Pastors or Hirelings?

[jahel]

You are assigning the problem to the wrong thing and therefore the solution as well. I started out as a "house church" a house church is just as much of a systemic structure as a "traditional" church. The issue is not the structure. This issue is, has always been, and will always be: people. That is why we need discipleship. The point of discipleship is to help people grow, the problem with that is that you have a group of people that need to grow. Everything you outlined here, we did in our house church AND we still do in our more traditional church as well. The solution is not the venue or the format. The solution is to make the vision plain so the people can run with it... to provide a platform for the Holy Spirit to move... and proper ORDER for the people to learn and grow. God doesn't interrupt God and God doesn't contradict Himself... but people sure do. Always have.





Again, it's not one or the other, it is both. Lead by example AND follow the order (rules) of the house. You seem to be splitting hairs here. Somewhere else you said that if one joined a group then clearly they would have to follow the rules of that group. That describes every single church (house or traditional) out there today. Attendance is voluntary, but when you are there respect the rules and the leaders that are in place. This is an extremely biblical concept.



You need to take responsibility here. Yes, this is a quote from Jesus. But inferring that onto paid clergy is your interpretation, or the interpretation you have adopted from the men you quoted. You brought up that interpretation here and have continued to advance it. That's on you. It is in no way open and shut. Clearly many do not agree with it. To drop that allegation and then fall back on "take it up with Jesus" is disingenuous.

To me it seems pretty clear that Jesus is illustrating that problems arise when you are in it for the money as your primary goal. The problem isn't being paid in and of itself, the problem is the heart motivation. This is 100% consistent with everything else Jesus taught about our motivations and about money. Heck, Jesus got paid offerings himself (you don't have a treasurer if you don't have treasure).


I have to agree with others here. I just don't see the point in all this. I have learned in such situations to follow Jesus' advice and take a step back and look at the fruit. Clergy today are not the same thing as the Pharisees - it's technically not even the same religion. Most in ministry today are in it because they felt a call to serve, definitely not because it is so lucrative. It does not seem to be to be in Jesus character to degenerate, discourage or criticize those who have given their lives to serve Him. Yet that's the tone of much of this conversation.

I see this argument fairly often about home churches. Problem those arguing for home church format almost always seem to be compelled to tear down the traditional church to justify their chosen format. That also doesn't sound like Jesus to me. Jesus did whatever He could to reach the lost and the broken. Seems to me that the same should apply to us as well. So, home church, traditional church, street corner evangelism, or whatever... if it is pointing people to Jesus, it's a good thing. Every single one will be flawed in some way, because every single one is made up of people. But, we are all on the same side. It's a GOOD thing that I don't do everything exactly the same as Paidiske or any other minister. We will be more effective that way. Unity produces the anointing. They anointing breaks the yokes of bondage. Unity is fruit. Unity is not sameness, it is harmony... different "parts" singing the same song. Division is the domain of the enemy. Division will actually disguise itself as unity using the concept of sameness as cover. Calling into question the clergy at large as has been done here is not fruitful it's divisive.

" Heck, Jesus got paid offerings himself (you don't have a treasurer if you don't have treasure).” The bible makes clear from where the treasure came.

 

[AlexDTX]

You are assigning the problem to the wrong thing and therefore the solution as well. I started out as a "house church" a house church is just as much of a systemic structure as a "traditional" church. The issue is not the structure. This issue is, has always been, and will always be: people. That is why we need discipleship. The point of discipleship is to help people grow, the problem with that is that you have a group of people that need to grow. Everything you outlined here, we did in our house church AND we still do in our more traditional church as well. The solution is not the venue or the format. The solution is to make the vision plain so the people can run with it... to provide a platform for the Holy Spirit to move... and proper ORDER for the people to learn and grow. God doesn't interrupt God and God doesn't contradict Himself... but people sure do. Always have.

I am in agreement with you. I have been in many house churches and the desire to run and control others are just as bad there as in the business groups of paid clergy.

And this has been my point many times throughout this thread. Learning to recognize those who are gifted by God as pastors from those who sit in an office calling themselves pastors. Those who start house churches often hold an office without declaring it. And the liberty God has given all mankind is in agreement. If people come together in any organized fashion, it is done so by agreement. If one does not agree, then either go somewhere else, or submit to the agreement.

If my choice of words are poorly made, then I apologize. But my point of recognizing pastors who are organically pastors (which illustrated by my missionary friend who has no office of pastor) from those simply with a title, is the spiritual discernment needed in the body of Christ.

