Church Overseers/Leaders

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

I think, from the NT narrative as a whole, we can observe both a plural leadership model and a monarchical episcopate, and that both are biblical and God-ordained. As you've cited above, Titus' duties (as well as Timothy's in Ephesus) could certainly be considered pastoral in nature. Paul himself served as a pastoral model for many of the churches he established.

Your thoughts?

Tit 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you

From here we see that the word is plural "Elders"
In every town, so it was more than one elder per town

The idea of the single pastor for a church leads to little kingdoms and little popes.

The church needs a Pastor and a team of elders to support him and if need be to actually remove the Pastor.

No pastor can claim to be "Pastor for life", that is tyranny.

[shag]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Tit 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you

From here we see that the word is plural "Elders"
In every town, so it was more than one elder per town

The idea of the single pastor for a church leads to little kingdoms and little popes.

The church needs a Pastor and a team of elders to support him and if need be to actually remove the Pastor.

No pastor can claim to be "Pastor for life", that is tyranny.

I was once told point blank(probly not exactly word for word, but the just) ,"Scripture says pastors are not to be a hireling, and I'm not one, and I'm not going to be controlled by position or finance by a board of elders, there's already plenty of pastors that come and go to often by the decision of others, and I'm in it for the long haul".

And referenced this as a non hireling shepherd genuinely cares for the church:
12But he that is a hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees:

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Tit 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you

From here we see that the word is plural "Elders"
In every town, so it was more than one elder per town

Hello FlamingZword,

I agree with you, and I use the term "presbytery" to refer to "elders" (plural), being translated from the Greek presbuterous.

The idea of the single pastor for a church leads to little kingdoms and little popes.

I agree, and that's why I believe we see in the NT a biblical model of bishop/pastor, presbytery (elders- plural), and deacons which, if followed, serves to avoid the temptation you're describing.

The church needs a Pastor and a team of elders to support him

Agreed- see above.

and if need be to actually remove the Pastor.

It is my belief that if the biblical model cited above is followed, then what you're describing here would be a rare occurrence, especially considering Gal 6:1-2.

No pastor can claim to be "Pastor for life", that is tyranny.

But it need not be. Let's not let the bad apples spoil the whole barrel. For every bad pastor example that exists, it is my hunch there are 1,000 good pastor examples: individuals who genuinely serve in a spirit of humility, love of God and love of the flock. They fulfill their calling by serving the needs of others, not in lordship over God's heritage. These are the unsung heroes of ministry.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hello Lafon,

I'm an independent Oneness Apostolic, not affiliated with the UPCI or any other denomination/organization.

I think, from the NT narrative as a whole, we can observe both a plural leadership model and a monarchical episcopate, and that both are biblical and God-ordained. As you've cited above, Titus' duties (as well as Timothy's in Ephesus) could certainly be considered pastoral in nature. Paul himself served as a pastoral model for many of the churches he established.

While there are many references throughout the NT to a plural eldership, this does not preclude the existence of a single bishop, and we need not look any further than the mother church in Jerusalem. James- as bishop of Jerusalem- plays a central role in the church there (Acts 12:17; 21:18; Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12; 1Cor 15:7), and whose name is even employed as a synecdoche for the whole church. Notice, in the question of Gentile circumcision in Acts 15, that after all parties participated in the discussion, it was at James' direction ("wherefore MY sentence is..."- vs. 19) that the "apostolic" letter was drafted and sent back to Antioch.

As early as Clement (1st ce.) and Ignatius (2nd ce.), we already see historical post-Apostolic references to a monarchical episcopate along with the presbytery (elders) and deacons (1 Clement 44:4; Philadelphians 3:2+, Smyrneans 8:1-2). So, we need not think of the position of a single bishop as a later RCC development.

In conclusion, I think there is evidence of a threefold leadership structure within the NT church which would include a single pastor along with a plural support "team": bishop-presbytery-deacons.

Your thoughts?

I think you are making some major assumptions, with very little scriptural backing. I further think we see a monarchical, system because we want to see it, not because it is there.

Let me remind you of the words of Christ.
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.
These words were spoken right after the mother of the son's of Zebedee ask that they sit on his right hand and left hand.
These words seem pretty clear to me that Christ does not have a monarchical system in his kingdom.

But if that is not enough just three chapters farther into Matt. Christ speaks these words.
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.

These words were spoken right after Christ condemned the Pharisee for the very thing the monarch system portrays.

