Do you believe priests/pastors are closer to God?

[bekkilyn]

If you read again you will see I didn't say that. You have described a life of busyness attending to administrative issues. With this schedule you would find it hard to put aside even one day a week for meditational reading of His word and prayer. In any case heaps of folks were offended at what Jesus said so to offend is a legitimate part of God's character.



I have hope that we will one day return to a more biblical mode of 'doing church' and I hope it doesn't take persecution to kick that off. In the mean time there is a move towards home based church as a response to the failures of traditional church to serve the Body of Christ on a personal level.



Well the present church structures are leaving believers in isolation - see for example this thread - pretty typical of what folk are struggling with.

prayer request

I have heard from the pulpit embarrassment when it comes to the first 5 chapters of Acts which details God's intent that we relate as a community or family of believers.

I don't mean for you to take my comments personally, but just maybe our dialogue will trigger a better solution to the issues we both grapple with.

Ten Signs a Pastor Is Becoming a Chaplain - ThomRainer.com

 

[Neogaia777]

Closeness to God has absolutely nothing to do with being a pastor or priest, and elevating them to any special closeness is idolatry.

What you want to be looking for is true men and women of God, not any special pastors or priests necessarily, but still don't idolize them either, or put them on some kind of special high pedestal, for they are just a man or woman like you, nothing more...

And in fact, if they are true men and women of God, they will not allow you to put them on some kind of high pedestal anyway, for that is one way you can know, I would think...

God Bless!

 

[Not David]

According to Bible every believer is priest , with high priest Jesus Christ so the belief that priest is person wearing black and working full time in Church is false every believer is one .
Revelation 1:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.


Pastor on the other hand is supposed to be leading group of believers in area both in word and morally so he is supposed to have wife , kids and act decent to give good example to people and help them resolve family problems based on his own experience and word of God .

Problem arrives when people take appearance of person and judge acccording to it. Thinking that one person is better than other because he did X Y Z sin and the previous did ony A B and once Z in their "imaginary" scale of how bad sin is while everybody is equally guilty of sin and there are no levels of sin.

So no in short they are not . All believers have equal rights and God is not respect of persons .

A lot of pastors wear black and work full-time with in the church.

 

[Neogaia777]

What you want to be looking for is true men and women of God, not any special pastors or priests necessarily, but still don't idolize them either, or put them on some kind of special high pedestal, for they are just a man or woman like you, nothing more...

And in fact, if they are true men and women of God, they will not allow you to put them on some kind of high pedestal anyway, for that is one way you can know, I would think...

God Bless!

Not saying that all pastors and priests, etc are necessarily false though, however, for there are many good and humble and cool level-headed ones, and honest ones, sometimes brutally honest ones, etc... There are some who can even give you, me and we, some lessons in humbleness, and cool level headedness, and humility, etc...

Those are some of the ones I consider the "good ones"...

God Bless!

 

[Blade]

Nope not at all. As Paidske "There are many incredibly faithful, prayerful, profoundly holy people who are not called to ordained ministry."

I believe they can be though. There are some that are the 1st ones there in prayer and the last one gone still praying seeking Him

 

[AlexDTX]

The irony of posting this on the internet...

It isn't ironic, because the issue of salvation, and the fallen nature of man, with the needs both have remains the same. Changes in technology certainly can enhance ministry, but the work of ministry remains the same.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

No.

Even the devil knows Scripture thoroughly, and if he wanted to, could preach an on-target sermon. The ability to do so does not indicate closeness to God, since by definition the devil is the farthest away possible.

Why would the devil, or his workers in human form, want to preach an on-target sermon in the first place? Simply to trick people into listening. After he's got the listeners hooked and following every word he says, he can ever so gradually start veering off the truth, and nobody will even question it. As in, "Hey, I've been listening to this preacher for years, and he's never steered me wrong yet. If he says something, I can trust without a doubt that it has to be straight from God."

Which is why it's important to do as the Bereans did in Acts 17:11. I, for one, don't trust anything just because I once heard it said from a pulpit somewhere. If I didn't reach that conclusion myself, through my own personal prayers and studies, then I don't follow it.

 

[charsan]

Just curious about what you believe.

I think so I consider Priest close to God but monks and nuns closer than them even, especially contemplative ones.

 

[Paidiske]

If you read again you will see I didn't say that. You have described a life of busyness attending to administrative issues. With this schedule you would find it hard to put aside even one day a week for meditational reading of His word and prayer. In any case heaps of folks were offended at what Jesus said so to offend is a legitimate part of God's character.

No, I can't put aside one whole day a week, uninterrupted. I do, however, maintain a regular discipline of prayer and reading, punctuated with retreats and quiet days and the like.

And it's not a legitimate part of God's character - even less our own behaviour - to level unsupported accusations at one another.