Regrettably, it became contentious because several people only saw my OP as an assault on professional ministers, of which it was not. As I have repeated several times, I began the thread because I had always assumed Jesus only referred to himself as the Good Shepherd who lays his life down for the sheep. The commentaries got me thinking about pastors in the body of Christ. However, after getting this kind of flak on the topic it merely convinced me that all of us are hirelings in the service of the Lord. I believe in context of John 10 Jesus referred specifically to the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes as the hirelings.

Again, it's not one or the other, it is both. Lead by example AND follow the order (rules) of the house. You seem to be splitting hairs here. Somewhere else you said that if one joined a group then clearly they would have to follow the rules of that group. That describes every single church (house or traditional) out there today. Attendance is voluntary, but when you are there respect the rules and the leaders that are in place. This is an extremely biblical concept.

I am not splitting hairs. If I am with a group, I follow the rules and guidelines of that group out of courtesy and respect. As you said, I am there voluntarily and as I said above, it is a matter of agreement. But none of this was my point and it has blown up into matters that I did not intend.

You need to take responsibility here. Yes, this is a quote from Jesus. But inferring that onto paid clergy is your interpretation, or the interpretation you have adopted from the men you quoted. You brought up that interpretation here and have continued to advance it. That's on you. It is in no way open and shut. Clearly many do not agree with it. To drop that allegation and then fall back on "take it up with Jesus" is disingenuous.

To me it seems pretty clear that Jesus is illustrating that problems arise when you are in it for the money as your primary goal. The problem isn't being paid in and of itself, the problem is the heart motivation. This is 100% consistent with everything else Jesus taught about our motivations and about money. Heck, Jesus got paid offerings himself (you don't have a treasurer if you don't have treasure).


I have to agree with others here. I just don't see the point in all this. I have learned in such situations to follow Jesus' advice and take a step back and look at the fruit.

Who, then according to your interpretation are the "hirelings" that Jesus contrasted with himself? I've already stated my opinion that it was the Pharisees and paid leaders of their clergy system.

I don't disagree with the right of anyone to make their living from the Gospel if the Lord has led them to do so. Paul made that clear in 1 Cor 9. And I agree that motivation is everything. But I would say that systems have a way of trapping good people in a form of self preservation where protecting the system becomes more important than the ministry.

Consider the huge number of Catholic priests that have recently been exposed for their sexual abuses that has always been covered up to protect the Catholic system. This has also true with some Protestant denominations.

Can you honestly say that the church in America (assuming you are an American) is salt and light today? As I said to Paideske, if the church is having a positive impact on society why then have some parents become so delusional as to encourage their 7 year old son to become a girl (James Younger), wanting to have an operation that would mutilate the boy and ruin his adult life?

That is just one example. If the church was impacting society this kind of thing would be rare, but it is not.

I am not cynical regarding the Lord. I am cynical regarding the effectiveness of how the organized religion has led the body of Christ.

Topher, forgive me, but I am angry at what I see in the world. And, yes, I am angry with the "head in the sand" attitude of Christians towards their own ineffectiveness in impacting the world and the leaders who have not helped Christians to walk in the power and might of Christ.Nor take the time to self evaluate the way the church works.

Eze 34:2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?

Eze 34:10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.​

 

[AlexDTX]

Maybe it depends on what it meant by "house church." If it is a glorified version of Bible Study, I wouldn't consider it a church.

You are right. Many house churches are nothing more than glorified bible studies. But there are also many house churches that are very proactive in evangelism, community involvement, and in encouraging the members to be active participants in sharing what the Lord has laid on their hearts and in functioning in the gifts of the Spirit in prophecy, words of knowledge, spiritual discernment and so forth.

 

[Paidiske]

I agree it has some impact on society today, but very little. Evolution, science and secular humanism is having a greater impact today than the church. If the church was as effective as you say, divorce, adultery, fornication, homosexuality and transgenderism would not be a part of mainstream lifestyle. If the church was as effective as you say, Barna polls would not show up to 50% of clergy addicted to porn, nor would we see so many Christians divorcing, nor Christian women putting careers ahead of families, nor the scandals of clergy pedophilia.

Oh, I see. So because the church no longer controls the thinking, speech and behaviour of non-Christians, you conclude that the church has failed.

I see it differently. The measure of the church being the church is not whether mainstream society believes in evolution or whether women work (good grief, I'm a working mother, and my response to that is to roll my eyes at judgement of non-1950s middle-class lifestyles).

