Quote:
Originally Posted by jaamez
Right. I thought I had already stated, maybe on another thread though, that the shepherd would have whatever authority would be granted to a shepherd charged with the care of SOMEONE ELSE'S SHEEP. The saints do not "belong to" a pastor. I cringe every time I hear someone talk about "Bro So&So's church" or that guy is "one of Bro. So&So's saints." And while we pay lip service to the FACT that we belong to God, in our practice, in many very real ways, we act like we belong to the pastor. Protection and leadership are the primary roles of a shepherd.
Really? What sorts of boards and committees? Were these business-related or were they in the church? So what happens when a group of people of like faith and experience get together (with no visible human leader) and determine to seek the Face of God through prayer and His Word? Still confusion? Still those that would contend for their position to the disunity of the body?
I didn't say I don't believe they were pastors. I just said that it's a substantial leap to assume that they were. Maybe they were. Maybe they were teachers. Maybe they were more like apostles. I don't think that's as important as what was written in the letters. Again, you're taking your 21st century understanding of what a pastor is (the king of the local church, the guy in charge, the ruler of the congregation, the "man of God") and pasting it onto these two guys. The ministry of the pastor has more to do with what he DOES (he pastors, shepherds, cares for... the saints) than the title. I don't believe any of these men considered their callings to be offices or titles. It's what they DID that made them apostles (or pastors, or whatever)... not what they called themselves.
YES!!! They got it wrong. They abandoned the structure of apostolic ministry that allowed the church to grow tremendously. They took what was once intimate meetings where all shared a personal testimony/interpretation/prophecy/psalm or spiritual song, and they replaced it with a one-man lecture to a mainly passive crowd. The original model focused on mutual ministry within the body. The current model focuses on a single office ministering to a large crowd of immature christians who often don't know how to feed themselves much less feed each other. My Bible says the Apostles and elders met with Paul and Barnabas. It says nothing about the entire body being present.
Let me reiterate. I don't believe that the church does not have leaders. We just view it differently. Where you see a one-man show with the pastor being the focal point, I see several cooperative, coordinated ministerial operations all gifted in unique and specific ways that lead the church toward God as the focal point and encourage "one-another" ministry within the body.
|
That's a small semantic (do you go to Bro. Smith's church?)... but you agree there is authority. What then, would be the authority a pastor would have over sheep that belong to God, but that God will also hold the man accountable? Seems unfair if God appoints him without a staff.
I'm talking church committees. People are weird creatures! We are complex. Yes, in an idealistic way, it would seem an Angel of the Lord would come in, as they humbled themselves one toward another. That's what we're shooting for, but it's certainly not reality. God always had prominent leaders. You won't accept Timothy or Titus as evidence though... well, you aren't sure and think it takes quite a leap of academia to make that case. I don't see the pastor as a King, and that's not fair to assume. Seeing a prominent leader doesn't mean I see them as King, Soveriegn Ruler, etc... To have that attitude toward my own pastor doesn't even fit.
Regarding your idea of intimate meetings, I like it. One-man meeting lectures... I see no fault in that. But I like both. There's a place for both, and nothing to say scripturally that's either is wrong. Do you agree?
My point about the General Council (and we have probably similar bibles!) was that there was a distinction there between clergy and laity, as some abhor because of the RCC connection. Who attended the GC? It was, for lack of a better word, the clergy.
I find your idea of pastor leadership intriguing, and I'm genuinely interested. I admit I'm a great deal cautious, but I'm interested. It seems to be quite an experiment. Any suggested literature that has the credentials and objectivity on this subject?
Threaded Mode