But the point is, all of the administrative stuff; it's necessary. Someone has to do it. Yes, I'd like lay people to pick up more of it, (it's not me you have to convince about that!) but that doesn't mean I get to neglect it in the meantime.

I have hope that we will one day return to a more biblical mode of 'doing church' and I hope it doesn't take persecution to kick that off. In the mean time there is a move towards home based church as a response to the failures of traditional church to serve the Body of Christ on a personal level.

I don't really want to return to the Biblical mode, which was what was necessary in an era where it was illegal to be Christian. Our freedom gives us far more opportunity to engage openly in mission etc. But be that as it may, recognise that the days when the vicar was constantly visiting weren't the "Biblical mode"! New Testament era churches were generally not financially supporting local leaders to be totally available for the work of ministry.

I can't comment on house churches much except to say that I myself would never be willing to be part of one. Too little accountability or oversight in that world; I don't see them as pastorally safe environments. The traditional church has weaknesses (although I think you're over-generalising about our "failures") but so does every model.

Well the present church structures are leaving believers in isolation - see for example this thread - pretty typical of what folk are struggling with.

prayer request

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/prayer-request.8126376/#post-74219266

That's really unhealthy, but not at all typical of my experience of church.

I have heard from the pulpit embarrassment when it comes to the first 5 chapters of Acts which details God's intent that we relate as a community or family of believers.

I don't see any point in being embarrassed by Scripture. That's just strange.

I don't mean for you to take my comments personally

Then maybe phrase them in a way which makes it clear you don't intend them to apply to me, or others personally.

It isn't ironic, because the issue of salvation, and the fallen nature of man, with the needs both have remains the same. Changes in technology certainly can enhance ministry, but the work of ministry remains the same.

I don't actually agree that the work of ministry remains the same. Yes, the big picture issues remain the same, but the way we address them shifts over time and in different cultures. And the day-to-day life of people in ministry - what we actually do with the hours we work - looks dramatically different.

 

[Carl Emerson]

And it's not a legitimate part of God's character - even less our own behaviour - to level unsupported accusations at one another.

I would be keen to know which phrase you felt was offensive.
What I was saying was that Jesus often offended folks and He never sinned. This surely confirms that to offend is part of God's nature.

But the point is, all of the administrative stuff; it's necessary. Someone has to do it. Yes, I'd like lay people to pick up more of it, (it's not me you have to convince about that!) but that doesn't mean I get to neglect it in the meantime.

Yes it's necessary under the structure you are struggling to serve in, and I am encouraging a fresh look at structure to eliminate such pressures.

I don't really want to return to the Biblical mode, which was what was necessary in an era where it was illegal to be Christian. Our freedom gives us far more opportunity to engage openly in mission etc. But be that as it may, recognise that the days when the vicar was constantly visiting weren't the "Biblical mode"! New Testament era churches were generally not financially supporting local leaders to be totally available for the work of ministry.

Well time is coming when it may again be illegal to be a Christian. It is already in some countries.

We were closer to Biblical mode 60 years ago when I first went to church.

New testament mode recorded in Acts did not have the Pastor on a stipend, they supported those who the Lord was raising up to serve for the season in which they had His anointing to serve.

I can't comment on house churches much except to say that I myself would never be willing to be part of one. Too little accountability or oversight in that world; I don't see them as pastorally safe environments. The traditional church has weaknesses (although I think you're over-generalising about our "failures") but so does every model.

Actually Home based churches have more accountability if they are structured biblically.

 

[Paidiske]

I would be keen to know which phrase you felt was offensive.

You said there "simply wasn't time" to wait on God. As if those in ministry today don't live prayerful lives.

What I was saying was that Jesus often offended folks and He never sinned. This surely confirms that to offend is part of God's nature.

That has nothing to do with making false accusations.

Yes it's necessary under the structure you are struggling to serve in, and I am encouraging a fresh look at structure to eliminate such pressures.

We can't take a "fresh look" at structure in ways which ignore things like legal requirements which didn't exist even five years ago. And frankly I don't want to take a "fresh look" at child safety or compliance with all sorts of other laws; they're there for our own good.

New testament mode recorded in Acts did not have the Pastor on a stipend, they supported those who the Lord was raising up to serve for the season in which they had His anointing to serve.

Not necessarily. Most local leaders still had to earn their living. They didn't have the leisure to spend all their time visiting and the like; that was a much later development.

Actually Home based churches have more accountability if they are structured biblically.

No formal and transparent complaints processes, no proper policies, no documented governance, no legal framework, no bodies larger than the local gathering to exercise oversight... no thanks.

And that's not me attacking home churches, just pointing out that we all have weaknesses, and most of us choose churches which have weaknesses we can live with. That I prefer a different set of weaknesses to the ones you prefer doesn't make me wrong.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You said there "simply wasn't time" to wait on God. As if those in ministry today don't live prayerful lives.