The measure of the church being the church is whether we are participating in the mission of God; proclaiming the good news; teaching, baptising and nurturing believers; responding to human need with loving service; and so on.

I know both good and bad pastors and have acknowledge it. If I had focused on Joel Osteen as a hireling fleecing the flock would that have made my comments better?

I couldn't care less about Joel Osteen, but if you used him as an excuse to paint with a broad brush and condemn whole churches, I'd still have found that objectionable.

 

[charsan]

Ministry should never be done by lone cowboys or loose cannons.

Yet in this very thread there are those who argue that lone cowboys should be ministries or in the ministry and that over sight should never be done. We see here from those type the absolute danger of solo scriptura and a lack of understanding.

 

[AlexDTX]

Oh, I see. So because the church no longer controls the thinking, speech and behaviour of non-Christians, you conclude that the church has failed.

I see it differently. The measure of the church being the church is not whether mainstream society believes in evolution or whether women work (good grief, I'm a working mother, and my response to that is to roll my eyes at judgement of non-1950s middle-class lifestyles).

The measure of the church being the church is whether we are participating in the mission of God; proclaiming the good news; teaching, baptising and nurturing believers; responding to human need with loving service; and so on.

The church has never controlled society. But the influence of a vibrant generation of believers has impacted society so that its influence has been felt by all in that society.

All those activities are not a measure of the effectiveness of church. All those things can be done in the flesh without any spiritual transformation. If those activities are done in the power of God, then spiritual transformation will be evident.

I couldn't care less about Joel Osteen, but if you used him as an excuse to paint with a broad brush and condemn whole churches, I'd still have found that objectionable.

You are taking Joel Osteen out of context. I simply used him as an extreme example.

 

[Paidiske]

The church has never controlled society. But the influence of a vibrant generation of believers has impacted society so that its influence has been felt by all in that society.

Yes... and not always in a good way.

All those activities are not a measure of the effectiveness of church. All those things can be done in the flesh without any spiritual transformation. If those activities are done in the power of God, then spiritual transformation will be evident.

I was suggesting that the measure of the church is whether the church is actually carrying out its mission. My point being that things like opposing evolution or confining women to the domestic sphere are not the mission of the church.

You are taking Joel Osteen out of context. I simply used him as an extreme example.

I'm not taking Joel Osteen at all. I answered your direct question. If you use any example to paint with a broad brush and condemn whole churches my answer would be the same.

 

[topher694]

I am in agreement with you. I have been in many house churches and the desire to run and control others are just as bad there as in the business groups of paid clergy.

And this has been my point many times throughout this thread. Learning to recognize those who are gifted by God as pastors from those who sit in an office calling themselves pastors. Those who start house churches often hold an office without declaring it. And the liberty God has given all mankind is in agreement. If people come together in any organized fashion, it is done so by agreement. If one does not agree, then either go somewhere else, or submit to the agreement.

If my choice of words are poorly made, then I apologize. But my point of recognizing pastors who are organically pastors (which illustrated by my missionary friend who has no office of pastor) from those simply with a title, is the spiritual discernment needed in the body of Christ.

Regrettably, it became contentious because several people only saw my OP as an assault on professional ministers, of which it was not. As I have repeated several times, I began the thread because I had always assumed Jesus only referred to himself as the Good Shepherd who lays his life down for the sheep. The commentaries got me thinking about pastors in the body of Christ. However, after getting this kind of flak on the topic it merely convinced me that all of us are hirelings in the service of the Lord. I believe in context of John 10 Jesus referred specifically to the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes as the hirelings.

Listen, I think I get what you are trying to say, and I think your motive is pure. I respect that. What you need to realize is that there is whole different side of this that most people don't see or understand. I've been accused of being elitist or promoting the idea that pastors are more important for saying things like that, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Like it or not, one simply cannot understand ministry leadership until they've done it, yet many think they do. I thought I did, and I was very wrong.

I say all that to give context for this: I have seen/heard statements very similar to what you have said here many times before. What happens - far too often - is that someone will take a well intentioned statement like yours and they will use it as a hammer against their pastor/leader, even if their pastor has done nothing to merit it. It plants seeds of discord, even if that wasn't the intent. This is probably part of the reason you feel push back. That is also why you hear me talk about the fruit and unity and accepting different formats and things like that. There are things we do at our church that are very different than others. There are things other ministers do I do not agree with, yet I don't want to harm anyone else's ministry, even unintentionally.

