McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamation

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Spoken like a true pastor driven saint. And just where in scripture do you see enough to qualify a singular pastor?
What I see more in churches are saints that are more inclined to be obedient to a man than obedient to God.
Nowhere in scripture can it be found submit to the pastor to be saved, rather "study to show yourself approve" and "Seek out your own salvation with fear and trembling".
And if one wants to quote Hebrews 13:17, the word "obey" in that verse means "by persuasion" not out and out obedience just because he says he is the man of God!
And further more Jesus own words tell us that "we are not to be Lords".
Matt 20.
Some how we also seem to miss the Lords words when he tells us "not to be called teachers, fathers, or masters. Because you have one teacher, one father, and one master, Christ Jesus. Matt 23.

Plural leadership was always present in the church. We see a group of disciples in the early NT church making decisions, praying over who was to take positions in the assembly, etc. In Paul's letters to the churches, he always begins his address in the plural form to the saints and brethren, bishops and deacons.

example: Phil 1:1 "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons."

Plural leadership.

[canam]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

In truth I have never heard of folks charging to do work around the church?

depends ,if your going to hire someone outside the church which ive seen done and never understood, why wouldn't you pay someone inside ,keep the money in house

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Spoken like a true pastor driven saint. And just where in scripture do you see enough to qualify a singular pastor?
What I see more in churches are saints that are more inclined to be obedient to a man than obedient to God.
Nowhere in scripture can it be found submit to the pastor to be saved, rather "study to show yourself approve" and "Seek out your own salvation with fear and trembling".
And if one wants to quote Hebrews 13:17, the word "obey" in that verse means "by persuasion" not out and out obedience just because he says he is the man of God!
And further more Jesus own words tell us that "we are not to be Lords".
Matt 20.
Some how we also seem to miss the Lords words when he tells us "not to be called teachers, fathers, or masters. Because you have one teacher, one father, and one master, Christ Jesus. Matt 23.

I consider Paul, Timothy, Titus and others pastors in their day.There had to be a singularity of church leadership as the church began, because there was few when it began. Among the apostles I find in scripture that Peter seemed to many times be the speaker of the house. I agree that as a church grows numerically and materially that there needs to be a plurality of leaders in accordance. BTW, I now pastor a small, but growing congregation. I teach people not so I can keep them underneath me, but so I can disciple and send others into the harvest. I am trying to win people to Jesus, not to myself. The broadbrushed remarks against leadership are doing nothing but giving ammunition to turn a deaf ear to people with the gospel message of Jesus Christ. IMO.

15-- I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) 16-- That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

I don't believe and never have believed that you submit to a pastor in order to glorify a man. Instead, it is to support the ministry of Christ. By submitting to a church leader or leaders you aid in the work of the Lord in your life and the lives of others. I have been pastor driven. Let me explain that though, There are times in my life when I didn't not have the vision, but I aided in the vision of another. God was the center and He still is. We must be unified and that only comes through submission firstly to God and secondly to God called men.

[Godsdrummer]

Good samaritan;1378472]I consider Paul, Timothy, Titus and others pastors in their day.

Just because you consider it so does not make it so. There is not one verse of scripture that even remotely calls them pastors.

There had to be a singularity of church leadership as the church began, because there was few when it began.

Again, that is an assumption not based on scripture. Why would Paul instruct Timothy to ordain elders plural in the church's if he intended for there just to be a pastor?

Among the apostles I find in scripture that Peter seemed to many times be the speaker of the house.

That still does not define Peter as Pastor, common brother take off the blinders. You as many others are reading into scripture what is not there, based on preconceived notions that were passed down to you from others.

I agree that as a church grows numerically and materially that there needs to be a plurality of leaders in accordance. BTW, I now pastor a small, but growing congregation. I teach people not so I can keep them underneath me, but so I can disciple and send others into the harvest. I am trying to win people to Jesus, not to myself. The broadbrushed remarks against leadership are doing nothing but giving ammunition to turn a deaf ear to people with the gospel message of Jesus Christ. IMO.

