Pastors or Hirelings?

[AlexDTX]

I completely agree with your second sentence, but that doesn't mean there is no place for differentiated roles,which have existed since the very beginning of the church.

Paidiske, I agree with different roles. The body is many members. Not everyone functions in the same roles, but everyone should function.

Likewise there are many verses that support the idea of some members of the body of Christ making their living from the Gospel. But when considering what Paul had to say on the subject, it is clear to me that is not the high road. Paul did accept some money, but he did not rely on the donations of others. He continued to work in his trade, whatever that may be (one person I know believed he made talits instead of tents), because he did not want to bring any reproach upon the Gospel.

And, God has ordained that people have the right to organize together to facilitate accomplishing more than one person could accomplish.

My objection to the clergy system is that it encourages passivity instead of activity. Oh, of course, the pulpit encourages members to be active all the time, but passivity is built into the system. The very structure of one person speaking to a group who has to sit passively and listen is the system I mean. Is there a place for it? Of course we see in Acts where Paul rented a hall to teach and spoke so long that someone fell asleep and fell off the balcony! But that was not every week. It was one time.

Teaching is only half of equipping the saints. The other have is participation. Thank God for Sunday School. At least it is accepted there to interject while an elder is teaching. Not in the sermon, tho. Gotta be quiet and listen there.

Very few teachings or preaching are on the most important topic: hearing God for yourself. Instead they say to hear God by reading the Bible, which is one way, to be sure. But what fewer believers know how to is to be sensitive and responsive to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Paidiske]

The thing is, though, what you've said above kind of assumes that the only meaningful ministry is happening in services/Sunday school.

I typically work something like a 50-hour week, and of that, I might spend half an hour preaching. So sure, for that half hour, I'm speaking and others are listening (although even then I would say the ideal isn't that it's passive listening). But for the other 49.5 (or more) hours a week, other things are happening. Every person should have their part to play in the life of the church community, and it shouldn't all revolve around a couple of hours on Sunday morning.

 

[topher694]

Paidiske, I agree with different roles. The body is many members. Not everyone functions in the same roles, but everyone should function.

Likewise there are many verses that support the idea of some members of the body of Christ making their living from the Gospel. But when considering what Paul had to say on the subject, it is clear to me that is not the high road. Paul did accept some money, but he did not rely on the donations of others. He continued to work in his trade, whatever that may be (one person I know believed he made talits instead of tents), because he did not want to bring any reproach upon the Gospel.

And, God has ordained that people have the right to organize together to facilitate accomplishing more than one person could accomplish.

My objection to the clergy system is that it encourages passivity instead of activity. Oh, of course, the pulpit encourages members to be active all the time, but passivity is built into the system. The very structure of one person speaking to a group who has to sit passively and listen is the system I mean. Is there a place for it? Of course we see in Acts where Paul rented a hall to teach and spoke so long that someone fell asleep and fell off the balcony! But that was not every week. It was one time.

Teaching is only half of equipping the saints. The other have is participation. Thank God for Sunday School. At least it is accepted there to interject while an elder is teaching. Not in the sermon, tho. Gotta be quiet and listen there.

Very few teachings or preaching are on the most important topic: hearing God for yourself. Instead they say to hear God by reading the Bible, which is one way, to be sure. But what fewer believers know how to is to be sensitive and responsive to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Everything you outline absolutely can happen in a regular church service.

 

[AlexDTX]

The thing is, though, what you've said above kind of assumes that the only meaningful ministry is happening in services/Sunday school.

I typically work something like a 50-hour week, and of that, I might spend half an hour preaching. So sure, for that half hour, I'm speaking and others are listening (although even then I would say the ideal isn't that it's passive listening). But for the other 49.5 (or more) hours a week, other things are happening. Every person should have their part to play in the life of the church community, and it shouldn't all revolve around a couple of hours on Sunday morning.

You are right. I am talking about the format of church service.

In the United States there are very few pastors who travel around during the week meeting members of the congregation to minister to them. I say few because there must be some. You are in Australia and the work of ministers seems to be more active, so kudos to you all.

Listening to a sermon is passive, even if you take notes. What I mean by passive is that the congregation is not contributing to the discussion, only receiving because it is not a discussion. It is one person's point of view. As I said earlier, no one is allowed to interrupt the preacher to disagree with him. This was not true of the Jews. In synagogue, every man had the right to interrupt a speaker. If not interrupt, to ask questions afterwards while he was still in the pulpit.

And this is still in the limited format of discussion, not body ministry. Body ministry, as instructed in Corinthians, is that everyone brings something from God to the group. Whether it be a psalm that spoke to the heart, or a prophetic word from the Lord for the group, or any of the other spiritual gifts of words of knowledge, discernment, healing, and the rest.