Who, then according to your interpretation are the "hirelings" that Jesus contrasted with himself? I've already stated my opinion that it was the Pharisees and paid leaders of their clergy system.

It is exactly as I wrote. The NT is all about the heart. Revealing the heart of God, the heart of the law, restoring the heart of man. So I think the "hirelings" likewise depend entirely on the heart of the minister. I think some can, and do, enter into ministry with the right heart, but fail to guard it and fall into "hireling" status. I doubt very many start off as "hirelings" unless, perhaps, if they inherited an already extremely successful ministry.

Can you honestly say that the church in America (assuming you are an American) is salt and light today? As I said to Paideske, if the church is having a positive impact on society why then have some parents become so delusional as to encourage their 7 year old son to become a girl (James Younger), wanting to have an operation that would mutilate the boy and ruin his adult life?

That is just one example. If the church was impacting society this kind of thing would be rare, but it is not.

I share your frustration, I truly do, but again be careful where you place blame. We don't know what the state of this country or the world would be without the church. I admit, there is a ton of room for improvement, no doubt. But I long ago realized that getting upset about it did nothing. Pointing fingers in a "general" way helped nothing. The only thing I could do is BE the improvement and teach and encourage others to do the same. And they do. They just don't get on the news or go viral on social media doing it. But there are plenty out there making a difference.

Topher, forgive me, but I am angry at what I see in the world. And, yes, I am angry with the "head in the sand" attitude of Christians towards their own ineffectiveness in impacting the world and the leaders who have not helped Christians to walk in the power and might of Christ.Nor take the time to self evaluate the way the church works.

First, I again share your frustration. You have no idea how many conversations my wife and I have had about this very thing, even yesterday, lol. We have had people come to our church and say things like, "I have never experienced the presence of God like that before" or "I didn't know people still did church like this" or "This is what I've been hungry for".... and you know what happens 75% of the time or more? We never see them again. Guess what that does to a pastor? It creates a MASSIVE temptation to compromise and just tell people what they want to hear, or to just give up. And many do one or the other. So then, whose to blame? My answer is the same as before, it's not us or them or this institution or that... it's human nature. Jesus warned us of this. Paul lived it his entire christian life. That's why he said we need to imitate those who through faith and persistence inherit the promises. The changes your heart is crying out for will not come any other way... faith & persistence.

Second, yes, it is Christopher... but really Chris. I was "topher" back in my college days. In the early days of the internet and usernames, so my first usernames were topher and so they continue to be forever and ever, amen.

 

[AlexDTX]

Yes... and not always in a good way.

We agree.

I was suggesting that the measure of the church is whether the church is actually carrying out its mission.

I agree with that, too. The mission of the Church is The Great Commission. That means share the Gospel to the whole world in such a way that people accept the New Birth , then help them to know the voice of the Lord so they can all walk with God and know his will for themselves.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.​

The measure of the success of that mission is the impact it has on society as the majority trust in Christ and follow his commands.

Do you really think the mission is currently successful?

 

[Paidiske]

The measure of the success of that mission is the impact it has on society as the majority trust in Christ and follow his commands.

I disagree. We have never been promised that the majority of society would come to faith. Social and political dominance is not the aim.

 

[AlexDTX]

First, before I give responses, I just gotta say, I love you man. The maturity and wisdom you have is evident in all that you have written.
Second, let me say something about myself. I am a prophet. Not in a prophet's office, but organically. And I am the first to admit that I am a poor prophet. I reckon myself as a cross between Jonah and Jeremiah. Sometimes I just want to run away from the call of God in me, but at the same time I have fire burning in my bones that keeps me coming back.

It plants seeds of discord, even if that wasn't the intent. This is probably part of the reason you feel push back.

Among genuine believers, I do not want to plant discord, either. But this forum is filled with people of both ilks: true followers of Christ and people who call themselves Christians but would not know Jesus if he rang their doorbell and asked to come in. This comment may get me banned from CF, because it is against the rules to say anyone is not a Christian. My hope is that I have not said any specific person is not a Christian, except for those who declare themselves as atheist or something else.

When Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword (Matt. 10:34) he meant the Truth would cause division between those who thought they were following God, and those who truly followed God.

But, on the other hand, the New Testament ministry of the prophet is not the same as the Old Testament ministry, though, they have some things in common. Regarding Jesus, Isaiah said that a bruised reed he would not break and a smoking flax he would not quench (Isa. 42:3). So I know wisdom in choice of words is needed so as not to cause such harm.