The broad brush remarks are not against leadership in general, but unscriptural one man leadership.
And there is no way that gives ammunition to turn a deaf ear to the gospel message. The gospel message of Christ has nothing to do with leadership.

15-- I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) 16-- That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

Don't know how this verse can be applied to the subject at hand? Unless you are trying to say Stephanas was the pastor. Which it does not! It only says to submit to becoming addicted to the ministry of the saints, as those of the house of Stephanas.

I don't believe and never have believed that you submit to a pastor in order to glorify a man. Instead, it is to support the ministry of Christ. By submitting to a church leader or leaders you aid in the work of the Lord in your life and the lives of others. I have been pastor driven. Let me explain that though, There are times in my life when I didn't not have the vision, but I aided in the vision of another. God was the center and He still is. We must be unified and that only comes through submission firstly to God and secondly to God called men.

Sorry but that is not scriptural. We are to submit to one another, period. Not just a man that says he is God called. How do you know the man behind the pulpit is called of God? Because he says so?
You say you are now pasturing a small growing group, what scripture do you use to define as pasturing what you are doing?

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

[Sister Alvear]

I have know eldership churches that were very abusive so I don't think we can say just because a church is a one man pastor thing it has more tendency to be abusive....

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I have know eldership churches that were very abusive so I don't think we can say just because a church is a one man pastor thing it has more tendency to be abusive....

All abusive churches run through either an official eldership, or an unofficial eldership. True dictatorships NEVER are controlled by one individual. They are ran through oligarchies. To keep the main man in his position of power he needs an inner circle to enforce his programs faithfully. From Charlie Mason to the corner First Baptist Church the one person at the top always needs hands willing to hold the leader up.

[good samaritan]

[QUOTE=Godsdrummer;1378506]Just because you consider it so does not make it so. There is not one verse of scripture that even remotely calls them pastors.

Just because it didn't say pastor. Where they not sheparding the flock (pastor means shepherd). I am not concerned with holding title positions in the church only filling the place of ministry that one is called to.There is some closing clauses probably just added by commentators that Titus and Timothy where founding bishops (may not be part of the greek written letters but many different Bibles include these clauses.)

"It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia."

"The second [epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time."

Again, that is an assumption not based on scripture. Why would Paul instruct Timothy to ordain elders plural in the church's if he intended for there just to be a pastor?

I can be incorrect but assure you it is Bible based. Paul was not wanting to build a mega church where one man rules, but instead elders where needed to accommodate the growing church (which Paul would leave to them to oversee while he was continuing his ministry). The scripture does not say how those elders shared the role with one another, but my opinion is that it is similar today with deacons, bishops, and neighboring pastors.

That still does not define Peter as Pastor, common brother take off the blinders. You as many others are reading into scripture what is not there, based on preconceived notions that were passed down to you from others.

As well as yourself, because you have yet to give a scripture that states every individual assembly must have multiple bishops.No it doesn't explicitly say Peter or any of them where pastors. Where they shepherding people? If you don't like the word pastor, by all means don't use it. I could really care less what we are calling on another. Occasionally I have some in the church call me pastor and it honestly makes me feel awkward. I am 33 years old and believe me I have much to learn. I value all in our local church and desire no dominance over anyone. The Lord has called me to the city in which I live.

The broad brush remarks are not against leadership in general, but unscriptural one man leadership.
And there is no way that gives ammunition to turn a deaf ear to the gospel message. The gospel message of Christ has nothing to do with leadership.

There aren't any churches that one man has all the control. If he thinks that, he is going to be in for a surprise. All it takes is one time to cross the right person and you will see other people's dominance. In Paul's letters was he not demonstrating his singular leadership over the church it was addressed? I suppose that Paul must have first sent his letters to be reviewed in Jerusalem and then signed by all the apostles in order to be valid.

Don't know how this verse can be applied to the subject at hand? Unless you are trying to say Stephanas was the pastor. Which it does not! It only says to submit to becoming addicted to the ministry of the saints, as those of the house of Stephanas.

It said to submit to those fellow laborers of Paul. I am not trying to make so much a deal over the terminology pastor. If a person is ministering the word of God then people should submit, unless it is contrary to what they know is, right then they should not.

