Pastoral Authority Part 898,230

[GrowingPains]

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?

[Beard]

Solomon was told that he had to have a thousand referring to his vineyard in Baalhamon while all the keepers of the vineyard, two hundred. "My vineyard, which is mine, is before me: thou, O Solomon, must have a thousand, and those that keep the fruit thereof two hundred." (Song 8:12). A thousand being perfected glory of the corporate body, the church to the same glory of Jesus; then each office of the ministry has 200 (apostle) + 200 (prophet) + 200 (evangelist) + 200 (pastor) and 200 (teacher) = a thousand, a church that has made herself ready to be presented blameless in both spirit, soul, and body.

There was only one mention of a man having the preeminence or total authority over the church in the Word and that was Diotrephes who was a one man show. "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. " (3 John 1:9). This man would not receive the apostles and brethren taking upon himself to rule the house of God to the point of casting some out of the local church body.

No one man or one office will perfect the corporate body of Christ; therefore, the church as a local body must endeavor to seek the will of God in perfecting the saints unto the measure of the stature of Jesus Christ; into the image of Christ in full maturity. Full maturity of the body of Christ unto a perfect man requires all five offices of ministry, not just the pastor. There are two offices that deal with the revelation of Jesus in the now; and that is apostles and prophets. "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." (Ephesians 3:4,5).

God set first in the church apostles, secondarily prophets; not pastors. God is restoring the order of the church according to his will and not man's. "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." (1 Corinthians 12:28). (teachers being pastors, elders, overseers). The headquarters of a denomination can never take over the role of apostles and prophets. Of course, the necessity for the 5-fold ministry assumes that the body of Christ is not at ease in Zion stating that she has all she needs, but is pressing toward the mark for the prize which is full maturity in Christ, unto a perfect man; Jesus presenting to himself a glorious church in his own image.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Beard

Solomon was told that he had to have a thousand referring to his vineyard in Baalhamon while all the keepers of the vineyard, two hundred. "My vineyard, which is mine, is before me: thou, O Solomon, must have a thousand, and those that keep the fruit thereof two hundred." (Song 8:12). A thousand being perfected glory of the corporate body, the church to the same glory of Jesus; then each office of the ministry has 200 (apostle) + 200 (prophet) + 200 (evangelist) + 200 (pastor) and 200 (teacher) = a thousand, a church that has made herself ready to be presented blameless in both spirit, soul, and body.

There was only one mention of a man having the preeminence or total authority over the church in the Word and that was Diotrephes who was a one man show. "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. " (3 John 1:9). This man would not receive the apostles and brethren taking upon himself to rule the house of God to the point of casting some out of the local church body.

No one man or one office will perfect the corporate body of Christ, the church; therefore, the church as a local body must endeavor to seek the will of God in perfecting the saints unto the measure of the stature of Jesus Christ; into the image of Christ in full maturity. Full maturity of the body of Christ unto a perfect man requires all five offices of ministry, not just the pastor. There are two offices that deal with the revelation of Jesus in the now; and that is apostles and prophets. "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." (Ephesians 3:4,5).

God set first in the church apostles, secondarily prophets; not pastors. God is restoring the order of the church according to his will and not man's. "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." (1 Corinthians 12:28). (teachers being pastors, elders, overseers). The headquarters of a denomination can never take over the role of apostles and prophets. Of course, the necessity for the 5-fold ministry assumes that the body of Christ is not at ease in Zion stating that she has all she needs, but is pressing toward the mark for the prize which is full maturity in Christ, unto a perfect man; Jesus presenting to himself a glorious church in his own image.

Interesting comments. Diotrephes was rebuked for not being hospitable. Does this revoke a perfectly good NT example of a single-pastor model? I would hope it doesn't! It's good evidence.

Not to tangent this discussion, but what does the prophet and apostle look like and do today?

[noeticknight]

Greetings!

I've always held the view that the apostles and prophets were exclusive to their era (Ephesians 2:20).

Regarding the subject of authority in the church, I tend to agree that the scriptures paint a more functional (rather than positional) role for the ministry. I am reminded in the scriptures when the mother of Zebedee's children came to Jesus jockeying for power and recognition. Jesus refused it and warned the disciples that the kingdom of God should not follow the hierarchical model of authority established by secular societies (Matthew 20:20-28).

In the context of the church, authority that is perceived as derived from our own merit tends to skew our outlook, and subsequently, disrupt God's intended purpose. When we understand the principle that Jesus set forth, "whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant..." we may find it difficult to be so careless and divisive in our political agendas.

Food for thought.

[Godsdrummer]

It seems to me that we have taken a tradition from the romam catholic church of preist and turned it into a pastor authority. Like everything else we have not looked close enough at the things we teach puting things into their proper context in the scripture, and the history of that day. Paul did say study to show .... rightly dividing the word. It also seems funny to me that we shout the advice of Paul one of the greatest Aposotles as doctrine, When Paul explicitly tells us to follow him as he follows Christ. We quote scriptures like Hebrews 13:17 when in all likely hood Paul was not speaking of pastors. (or who ever wrote Hebrews) How does one follow a dictator (which is what most fundemental churches have)?
Finaly a careful study of a shephard would open the eyes of many (which is what the pastor is likend to by Christ. I have found over the last 20 years that instead of trying to prove my point I have gone back to God in prayer and studied asking God to show me what is truth. We are admonished to study Gods word not just to read it.
Be blessed

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

It seems to me that we have taken a tradition from the romam catholic church of preist and turned it into a pastor authority. Like everything else we have not looked close enough at the things we teach puting things into their proper context in the scripture, and the history of that day. Paul did say study to show .... rightly dividing the word. It also seems funny to me that we shout the advice of Paul one of the greatest Aposotles as doctrine, When Paul explicitly tells us to follow him as he follows Christ. We quote scriptures like Hebrews 13:17 when in all likely hood Paul was not speaking of pastors. (or who ever wrote Hebrews) How does one follow a dictator (which is what most fundemental churches have)?
Finaly a careful study of a shephard would open the eyes of many (which is what the pastor is likend to by Christ. I have found over the last 20 years that instead of trying to prove my point I have gone back to God in prayer and studied asking God to show me what is truth. We are admonished to study Gods word not just to read it.
Be blessed

Who were the "those who have the rule over you" that give account for your soul to God?

Do enlighten us on the role of a shepherd.

[GrowingPains]

Just a hint of who Heb 13 was talking about -- read starting at v7 "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God.... imitate their faith... Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you."

[*AQuietPlace*]

GP, do you think pastors are giving account for US, or for their teachings?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

GP, do you think pastors are giving account for US, or for their teachings?

They give account for how they've watched over our souls.

Nevertheless, they are there to watch over us (leadership does this), to encourage us and lead. It is clear this passage is referring to preachers. Some would argue about the word "pastor", but evidently, there was someone who taught these the Word, watched over their souls and would give an account. You find the title for this. I'm quite happy with the word "pastor."

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Who were the "those who have the rule over you" that give account for your soul to God?

Do enlighten us on the role of a shepherd.

First off you need to understand that the word obey means by persuasion and the word rule acctualy means more as a leader than a ruler. Get into the Greek a little bit more. Again Jesus likens the church leades to shepards a careful study on the role of a shepard will open blind eyes.

Jesus was our great example how did he lead. He did not drive he did not expect total submision in the way many Apostolic demand. We are to give ourself to God because we love him not because our pastor said this is the way we must live. Paul said follow me as I follow Christ, not do as I say because this is waht the scripture says. I am sorry but many of us have become like the Pharisee. We think we can make Gods word better by defining what we think is what God ment.