There are things other ministers do I do not agree with, yet I don't want to harm anyone else's ministry, even unintentionally.

Nor, I. See above.

I think some can, and do, enter into ministry with the right heart, but fail to guard it and fall into "hireling" status. I doubt very many start off as "hirelings" unless, perhaps, if they inherited an already extremely successful ministry.

No. They don't. The system is a potential trap. But this is also true of any job. It is very easy to see the paid ministry or any secular job as the only source of God's provision in our lives. It becomes a distraction to walking by faith with God. And all of us have this danger in our lives.

I share your frustration, I truly do, but again be careful where you place blame. We don't know what the state of this country or the world would be without the church.

The world is a better place because of the body of Christ, but not just because of the institution of churches. It is because members rise up either in or out of the institution to impact society.

But, frankly, Chris, we are in a serious satanic war right now. Satanism is deeply entrenched in governments world wide, including the USA. The church tends to underestimate Satan's influence on the world, including the organized religion. Satan works through systems more than demons merely harass individual Christians. Trump is battling human trafficking on a global scale, which is why he is so hated by the media and most of the government. They are involved with the pedophilia and the human sacrifice of children to Moloch today. Abortion is not the only child sacrifice to Moloch. This happens at Bohemian Grove in northern California, Epstein Island, and a multitude of places. It involves European royalty and government officials throughout the world.

Interpolation: this is just from today.
Nearly 400 children rescued and 348 adults arrested in Canadian child pornography bust

I don't what end-time scenario is correct, but we are clearly in the end times, and we need to be ready as a church. The one thing I know for sure is that Jesus said the Gospel had to be preached to the whole world before his return.

It creates a MASSIVE temptation to compromise and just tell people what they want to hear, or to just give up. And many do one or the other. So then, whose to blame? My answer is the same as before, it's not us or them or this institution or that... it's human nature.

Sadly, human nature is to blame. Institutions can be either a benefit or detriment. You are a wise man. If you lived in Texas I would be a member of your congregation.

 

[AlexDTX]

I disagree. We have never been promised that the majority of society would come to faith. Social and political dominance is not the aim.

The aim is saving as many souls as are willing to be saved. If evangelism was a fire in all congregations, society would be changed. And, frankly Paidiske, if you study history, Christianity has changed society because of this. The Roman Empire was transformed by the fire of Christianity, though Christians suffered persecution as a reaction from the pagans who did not want the world changed. The barbarians of Germany were changed because of Christianity. And other periods of history could be given as further examples.

I don't believe in Dispensationalism anymore, and lean towards Preteritism, but see some elements of truth in both. If the ages of Dispensationalism based on the 7 churches listed in Revelations 2 & 3 is correct, we are in the age of Laodicia for sure.

 

[Paidiske]

But this is the point; society is "changed" from what it would be if our churches were not here. We cannot see what it would be like if none of them had never existed. Just because there are injustices and evils in the world, doesn't mean the church isn't being the church. There will be such until Christ returns.

 

[topher694]

First, before I give responses, I just gotta say, I love you man. The maturity and wisdom you have is evident in all that you have written.
Second, let me say something about myself. I am a prophet. Not in a prophet's office, but organically. And I am the first to admit that I am a poor prophet. I reckon myself as a cross between Jonah and Jeremiah. Sometimes I just want to run away from the call of God in me, but at the same time I have fire burning in my bones that keeps me coming back.

Among genuine believers, I do not want to plant discord, either. But this forum is filled with people of both ilks: true followers of Christ and people who call themselves Christians but would not know Jesus if he rang their doorbell and asked to come in. This comment may get me banned from CF, because it is against the rules to say anyone is not a Christian. My hope is that I have not said any specific person is not a Christian, except for those who declare themselves as atheist or something else.

When Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword (Matt. 10:34) he meant the Truth would cause division between those who thought they were following God, and those who truly followed God.

But, on the other hand, the New Testament ministry of the prophet is not the same as the Old Testament ministry, though, they have some things in common. Regarding Jesus, Isaiah said that a bruised reed he would not break and a smoking flax he would not quench (Isa. 42:3). So I know wisdom in choice of words is needed so as not to cause such harm.



Nor, I. See above.


No. They don't. The system is a potential trap. But this is also true of any job. It is very easy to see the paid ministry or any secular job as the only source of God's provision in our lives. It becomes a distraction to walking by faith with God. And all of us have this danger in our lives.