[Sean]

Loren, I think you are exactly right with the passages you posted and your understanding of them.QUOTE

Let me remind you of the words of Christ.
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.
These words were spoken right after the mother of the son's of Zebedee ask that they sit on his right hand and left hand.
These words seem pretty clear to me that Christ does not have a monarchical system in his kingdom.

But if that is not enough just three chapters farther into Matt. Christ speaks these words.
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.

These words were spoken right after Christ condemned the Pharisee for the very thing the monarch system portrays.




All my experiences I have had in the church since 1979 has been for me to serve a man and his cause for the so called "cause of the kingdom".

I am now standing here with an empty bag, and men, not God necessarily, profited from most my efforts.(I only enabled "mans kingdom" by being part of it).

I am now reluctant to go back into it unless changes are made in certain doctrines of "lordship" that we see.

Maybe Im in a "spiritual mid life crisis".....

[Godsdrummer]

Sean
I don't think you have said other than the tithes issue, exactly why you began to see the fault of the monarch system. For me it started in the 80's, when I realized that we talked about the five fold ministry, but all we truly ever saw in the local assembly was the monarch control of the single pastor. The tithes were the pastors, the final say was the pastors, the pastor was the voice of God to the local assembly, to reject his word was the same as rebellion. Quoting Heb. 13-17.

My first question, was if God gave the five fold ministry to the local assembly why was it not active in the local assembly? And then things just grew from there.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Sean

...unless changes are made in certain doctrines of "lordship" that we see...

ok, that's resonating, as i noted the dichotomy of definitions of the word "minister" reading the previous post--the silk-suited, unapproachable (to a child) one v the guy in shorts and sandals, so to speak.

[Sean]

I was in a church that was very close to the one you described above Loren, I used to hear the phrase to Peter, "whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" alot. They would used it to create extra biblical rules for us to follow.(saying the pastor is like Peter as far as authority is concerned). We were a vast majority of new converts and were as gullible as we could get.
What I believe happens, is that when many brethren start to mature and ask WHY....they get shunned or set down as rebels.

The 5 fold ministry in these assemblies are there, but under the watchful eye of the Pastor. If it scares him, or if he gets carnal or jealous like king Saul. He removes it.

Pastor means Shepherd, not MANAGER. The 5 fold ministry these days has been subjected to these sometimes carnal MANAGERS.
The vast majority of churches are carefully managed and if the Holy Ghost gets "out of line" from the "status quo", it(the Holy Ghost) gets SET DOWN.

OOOOH dont get me going bro........

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Sean

I was in a church that was very close to the one you described above Loren, I used to hear the phrase to Peter, "whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" alot. They would used it to create extra biblical rules for us to follow.(saying the pastor is like Peter as far as authority is concerned). We were a vast majority of new converts and were as gullible as we could get.
What I believe happens, is that when many brethren start to mature and ask WHY....they get shunned or set down as rebels.

The 5 fold ministry in these assemblies are there, but under the watchful eye of the Pastor. If it scares him, or if he gets carnal or jealous like king Saul. He removes it.

Pastor means Shepherd, not MANAGER. The 5 fold ministry these days has been subjected to these sometimes carnal MANAGERS.
The vast majority of churches are carefully managed and if the Holy Ghost gets "out of line" from the "status quo", it(the Holy Ghost) gets SET DOWN.

OOOOH dont get me going bro........

LOL oh I know just what you are saying. Here is the thing as I see it, where does it say that the local assembly only has one shepherd? One of the primary reasons I don't see the five fold ministry as offices a prophet is not an office, neither is an apostle, so why do we think that the shepherd is an office. One that has the spirit of a shepherd, does not control, they help and guide, and lead. Much the same thing can be said of an apostle, by definition, an apostle is one that has been sent, period. Sent to some place other than their local assembly to take the good news else where. The original 11 apostles were sent to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria then to the uttermost parts of the world. This is exactly what they did. Paul was sent to the Gentiles, while he first went to the Jews, as this was God will, he then went to the gentiles, after giving the Jews the opportunity first. And many Jews living abroad did in fact receive his word.

The fact remains, if we lay aside our preconceived traditions of church hierarchy the early church chose or ordained elders (plural) for the administrative oversight of the church, more than anything else.
That is the way I have come to see it anyway.

[Sean]

Amen, we just cant get away from the FACT that we are all EQUALS in the body. The "higher" you go...the harder you work.

Its just the opposite from the business world.

If we really went by the Book, it would divide the (men) of God from the (boys) of God