.