"Every person should have their part to play in the life of the church community, and it shouldn't all revolve around a couple of hours on Sunday morning."​

I absolutely agree. But my point is that the format of church does not encourage this enough. Note, I say "format", not the clergy themselves. I think many are encouraging everyone to participate in the community and are frustrated because few do so. I think everyone who goes into professional ministry genuinely are doing their best to serve the Lord and truly long to see the kingdom of God built in the congregation and community. My point is that ehe system is the hindrance, not the people of the clergy.

 

[Paidiske]

Hmm... I often have people discuss sermons with me, even up to weeks later. They listen, quite a few take a copy of the text or read it when I post it on my blog, they reflect, pray, and continue the discussion. My impression is not that their engagement with the material is passive.

I mean, sure, some are probably sitting there daydreaming. But some people would be doing that no matter what.

I've done discussion-style preaching and my experience is that it works less well the larger the group gets. Once you're beyond a dozen or so people relatively few tend to contribute anyway, and the discussion gets dominated by the more forthright personalities (which isn't good either).

I don't think the format of our services is necessarily a problem. "Body ministry" should happen throughout the week.

 

[AlexDTX]

Hmm... I often have people discuss sermons with me, even up to weeks later. They listen, quite a few take a copy of the text or read it when I post it on my blog, they reflect, pray, and continue the discussion. My impression is not that their engagement with the material is passive.

I mean, sure, some are probably sitting there daydreaming. But some people would be doing that no matter what.

I've done discussion-style preaching and my experience is that it works less well the larger the group gets. Once you're beyond a dozen or so people relatively few tend to contribute anyway, and the discussion gets dominated by the more forthright personalities (which isn't good either).

I don't think the format of our services is necessarily a problem. "Body ministry" should happen throughout the week.

Those are good points. But my point stands. The format has some effectiveness, but needs more. Discussions certainly work better in small groups, but discussions was not my main point. Exercising sensitivity to the Spirit is my point. A small group should not be for talking, but for acting in the Spirit. Small groups are the means for cementing a sense of community. Notice in Corinthians they ate together, not in the wine and cracker communion of today, but the Passover/Last Supper meal in which communion was the center.

 

[Paidiske]

So do all of that... in small groups. Again, not everything has to happen on Sunday morning!

 

[AlexDTX]

So do all of that... in small groups. Again, not everything has to happen on Sunday morning!

Agreed.

 

[bekkilyn]

You are right. I am talking about the format of church service.

In the United States there are very few pastors who travel around during the week meeting members of the congregation to minister to them. I say few because there must be some. You are in Australia and the work of ministers seems to be more active, so kudos to you all.

Listening to a sermon is passive, even if you take notes. What I mean by passive is that the congregation is not contributing to the discussion, only receiving because it is not a discussion. It is one person's point of view. As I said earlier, no one is allowed to interrupt the preacher to disagree with him. This was not true of the Jews. In synagogue, every man had the right to interrupt a speaker. If not interrupt, to ask questions afterwards while he was still in the pulpit.

And this is still in the limited format of discussion, not body ministry. Body ministry, as instructed in Corinthians, is that everyone brings something from God to the group. Whether it be a psalm that spoke to the heart, or a prophetic word from the Lord for the group, or any of the other spiritual gifts of words of knowledge, discernment, healing, and the rest.

"Every person should have their part to play in the life of the church community, and it shouldn't all revolve around a couple of hours on Sunday morning."​

I absolutely agree. But my point is that the format of church does not encourage this enough. Note, I say "format", not the clergy themselves. I think many are encouraging everyone to participate in the community and are frustrated because few do so. I think everyone who goes into professional ministry genuinely are doing their best to serve the Lord and truly long to see the kingdom of God built in the congregation and community. My point is that ehe system is the hindrance, not the people of the clergy.

However, as much as you complain about pastors who do not travel around meeting all the members of the congregation each week to minister to them, you have just as many or more who would complain that pastors are continuously invading their privacy and asking that they NOT just show up on people's doorsteps. My suggestion is that if you really want a pastoral visit, then request one, and THEN if the pastor absolutely refuses to visit, then that's probably an issue.

As far as the way church services are run, again for as much as you complain about the way they are now and the passivity of sermons, there are just as many people or more who get in an uproar if anything is changed. Personally, I try to mix things up a bit and am pretty laid back and informal so do not mind if people interrupt (or I'll intentionally make things interactive) BUT in some more formal churches, you run serious risk of major complaints of people talking and disrupting the service, or the pastor is "teaching too much" rather than preaching, etc. Many people do NOT want a sermon to be simply a time for discussion.