The world is a better place because of the body of Christ, but not just because of the institution of churches. It is because members rise up either in or out of the institution to impact society.

But, frankly, Chris, we are in a serious satanic war right now. Satanism is deeply entrenched in governments world wide, including the USA. The church tends to underestimate Satan's influence on the world, including the organized religion. Satan works through systems more than demons merely harass individual Christians. Trump is battling human trafficking on a global scale, which is why he is so hated by the media and most of the government. They are involved with the pedophilia and the human sacrifice of children to Moloch today. Abortion is not the only child sacrifice to Moloch. This happens at Bohemian Grove in northern California, Epstein Island, and a multitude of places. It involves European royalty and government officials throughout the world.

Interpolation: this is just from today.
Nearly 400 children rescued and 348 adults arrested in Canadian child pornography bust

I don't what end-time scenario is correct, but we are clearly in the end times, and we need to be ready as a church. The one thing I know for sure is that Jesus said the Gospel had to be preached to the whole world before his return.



Sadly, human nature is to blame. Institutions can be either a benefit or detriment. You are a wise man. If you lived in Texas I would be a member of your congregation.

Thank you for the kind words. I understand what you mean about some folks on the forums here. If I were to voice my "professional" observations of some of the people here based on my interactions and previous ministerial experience I would be (rightly) banned. But hey, that's the internet. I've been able to find value in being here, but probably not in the way others do.

 

[AlexDTX]

Thank you for the kind words. I understand what you mean about some folks on the forums here. If I were to voice my "professional" observations of some of the people here based on my interactions and previous ministerial experience I would be (rightly) banned. But hey, that's the internet. I've been able to find value in being here, but probably not in the way others do.

Yes. This is an excellent site for academic discussion. But it is a very poor site to minister the Gospel.

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't know what you mean by this. Every Christian community in the NT had people set aside to to the work of elders and overseers. That's not "imposed" but it's part of the life of that community.



Again, I don't really know what you mean here. Each of us in ministry needs people to whom we are accountable.

To give you an example, I was doing some volunteer work - not a pastoral role - in an organisation where I found people were seeking me out for pastoral care nonetheless. I approached the organisation and asked them to recognise that work that I was doing and put proper accountability/oversight of that in place for me. They didn't want to do that, and I now actively discourage people from seeking that kind of care from me in that setting, because it is dangerous for them and for me if I operate in that way without those proper structures in place. Ministry should never be done by lone cowboys or loose cannons.

I agree. Even though the church plant I founded is not in the UCC and we have not finalized which group of Congregational churches to affiliate with, I still have a network of pastors who I have befriended over the years, from multiple denominations, and until this church plant makes the transition to being an established parish, I report on our activities to them and hold myself accountable in this manner. It is not ideal by itself, and so the next step as the congregation stabilizes is to organize a board of directors for the parish, however, at least I can sleep at night knowing that if a situation of pastoral care arises which is particularly challenging, I have a support group available to help me.

This is also an additional reason why I have stressed liturgical Christianity, because by following set forms of worship, which I work out with leading members of my flock, and following a lectionary (we use the lectionary from the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer), and reusing as much as possible portions of Patristic homilies converted into modern English, the risk of accidentally misleading the congregation is reduced.

 

[The Liturgist]

You are assigning the problem to the wrong thing and therefore the solution as well. I started out as a "house church" a house church is just as much of a systemic structure as a "traditional" church. The issue is not the structure. This issue is, has always been, and will always be: people. That is why we need discipleship. The point of discipleship is to help people grow, the problem with that is that you have a group of people that need to grow. Everything you outlined here, we did in our house church AND we still do in our more traditional church as well. The solution is not the venue or the format. The solution is to make the vision plain so the people can run with it... to provide a platform for the Holy Spirit to move... and proper ORDER for the people to learn and grow. God doesn't interrupt God and God doesn't contradict Himself... but people sure do. Always have.





Again, it's not one or the other, it is both. Lead by example AND follow the order (rules) of the house. You seem to be splitting hairs here. Somewhere else you said that if one joined a group then clearly they would have to follow the rules of that group. That describes every single church (house or traditional) out there today. Attendance is voluntary, but when you are there respect the rules and the leaders that are in place. This is an extremely biblical concept.



You need to take responsibility here. Yes, this is a quote from Jesus. But inferring that onto paid clergy is your interpretation, or the interpretation you have adopted from the men you quoted. You brought up that interpretation here and have continued to advance it. That's on you. It is in no way open and shut. Clearly many do not agree with it. To drop that allegation and then fall back on "take it up with Jesus" is disingenuous.