Yes I stand by my statement and it was not personally directed.
The case I sighted was a case in point where someone like myself from outside the congregation was needed to bring a word that would have come from the church leaders if they had time and inclination to seek God for it.
Now you took this as a false accusation when I never referred to you personally.

We can't take a "fresh look" at structure in ways which ignore things like legal requirements which didn't exist even five years ago. And frankly I don't want to take a "fresh look" at child safety or compliance with all sorts of other laws; they're there for our own good.

A reformed structure may have no need of such compliances - the underground church in China has survived fruitfully without Govt. regulation. A small group model with little footprint would not need to either.

Not necessarily. Most local leaders still had to earn their living. They didn't have the leisure to spend all their time visiting and the like; that was a much later development.

This is not how I read the first chapters of acts - generous giving yes - employment and wages no.

No formal and transparent complaints processes, no proper policies, no documented governance, no legal framework, no bodies larger than the local gathering to exercise oversight... no thanks.

And that's not me attacking home churches, just pointing out that we all have weaknesses, and most of us choose churches which have weaknesses we can live with. That I prefer a different set of weaknesses to the ones you prefer doesn't make me wrong.

Of course we are free to choose the status quo... but then live with the frustrations you have described.

Personally I prefer to move towards a structure proven by the early church which carried the greatest explosion of faith the world has ever seen.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes I stand by my statement and it was not personally directed.
The case I sighted was a case in point where someone like myself from outside the congregation was needed to bring a word that would have come from the church leaders if they had time and inclination to seek God for it.
Now you took this as a false accusation when I never referred to you personally.

You made a generalised statement, not one about a specific individual.

And I disagree with you that the word would necessarily have come from the church leaders. We each have our own gifts, and this may have been your particular gift at that time. It doesn't mean they weren't doing anything productive, even if their gifts and tasks were different.

A reformed structure may have no need of such compliances - the underground church in China has survived fruitfully without Govt. regulation. A small group model with little footprint would not need to either.

Without those compliances, abuses flourish. It is not a good or safe model. That's what we've learned from the sexual abuse crisis and the rest.

This is not how I read the first chapters of acts - generous giving yes - employment and wages no.

Not employment by the church; secular employment which precluded being able to be fully devoted to ministry.

Of course we are free to choose the status quo... but then live with the frustrations you have described.

I'm not saying nothing should change. I'm saying your suggested changes are not a good answer, for a variety of reasons.

Personally I prefer to move towards a structure proven by the early church which carried the greatest explosion of faith the world has ever seen.

We can't go back. We are not in the first century and we can't behave as if we were. This is not wrong; the call to us is to be faithful and effective in mission today.

 

[Carl Emerson]

We can't go back. We are not in the first century and we can't behave as if we were. This is not wrong; the call to us is to be faithful and effective in mission today.

Exactly and our present structures are an impediment to His mission for us today.

If it is a return to His intent, we must 'go back' and repent of the human constructs that have limited the impact of His body on the world today.

 

[Paidiske]

Exactly and our present structures are an impediment to His mission for us today.

If it is a return to His intent, we must 'go back' and repent of the human constructs that have limited the impact of His body on the world today.

I don't think the NT church was perfect or exactly matched God's intent, either. We see plenty of problems in the epistles and the letters to the churches in Revelation!

We have to do the best we can in the age we're in. The church isn't perfect now but we can't idolise the past and try to retreat to it. That's not being faithful in our own age.

 

[Francis Drake]

What you want to be looking for is true men and women of God, not any special pastors or priests necessarily, but still don't idolize them either, or put them on some kind of special high pedestal, for they are just a man or woman like you, nothing more...

Amen and amen.

And in fact, if they are true men and women of God, they will not allow you to put them on some kind of high pedestal anyway, for that is one way you can know, I would think...

Amen and amen.

This has been my belief and walk for well over 30 years.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So we don't want to see a return to closer to God like this?

What exactly then are we wanting to be closer to???

Acts 2
43Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. 44And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. 46Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 4
32And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.33And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales 35and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.

Acts 5
12At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico. 13But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. 14And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number, 15to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any one of them. 16Also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed.

 

[Paidiske]

Some of what is described there is good, and should be aimed for today.

But that was an age - just to pick one thing - where Christianity was not yet disambiguated from Judaism. We can't return to that age in every way.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Actually the church was born onto an existing Jewish community which operated on Godly principles spelt out in the OT. This is reason why we need to return to what I quoted from Acts rather than as you state disambiguate from Judaism and this is why so may believers are isolated today.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, I don't believe clergy are closer to God than laity.

The newborn infant just baptized and the elderly, scholarly monk in the mountain abbey have received the same fullness of God through the holy and precious Gospel of our salvation.

-CryptoLutheran