Sorry but that is not scriptural. We are to submit to one another, period. Not just a man that says he is God called. How do you know the man behind the pulpit is called of God? Because he says so?
You say you are now pasturing a small growing group, what scripture do you use to define as pasturing what you are doing?

I believe you submit to one another, and especially to those who labor in the gospel. I believe God will qualify who he has called.

"38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone:for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."

If people don't want to believe that is totally between them and God. Pastors must submit to those whom they are called to serve. It is a two street.

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

I think you and I are getting two different pictures when we say pastors. I think of a leader who is called of God to care for a flock which they are a part of as well. As a church grows then he will appoint other leaders (elders) in the church (fellow laborers). He is not to be some untouchable between God and man. He also submits to those in the church as well, but because of his past labours in the ministry he has been qualified by God to lead those whom God places to his care.

He is not a king over people but a minister to teach and exhort the Word of God. If you don't want to call that a pastor I don't care. It doesn't really matter to me the titles we place on one another anyway. I think that title positions where what Jesus was calling out in the first place. The role of a pastor exsist in both singular and plural, and I think that God is the one orchestrating to that number.

Where in scripture do you find it says that there "must be a plurality of bishops" in one assembly? I find none. As well as I cannot prove my stance one per assembly. That is the reason for my first remark about us splitting hairs. We will find poor leaders in every type of church government you think of, because they are men. Instead of trying to tear down something that has worked well for some and poorly for others we can trust God to work it all out.

I have always taught people to have a personal relationship with God that will wither any storm. Sometimes it may temporarily leave you standing alone. If a leader fails I must continue.

[Godsdrummer]

Godsdrummer;1378506]Just because you consider it so does not make it so. There is not one verse of scripture that even remotely calls them pastors.[/

Just because it didn't say pastor. Where they not sheparding the flock (pastor means shepherd). I am not concerned with holding title positions in the church only filling the place of ministry that one is called to.There is some closing clauses probably just added by commentators that Titus and Timothy where founding bishops (may not be part of the greek written letters but many different Bibles include these clauses.)

"It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia."

"The second [epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time."

No they were not shepherding the flock, read Titus and Timothy, in the opening salutation of Paul we are told what they are instructed to do. Ordain elders, bishops (plural) in each city. The were instructed to finish the work that Paul started in setting in order the local assemblies, one would be hard put to call them pastors by your definition.

Secondly the clauses were added by commentators and should not be counted as scripture. They were added in order to imply an establish tradition which had been put into place by the Catholic church. That being that only a certain group of men could properly or rightly interpret scripture, this is where we get the idea that pastors are over the flock of God. But when one truly studies the passages one is hard put to find an example of pastors over the church as we have today.
The above being said, the very word pastor is only found in all the NT once and that is in regards to gifts that God gave the the local assembly, not offices or positions of authority, but for the edifying of the body of Christ, and equipping of the saints to do works of ministry. And even these are in the plural not singular. "he gave some apostles, some evangelist, some prophets, some pastors/teachers".

I can be incorrect but assure you it is Bible based. Paul was not wanting to build a mega church where one man rules, but instead elders where needed to accommodate the growing church (which Paul would leave to them to oversee while he was continuing his ministry). The scripture does not say how those elders shared the role with one another, but my opinion is that it is similar today with deacons, bishops, and neighboring pastors.

I disagree, nowhere is shepherd/pastor mentioned in all of NT scripture in regards to elders bishops deacons in the local assembly, there would be no need for a singular pastor, when a elder-ship was in place.

As well as yourself, because you have yet to give a scripture that states every individual assembly must have multiple bishops.

Reread the commission of Paul to Titus and Timothy, they were instructed to ordain elders (plural) in every city, never a pastor.

No it doesn't explicitly say Peter or any of them where pastors. Where they shepherding people?

You tell me, reread the book of Acts and ask yourself if in Jerusalem if the apostles worked together as one unit or if one stood out over the others? If you are honest I don't think you can say that one stood out over the others.