To me it seems pretty clear that Jesus is illustrating that problems arise when you are in it for the money as your primary goal. The problem isn't being paid in and of itself, the problem is the heart motivation. This is 100% consistent with everything else Jesus taught about our motivations and about money. Heck, Jesus got paid offerings himself (you don't have a treasurer if you don't have treasure).


I have to agree with others here. I just don't see the point in all this. I have learned in such situations to follow Jesus' advice and take a step back and look at the fruit. Clergy today are not the same thing as the Pharisees - it's technically not even the same religion. Most in ministry today are in it because they felt a call to serve, definitely not because it is so lucrative. It does not seem to be to be in Jesus character to degenerate, discourage or criticize those who have given their lives to serve Him. Yet that's the tone of much of this conversation.

I see this argument fairly often about home churches. Problem those arguing for home church format almost always seem to be compelled to tear down the traditional church to justify their chosen format. That also doesn't sound like Jesus to me. Jesus did whatever He could to reach the lost and the broken. Seems to me that the same should apply to us as well. So, home church, traditional church, street corner evangelism, or whatever... if it is pointing people to Jesus, it's a good thing. Every single one will be flawed in some way, because every single one is made up of people. But, we are all on the same side. It's a GOOD thing that I don't do everything exactly the same as Paidiske or any other minister. We will be more effective that way. Unity produces the anointing. They anointing breaks the yokes of bondage. Unity is fruit. Unity is not sameness, it is harmony... different "parts" singing the same song. Division is the domain of the enemy. Division will actually disguise itself as unity using the concept of sameness as cover. Calling into question the clergy at large as has been done here is not fruitful it's divisive.

So your ministry began with a house church and then expanded into a permanent facility?

 

[Paidiske]

I agree. Even though the church plant I founded is not in the UCC and we have not finalized which group of Congregational churches to affiliate with, I still have a network of pastors who I have befriended over the years, from multiple denominations, and until this church plant makes the transition to being an established parish, I report on our activities to them and hold myself accountable in this manner. It is not ideal by itself, and so the next step as the congregation stabilizes is to organize a board of directors for the parish, however, at least I can sleep at night knowing that if a situation of pastoral care arises which is particularly challenging, I have a support group available to help me.

I really respect that you've thought so carefully about this and put those measures in place. One of the reasons I chose my denomination is that this kind of structure is a strength of ours.

I do wonder whether an internal board within a congregation is a good accountability structure? I would be concerned both about issues with confidentiality, and what happens if some of the problems arise with members of the board?

 

[The Liturgist]

I really respect that you've thought so carefully about this and put those measures in place. One of the reasons I chose my denomination is that this kind of structure is a strength of ours.

I do wonder whether an internal board within a congregation is a good accountability structure? I would be concerned both about issues with confidentiality, and what happens if some of the problems arise with members of the board?

Thank you for this important question @Paidiske. I feel these are very important discussions to have.

I think the same problems happen regardless of polity, from the conversations I have with my friends in the Episcopal Church, the ACNA, the United Methodist, and the Continuing Anglican churches in the US. Vestry meetings can be tense (or meetings of the Pastor-Parish committee in the UMC). And the Presbyterians can also have some huge fights in the Kirk Sessions and Presbytery Sessions. One of the worst was in the PCA after Dr. James Kennedy (requiescat in pace) died and a son in law of Billy Graham was called to replace him at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church; he abolished the celebrated classical music program in favor of a praise band, causing fierce criticism from Dr. Kennedy’s daughter, who he then banned from the church her father had established single-handedly (starting in a warehouse). The presbytery backed Mrs. Kennedy, who established a breakaway church that met in a high school, and also admitted that church. He later resigned after admitting to an extra-marital affair. The new elder has restored peace, and I believe the schism is over, but the church is a shadow of its former self sadly.

There was also a shocking incident I am aware of at a major Orthodox church involving a pay dispute between the priest of a cathedral church and his backers, and the board of directors and their backers, which came to include the bishop, who was initially on sabbatical when the dispute started due to a health problem, got very ugly, to the point where a schism occurred after the priest was fired (there were also death threats and the bishop required 24 hour police protection, and the cathedral had to hire security guards).

