Massive shakeup going on!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Really?

So, you would just make the pastor a hireling? Meeting the wants and desires of the people? Don't ruffle any feathers, etc........

Sorry, can't find scripture for that.

Now, I'll agree that that opposite extreme is also unscriptural - being lords over God's heritage.

But, if I remember, the great Apostle Paul had some strong teaching about the saints not controlling the pastor......

I wouldn't default over to the extreme of the pastor needing to be a hireling. The body is supposed to work like a body = with every part in sync. In many cases, for a pastor to change a long standing affiliation that the local church has held would be unsettling to the people in the church. They should have as much input as the pastor in the matter, if for example, the church's affiliation pre-dates the pastor's time there.

I guess I don't have your gift of memory. What exactly was the "strong teaching about the saints not controlling the pastor" that the Apostle Paul had?

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Really?

So, you would just make the pastor a hireling? Meeting the wants and desires of the people? Don't ruffle any feathers, etc........

Sorry, can't find scripture for that.

Now, I'll agree that that opposite extreme is also unscriptural - being lords over God's heritage.

But, if I remember, the great Apostle Paul had some strong teaching about the saints not controlling the pastor......

Agreed.

[timlan2057]

Originally Posted by DQSTARKS

Starks is larger than 500 people and the church did not split over holiness issues..

Some have sure spun it that way, haven't they?

I have no interest or desire to get into specifics but you're right.

That Starks church did NOT split over "holiness" standards.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Really?

So, you would just make the pastor a hireling? Meeting the wants and desires of the people? Don't ruffle any feathers, etc........

Sorry, can't find scripture for that.

Now, I'll agree that that opposite extreme is also unscriptural - being lords over God's heritage.

But, if I remember, the great Apostle Paul had some strong teaching about the saints not controlling the pastor......

Still waiting on those scriptures Michael .

Isn't life a puzzle? Its amazing how self-serving the voice of the Lord is for some people. The dust will settle and somehow the church will march forward.

[Whole Hearted]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

When you know the whole story then you understand why some places have TWO churches.

True Brother

[NW Pastor]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I wouldn't default over to the extreme of the pastor needing to be a hireling. The body is supposed to work like a body = with every part in sync. In many cases, for a pastor to change a long standing affiliation that the local church has held would be unsettling to the people in the church. They should have as much input as the pastor in the matter, if for example, the church's affiliation pre-dates the pastor's time there.

I guess I don't have your gift of memory. What exactly was the "strong teaching about the saints not controlling the pastor" that the Apostle Paul had?

A hireling is one who cares for himself more than the flock because he has no vested interest in the welfare of the sheep. How many times have we seen dictator pastors destroy a church through bad decisions then leave it for some future man of God to reassemble? Was he the hireling?

The future of the sheep are tied to a pastor's decisions, and a true shepherd will balance his own convictions with those of godly members of the laity. (not the carnal ones).

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Still waiting on those scriptures Michael .

FAL, I will humor you on this, although I think you already know the scriptures, and are just looking for a bit of a fray here.......

First, do you believe in the sovereignty of a pastor? If not, then the following scriptures don't apply:

However, if you do believe in the concept of God appointing pastors, here's your first scripture:

EPHESIANS 4:
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Then, if you believe that God has given you a pastor for your spiritual edification, here's the next directive:

HEBREWS 13:
7Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

17Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Now, do I believe that saints are to follow a pastor blindly? Absolutely not, Paul said "Follow me as I follow Christ".

Do I believe that saints have the right to stand up against a pastor, even when they feel he is wrong, and tell him how things are going to be? Absolutely not! Just ask the sons of Korah how that worked out against Moses.

If saints feel a pastor is leading them in a direction that's contrary to the word of God, they have the right and the free will to find another man of God who can feed and direct them.

Even when Saul, who was ungodly and filled with hatred, tried to kill David, David never stood up against him to destroy him, and the one time David took a piece of Saul's garment, he felt so guilty he had to repent.

Even when Eli was backslidden, Samuel never tried to take over his position.

Sorry, my friend, for a church to stand up and tell the pastor what to do is anti-scriptural in my studies.

Now, if you have some scripture to prove otherwise, I would be very happy to entertain your thesis.

By all means, I'll be waiting!

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I wouldn't default over to the extreme of the pastor needing to be a hireling. The body is supposed to work like a body = with every part in sync. In many cases, for a pastor to change a long standing affiliation that the local church has held would be unsettling to the people in the church. They should have as much input as the pastor in the matter, if for example, the church's affiliation pre-dates the pastor's time there.

I guess I don't have your gift of memory. What exactly was the "strong teaching about the saints not controlling the pastor" that the Apostle Paul had?

I've answered this on FAL's post, but since you mentioned it, maybe you can provide some scripture that says its ok for the saints to set policy in the church over the pastor? I'd be interested to see those.....

[justasaint]

Your right
the saints shouldn't controll the pastor nor should the pastor control the saints.

Whats the fuss the libs leave and they are demonized, and now the cons leave
they are demonized. WOW the cons and libs finally have something in common the UPC
is spreading rumors and is black listing them.