(And if you're interrupting the pastor in the middle of a sermon to disagree with him or her, rather than asking for clarification or contributing in a positive and fruitful way, then chances are good the rest of the sermon is going to turn into a huge argument and will quickly deteriorate in similar fashion to many "discussions" here on this site. The point of a sermon isn't debate.)

It really depends on the congregation and lay leadership as to what they accept and ESPECIALLY if you are part of a denomination where the local church hires and fires the pastor directly. They oftentimes have complete control over how the pastor presents sermons and even what the pastor is allowed to talk about in those churches because they are in full control of that pastor's financial stability unless he or she is bi-vocational or has family members that bring in income. Of course, not every church operates this way or chooses to heavily censure the pastor if they do, but it still happens quite a bit.

 

[AlexDTX]

However, as much as you complain about pastors who do not travel around meeting all the members of the congregation each week to minister to them, you have just as many or more who would complain that pastors are continuously invading their privacy and asking that they NOT just show up on people's doorsteps. My suggestion is that if you really want a pastoral visit, then request one, and THEN if the pastor absolutely refuses to visit, then that's probably an issue.

As far as the way church services are run, again for as much as you complain about the way they are now and the passivity of sermons, there are just as many people or more who get in an uproar if anything is changed. Personally, I try to mix things up a bit and am pretty laid back and informal so do not mind if people interrupt (or I'll intentionally make things interactive) BUT in some more formal churches, you run serious risk of major complaints of people talking and disrupting the service, or the pastor is "teaching too much" rather than preaching, etc. Many people do NOT want a sermon to be simply a time for discussion.

(And if you're interrupting the pastor in the middle of a sermon to disagree with him or her, rather than asking for clarification or contributing in a positive and fruitful way, then chances are good the rest of the sermon is going to turn into a huge argument and will quickly deteriorate in similar fashion to many "discussions" here on this site. The point of a sermon isn't debate.)

It really depends on the congregation and lay leadership as to what they accept and ESPECIALLY if you are part of a denomination where the local church hires and fires the pastor directly. They oftentimes have complete control over how the pastor presents sermons and even what the pastor is allowed to talk about in those churches because they are in full control of that pastor's financial stability unless he or she is bi-vocational or has family members that bring in income. Of course, not every church operates this way or chooses to heavily censure the pastor if they do, but it still happens quite a bit.

All that you say is true regarding the status quo. My point is that the status quo is why the body of Christ is anemic and has very little impact on society. The Great Commission is the mission of the body of Christ, not sitting in pews hearing endless minutiae of Bible study.

 

[topher694]

All that you say is true regarding the status quo. My point is that the status quo is why the body of Christ is anemic and has very little impact on society. The Great Commission is the mission of the body of Christ, not sitting in pews hearing endless minutiae of Bible study.

Do you not think that a weekly sermon can equip people to impact their society?

 

[AlexDTX]

Do you not think that a weekly sermon can equip people to impact their society?

No.
And I have lost sight of this thread that I started.

The OP point is that Jesus is all of our Good Shepherd and He alone is what we put our confidence. The Good Shepherd that owns the sheep will hire help, but the help does not have the vested interest in the sheep that the Good Shepherd has. His warning is for all believers to keep their eyes on Jesus, not the hirelings (pastor and other professional ministers). They are their to help the Good Shepherd, but He alone is our Savior, High Priest, Mentor and Teacher.

 

[topher694]

No.
And I have lost sight of this thread that I started.

Well, I know that in many places it doesn't happen, but it most certainly can. Every single message I preach is geared towards A) empowering others to grow personally in Christ and B) equipping them to impact the world around them. Listening to a message in the natural may be mostly passive. But in the spirit it is not passive. If you engage, if everyone engages, powerful things can happen, there is biblical precedence for it. We also often do "activations" which simply means we give people an opportunity to practice what is being preached in service. Practice praying for others, or evangelizing, or whatever. Church should be a place where people come in to be filled up and equipped, so they can go out and pour out. It should be practice for the rest of the week.

And it can work. There is a woman in our congregation who when she first came was very timid, afraid and very unsure of her ability to hear God for herself. However, she constantly engages in what we teach every week and actively tries to put it into practice every day. She enthusiastically gives us testimonies nearly every week. This woman has gotten her entire workplace saved and delivered (her boss used to be a self-identified witch). She now (with the blessing of her boss) seeks God every single day for opportunities to minister to customers at work. And when God opens that door (which is almost every single day) she will even take them into a break room and do a mini deliverance session with them right there (not hollywood deliverance, but mostly forgiving others so they can be set free). There are countless stories of people being impacted by Jesus through just this one example, and 90% of her equipping/preparation comes from just engaging in our weekly messages.