Now I love the Orthodox churches, and one aspect of them is that in theory, the bishops are extremely powerful, more powerful than Roman Catholic bishops. They are addressed as “Master” or “My Lord” in the various native languages of the Orthodox countries. But this bishop could not stop a schism caused by an out-of-control priest; the priest has since died and the schism has been healed (although the parish he founded still exists as a separate church a short distance from the cathedral).

My favorite Congregational church is Park Street in Boston, which dates from 1709 and is a part of the CCCC; I would argue that of the 18th century churches in Boston, it is the only one where the Gospel is still central. But the experience of the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church USA has been virtually identical. The only diefference is that disaffected congregations have been free to leave the UCC, and many have, and this is sad. But the central administration of the UCC and indeed the CCCC (a conservative breakaway of traditional Congregational churches dating from the 1950s), are very powerful, in that they determine the criteria for which churches can be members, and also who can be a pastor in a UCC or CCCC church. The UCC also has seminaries, most notably, Yale (which was founded by the traditional Congregationalists when Harvard and about 60% of the Congregational churches in Boston became Unitarian between 1760 and 1800). A fully established Congregational church or other churches using Congregational polity, like the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and several other smaller Lutheran churches, and all Baptist churches, has several additional checks and balances beyond the denominational level controls. The congregation owns the church property, the congregation calls the pastor (but that pastor must be on a list of ordinands approved by the church), and there are often Ruling Elders or equivalents, like in the Kirk Session of a Presbyterian church. And the Congregation can also fire the pastor. The senior pastor is however basically a bishop, elected, like Episcopalian bishops, and junior pastors are equivalent to presbyters.

In the US, the pastor-penitent protection applies in all cases; if someone were to come to me with a problem I could not solve, I would request their permission to discuss their case, without disclosing their identity, with my peers. I have also worked out a protocol if such permission is refused, which I have not had to use (in fact I have yet to need assistance with any issue people have talked to me about), which basically involves stating that I cannot, on my own, help them, while referring them to resources. I think permission is desirable before any escalation to a dean or bishop in a hierarchical polity. The Roman Catholic Church uses a practice which I think is a very good idea when dealing with the absolution of sins that can only be granted by bishops or the Holy See, which involves the use of psuedonyms by which the parish priest communicates about the case with the Apostolic Penitentiary in Rome. Some Protestants make the mistake of ignoring or failing to study the workings of the Roman Catholic Church, but I have never been anti-Catholic, and I find there is a lot to learn in their historic systems of governance and administration, especially the systems in use in the early 20th century (which are very well documented in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia). At the time, they had more centralized control, non-Catholic majority countries lacked regular dioceses and were under the control of the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda Fide, whose office was so powerful he was nicknamed “the Red Pope”, and in general the Vatican successfully managed and controlled a fantastically large church, whereas today many of those functions have been delegated.

I should add I personally only really like the Congregational and Episcopal forms of church polity. I don’t understand the Presbyterian model from a scriptural perspective. But every diocese starts out as a single congregation, and sadly many dying dioceses wind up as a congregation. In the Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Metropolitan of Bursa became a titular Metropolitan when the sole remaining church in his diocese was shut down by the Turkish authorities; it had a congregation of about 20 people and was dedicated to St. Euphemia (because Bursa was at one time known as Chalcedon). So that was basically a Congregational church.

I do believe, by the way, that many non-denominational churches that follow the “Moses Model” of Chuck Smith and the Calvary Chapel (excluding the Calvary Chapel, which has a good reputation largely due to careful screening of pastors and affiliate churches, but this could change in the future), lack proper oversight and control. There is a blog on clergy abuse which I read religiously (no pun intended) called The Wartburg Watch. A lack of accountability, and also horrible Orwellian systems of “Church Discipline”, which tend to be abused, are common themes. There is a group called 9Marks which pushes for Church Discipline which I am strongly opposed to. Believe it or not, many of these churches in the US make people sign contracts in order to join! And if you leave without being “dismissed” and try to join another church that is somehow connected to your former church, you will be rebuffed. This is horrific to me; it goes against every instinct I have as a minister.

There is also a very good book on proper pastoral conduct, written for Eastern Orthodox seminarians and prospective permanent deacons and subdeacons, but mostly universally applicable, which was recommended to me, and which I bought, entitled The Orthodox Pastor. It is a very good guide to the ethics of Christian ministry.

 

[Paidiske]

When I asked the question about the board I was thinking not so much of pastoral issues in the congregation, but more of things like, for example, when board members bully the minister (a situation I have had to navigate for myself). If the accountability body is the problem... does that leave you nowhere to turn?