If you don't like the word pastor, by all means don't use it. I could really care less what we are calling on another. Occasionally I have some in the church call me pastor and it honestly makes me feel awkward. I am 33 years old and believe me I have much to learn. I value all in our local church and desire no dominance over anyone. The Lord has called me to the city in which I live.

Truly I love your spirit, as is the spirit of many that are working within the tradition that has been handed down to us from years of false teaching. Most Good men truly called of God are of the same opinion as you and spirit as you. But the shift is already coming and is in the works even as we speak. I know of many groups that have left behind the singular pastor thinking, and have gone to both husband and wife as co-pastors, and place themselves under the covering of one in a position of a higher calling, that in turn places themselves under the covering of the body, it becomes circular, so that everyone is accountable to one another.

There aren't any churches that one man has all the control. If he thinks that, he is going to be in for a surprise. All it takes is one time to cross the right person and you will see other people's dominance. In Paul's letters was he not demonstrating his singular leadership over the church it was addressed? I suppose that Paul must have first sent his letters to be reviewed in Jerusalem and then signed by all the apostles in order to be valid.

Actually there are many churches especially within the oneness groups that one man is in full control of his local assembly, evidently you just have not sat under one.

It said to submit to those fellow laborers of Paul. I am not trying to make so much a deal over the terminology pastor. If a person is ministering the word of God then people should submit, unless it is contrary to what they know is, right then they should not.

That is a party line that has no true scriptural backing, how would one know what is being taught is not right if the individual does not study it out in the first place? There for how can you submit to a person when you have already been persuaded by your own study? Just does not make sense.

More later when time permits

[good samaritan]

[QUOTE=Godsdrummer;1378879]Godsdrummer;1378506]

Just because you consider it so does not make it so. There is not one verse of scripture that even remotely calls them pastors.[/

No they were not shepherding the flock, read Titus and Timothy, in the opening salutation of Paul we are told what they are instructed to do. Ordain elders, bishops (plural) in each city. The were instructed to finish the work that Paul started in setting in order the local assemblies, one would be hard put to call them pastors by your definition.

They were to appoint elders in every and that doesn't specify which an elder is a deacon or a bishop. I believe both. The word bishop is not mentioned plurally in Timothy or Titus, but it is interesting that deacons are.

Secondly the clauses were added by commentators and should not be counted as scripture. They were added in order to imply an establish tradition which had been put into place by the Catholic church. That being that only a certain group of men could properly or rightly interpret scripture, this is where we get the idea that pastors are over the flock of God. But when one truly studies the passages one is hard put to find an example of pastors over the church as we have today.
The above being said, the very word pastor is only found in all the NT once and that is in regards to gifts that God gave the the local assembly, not offices or positions of authority, but for the edifying of the body of Christ, and equipping of the saints to do works of ministry. And even these are in the plural not singular. "he gave some apostles, some evangelist, some prophets, some pastors/teachers".

I trust those clauses to be more substantial than we are. I would assume the men who put them there where more scholarly and familiar with there own terms than we are. As far as the word pastor I think we have taken a ministry and started calling it a position which was formally called a bishop. Again the terminology isn't what is important. We all should get over ourselves.

I disagree, nowhere is shepherd/pastor mentioned in all of NT scripture in regards to elders bishops deacons in the local assembly, there would be no need for a singular pastor, when a elder-ship was in place.

Why deacons and bishops? why not just deacons or just bishops. it would seem there are distinctions in roles of church government. Whether officially or not there is always going to be a more dominant voice. It is part of human nature. It must be regulated, though and not left unchecked. Israel desired a king (and yes I know that was in a negative). I am not saying that we should be lorded over by a pastor and people who are walking in the Holy Ghost don't need any earthly government at all, but until we are all perfect we need men who can blow the whistle.

Reread the commission of Paul to Titus and Timothy, they were instructed to ordain elders (plural) in every city, never a pastor.

I agree with this, but the terminology is the issue. You seem to say that elders and pastors are the same (I don't see where that can be proven). I think elders was a general term to include any that have been proven by time and experience to help keep watch.

You are entitled to your beliefs, but to say others are wrong about having a singular pastor, because of Timothy's command to appoint elders is is not very substantial.