The OP point is that Jesus is all of our Good Shepherd and He alone is what we put our confidence. The Good Shepherd that owns the sheep will hire help, but the help does not have the vested interest in the sheep that the Good Shepherd has. His warning is for all believers to keep their eyes on Jesus, not the hirelings (pastor and other professional ministers). They are their to help the Good Shepherd, but He alone is our Savior, High Priest, Mentor and Teacher.

I don't think anyone is questioning that Jesus alone is our Savior and High Priest, but we can have many teachers and mentors. And, we can work together with Him and each other, including in a church/pastoral setting, to reach our world... the above is a great example of just that.

 

[bekkilyn]

All that you say is true regarding the status quo. My point is that the status quo is why the body of Christ is anemic and has very little impact on society. The Great Commission is the mission of the body of Christ, not sitting in pews hearing endless minutiae of Bible study.

That's why it's so important to keep emphasizing that "church" is not limited to an hour every Sunday morning. I believe that Sunday morning worship, including the sermon, can be a very important activity, particularly for people who are *already* part of the body of Christ, but you are right in that believers "going to church" does not have much impact on society. Unless society is entering church buildings in droves (and they aren't), the church has to go out to where they are.

 

[Paidiske]

But I'd also argue that the Church isn't all that anaemic, and actually has large impact on society. If everything good every Christian does were somehow to be removed, we would be looking at a much, much worse world.

 

[AlexDTX]

And it can work.

It does. But is it working effectively? I stopped following this thread because I began it when I was surprised by 2 commentaries and was just thinking out loud. I don't want to complain about anyone who is seriously trying to build the Kingdom of God, yet that is what has happened as people became defensive. So I stopped following the thread until Paideske made a comment to me.

I have been on both sides of the spectrum. I am not a pastor, so I have never pastored, but Hi most certainly have volunteered help in several congregations that I had been in over the last 30 years. I have taught home groups under that umbrella as well as have been in the house church movement, both in other people's and my own.

But frankly, I don't think I have yet been in a first century fellowship as the experienced by the Early Church. I am still looking.

 

[topher694]

It does. But is it working effectively? I stopped following this thread because I began it when I was surprised by 2 commentaries and was just thinking out loud. I don't want to complain about anyone who is seriously trying to build the Kingdom of God, yet that is what has happened as people became defensive. So I stopped following the thread until Paideske made a comment to me.

I have been on both sides of the spectrum. I am not a pastor, so I have never pastored, but Hi most certainly have volunteered help in several congregations that I had been in over the last 30 years. I have taught home groups under that umbrella as well as have been in the house church movement, both in other people's and my own.

But frankly, I don't think I have yet been in a first century fellowship as the experienced by the Early Church. I am still looking.

Well, we tend to glorify and celebrate the great accomplishments of the acts church, and rightly so. But there was also a lot examples of not so great stuff going on at the same time. Many of the exact same struggles we see in the church today. We need to see more of the good early church experience today, no doubt, but it is out there.

 

[bekkilyn]

Well, we tend to glorify and celebrate the great accomplishments of the acts church, and rightly so. But there was also a lot examples of not so great stuff going on at the same time. Many of the exact same struggles we see in the church today. We need to see more of the early church experience today, no doubt, but it is out there.

Indeed. It is not wise to idealize the first century church. Most of Paul's letters were written in response to some very troublesome (to say the least) things that were going on in that church. The very moment the new church was begun, so arose some very serious problems.

 

[AlexDTX]

That's why it's so important to keep emphasizing that "church" is not limited to an hour every Sunday morning. I believe that Sunday morning worship, including the sermon, can be a very important activity, particularly for people who are *already* part of the body of Christ, but you are right in that believers "going to church" does not have much impact on society. Unless society is entering church buildings in droves (and they aren't), the church has to go out to where they are.

Very well said, Bekkilyn. Honestly, I have sat on my pew too long. I am getting ready for the mission field, and trying to be more proactive in asking people if they know Christ as their Lord and Savior.

 

[AlexDTX]

Well, we tend to glorify and celebrate the great accomplishments of the acts church, and rightly so. But there was also a lot examples of not so great stuff going on at the same time. Many of the exact same struggles we see in the church today. We need to see more of the good early church experience today, no doubt, but it is out there.

Yes, it is my personal resolve to be more proactive in the community sharing Christ. I find more of a sense of Early Church when I witness and try mentoring.