You tell me, reread the book of Acts and ask yourself if in Jerusalem if the apostles worked together as one unit or if one stood out over the others? If you are honest I don't think you can say that one stood out over the others.

It reminds me of how church sections or districts have presbyters today and they together vote on issues as a whole. Peter had a more dominant voice among the apostles. It was John that was the beloved, though. We shouldn't seek after dominance over men, but we should serve people and lead them to have a relationship with Christ.

I encourage people to search the scripture and question me at our church, of course in more of a private setting, so not to cause confusion. I am not so close minded to think that they can't teach me something. I learn much from the church were I labor through questions and other points of view. I don't have problem with multiple bishops at a location if it is working well for the church, but I don't think the Bible has a exact layout that we must follow to the letter.

Truly I love your spirit, as is the spirit of many that are working within the tradition that has been handed down to us from years of false teaching. Most Good men truly called of God are of the same opinion as you and spirit as you. But the shift is already coming and is in the works even as we speak. I know of many groups that have left behind the singular pastor thinking, and have gone to both husband and wife as co-pastors, and place themselves under the covering of one in a position of a higher calling, that in turn places themselves under the covering of the body, it becomes circular, so that everyone is accountable to one another.

I see people get bent out of shape and arguing on AFF. I try not to let people's disagreements to be taken personally. Husband and wife teams surely is not what you are referring to be the Bible's layout to church government. I don't like to hear church's refer the pastors wife as their first lady. It makes it sound like the pastor is some president and that the wife is in some position solely because of being married to the pastor.

I believe that there are elder women in the church, and there responsibility should be focused on younger women and their families. It is clear that the Bible doesn't place women in the church government established in Timothy and Titus. These husband wife teams as co pastors is definitely not biblical if that means that the wives are usurping authority over men in the church. I think the team of elders Paul intended in leadership of the church is deacons, bishops an un-official elders who have been proven.

You are correct that things are shifting. Homosexuality as being a acceptable lifestyle in many churches. Although, in the past we have may been overly ritualistic and legalistic in ways. Today many churches hold nothing sacred and are getting to where they have no fundamental truths. The shift that is taking place is more harmful than good. I think many want to make it to be a plurality of leaders because they refuse to submit to another man (by know way am I accusing you personally because we don't know one another personally).

Actually there are many churches especially within the oneness groups that one man is in full control of his local assembly, evidently you just have not sat under one.

I have been apart of churches that had domineering leaders and probably could tell some stories. There are even struggles I have with bitterness from some church leadership, but I refuse to let that cause me to give up on church leadership altogether.

Every leader has a unique personality and some are more domineering by personality. If a person struggles working with another person's leadership they should pray and seek God to be somewhere they can work together. I have met some pastors I just need to stay away from, and some of them have growing churches. Personalities sometimes clash and I could be the one with the problem.

That is a party line that has no true scriptural backing, how would one know what is being taught is not right if the individual does not study it out in the first place? There for how can you submit to a person when you have already been persuaded by your own study? Just does not make sense.

People must study for their self. They must get to where they are not having to be bottle fed milk, but should be able fix their own plate and chew the meat up good. I think we should still seek to make elders in the church. My scriptural backing is to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

[Godsdrummer]

To goodsamaritan

They were to appoint elders in every and that doesn't specify which an elder is a deacon or a bishop. I believe both. The word bishop is not mentioned plurally in Timothy or Titus, but it is interesting that deacons are.

Sorry I don't read the two that way, in comparing the two side by side, the term elders and bishop are the same thing in Titus when you read the whole passage on context. The word "For" in verse 7 of Titus 1 shows to me that Paul is just naming what an elder is called. Yes I agree that there is a difference between a deacon and Bishop, just as there are different callings with in the kingdom of God, or should I say gifts.
Here is the thing that stands out to me, those that are place into positions of leadership are to be proven before they are placed into positions within the local assembly. These are the pastors for a better word.
If I were to label your ministry, it would be more an apostle for you were sent by God to reach into a new place.

I trust those clauses to be more substantial than we are. I would assume the men who put them there where more scholarly and familiar with there own terms than we are. As far as the word pastor I think we have taken a ministry and started calling it a position which was formally called a bishop. Again the terminology isn't what is important. We all should get over ourselves.

I must disagree with the first statement, first one must remember, those clauses were put there by an apostate church after hundreds of years of being under Roman Catholic rule.
As for the second statement, I think we have taken a position given us from Roman Catholic rule and called it a pastor period. Again I don't see bishop as a singular position at all.

Why deacons and bishops? why not just deacons or just bishops. it would seem there are distinctions in roles of church government. Whether officially or not there is always going to be a more dominant voice. It is part of human nature. It must be regulated, though and not left unchecked.

Exactly, again comparing between the two admonition from Paul to Timothy and Titus, bishops and deacons were chosen from the elders. And there is a distinction between the two, look up the meaning of the two words in the Greek. And this does reflect church government, there is a God ordained government as Paul lays out a bit to the Corinthian church in Chapter 12, but they all work within the body not above the body, in both the local and whole body. While you say there is always going to be a dominant voice I for one do not believe that was God's plan. Jesus very words refute that in Matt 20.

Israel desired a king (and yes I know that was in a negative). I am not saying that we should be lorded over by a pastor and people who are walking in the Holy Ghost don't need any earthly government at all, but until we are all perfect we need men who can blow the whistle.

You make a profound statement above, people desire a king, because they are lazy and do not want to seek God themselves, but that takes away from the point of the cross, so that God can temple within the individual and lead each on a personal level.
And no we do not need a whistle blower, we are told never to judge one another and the only way one can be a whistle blower is if one judges.

I agree with this, but the terminology is the issue. You seem to say that elders and pastors are the same (I don't see where that can be proven). I think elders was a general term to include any that have been proven by time and experience to help keep watch.

If that is true than why the need for a pastor, when you have elders. You just described the definition of a pastor.

You are entitled to your beliefs, but to say others are wrong about having a singular pastor, because of Timothy's command to appoint elders is is not very substantial.

Then how do you explain Jesus teaching that we are not to be lords as the Gentiles.

It reminds me of how church sections or districts have presbyters today and they together vote on issues as a whole. Peter had a more dominant voice among the apostles. It was John that was the beloved, though. We shouldn't seek after dominance over men, but we should serve people and lead them to have a relationship with Christ.

Again I don't see how you perceive Peter had a more dominant voice, except that he was the one that stood up and proclaimed the first gospel message, and was the one to first preach to the proceeding groups in order for the spirit to fall. And we have good reason for that, as Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. Beyond that we have no other scripture that shows Peter as being dominant over the rest of the apostles in Jerusalem.

I encourage people to search the scripture and question me at our church, of course in more of a private setting, so not to cause confusion. I am not so close minded to think that they can't teach me something. I learn much from the church were I labor through questions and other points of view. I don't have problem with multiple bishops at a location if it is working well for the church, but I don't think the Bible has a exact layout that we must follow to the letter.

First I would have to ask, why would you feel that to question you in the church setting would cause confusion? If you are open for discussion it should be before all not just one or two that have questions. It is my opinion questions are good in any setting, because truth is truth and it will stand.
As for the exact layout of church, you are right we don't have an exact layout per se and that is why I try not to be too dogmatic. And if I gave that impression I apologize. But I started to study this subject around the time I was your age, so this is not something just out of the blue for me. I believe if there is a better way we should at least consider it instead of rejecting it just because we have done things one way for hundreds of years.

I see people get bent out of shape and arguing on AFF. I try not to let people's disagreements to be taken personally. Husband and wife teams surely is not what you are referring to be the Bible's layout to church government. I don't like to hear church's refer the pastors wife as their first lady. It makes it sound like the pastor is some president and that the wife is in some position solely because of being married to the pastor.

Yes people do get bent out of shape over trivial subjects and that just shows their inner spirit if you ask me.
As for husband and wife pastor teams, we actually do have bible for that Aquila and Priscilla were husband and wife. But no we should never refer to either the leaders as first lady or first man period as that sets them into the position that is not bible.

Again must head to work, good discussion though thank you for that.