Everybody must have a pastor?

[Esaias]

Q: Who was Paul's pastor?

Q: Who was Peter's pastor?

Q: If you are a pastor of a local church, then how do you have a pastor? I assume they are at a different assembly? How does that actually work? How do they 'pastor' you?

[good samaritan]

Q: Who was Paul's pastor?

Jesus and the other apostles

Q: Who was Peter's pastor?

Jesus and the other apostles

Q: If you are a pastor of a local church, then how do you have a pastor? I assume they are at a different assembly? How does that actually work? How do they 'pastor' you?

Firstly of course Jesus, but most Christians have had a man or men in the discipleship process of their life. A wise person will not try to operate solitarly, but will seek counsel in leading in the local church.

I think we have a misconception of the term pastor and in a lot of cases are thinking of men above what is written (1Cor. 4:6). We all need people in our lives to help us to grow in the Lord, but inevitably we will work out our own salvation. I also think that the term pastor is a ministry and not a title. There are probably many pastors who don't profess that as their title.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ

I believe this is the only mention of the word pastor in the NT. It means a shepherd. A shepherd cares for the flock. Not the other way around. For me it isn't do I have to have a pastor, but do I get to have a pastor. If someone truly is your pastor they are there to look out for your well being (not a lord over others). Who doesn't want that. It is the many wolves in sheeps clothing that causes many to withdraw from leadership.

[thephnxman]

Jesus and the other apostles
Jesus and the other apostles
Firstly of course Jesus, but most Christians have had a man or men in the discipleship process of their life. A wise person will not try to operate solitarly, but will seek counsel in leading in the local church.
I think we have a misconception of the term pastor and in a lot of cases are thinking of men above what is written (1Cor. 4:6). We all need people in our lives to help us to grow in the Lord, but inevitably we will work out our own salvation. I also think that the term pastor is a ministry and not a title. There are probably many pastors who don't profess that as their title.
Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ
I believe this is the only mention of the word pastor in the NT. It means a shepherd. A shepherd cares for the flock. Not the other way around. For me it isn't do I have to have a pastor, but do I get to have a pastor. If someone truly is your pastor they are there to look out for your well being (not a lord over others). Who doesn't want that. It is the many wolves in sheeps clothing that causes many to withdraw from leadership.

The Ministry and the callings?

Most denoms seem to place the "pastor" over the assembly and the rest
of the Ministry. I believe that thinking is derived from the same spirit that
asked the Prophet Samuel for a king. The people saw the pomposity of
the kingdoms around them, and wanted to partake of the same.

There is only ONE Ministry, but different callings. Each calling is
subject to one another, and are to complement each other.

[Praxeas]

Q: Who was Paul's pastor?

Q: Who was Peter's pastor?

Q: If you are a pastor of a local church, then how do you have a pastor? I assume they are at a different assembly? How does that actually work? How do they 'pastor' you?
Peter
James
Other pastors and Bishops

[Esaias]

Where do y'all get that Peter was Paul's pastor?

[mfblume]

More correctly everyone needs a covering and authority they're under and submit themselves beneath.

[KeptByTheWord]

Q: Who was Paul's pastor?

Q: Who was Peter's pastor?

Q: If you are a pastor of a local church, then how do you have a pastor? I assume they are at a different assembly? How does that actually work? How do they 'pastor' you?

Paul went up to the elders at Jerusalem. Peter was there as well. The NT is full of examples of plural leadership, and not one single head, other than Jesus Christ. There is not one scripture in any of the NT that says submit yourself to pastor, or one man... but many that do say submit yourself to others, to the elders... etc.

1 Corinthians 16:16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey 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.

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

[mfblume]

Paul went up to the elders at Jerusalem. Peter was there as well. The NT is full of examples of plural leadership, and not one single head, other than Jesus Christ. There is not one scripture in any of the NT that says submit yourself to pastor, or one man... but many that do say submit yourself to others, to the elders... etc.

1 Corinthians 16:16 That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey 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.

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Exactly!

[CC1]

Nothing grander than circular logic! I guess we are to ignore Ephesians 4:11-13 because the founding fathers of the church in Acts did not list who their pastor was.

Lets just ignore the whole fact that they were the pioneer of the church establishing the first christian churches.

If the proposition is that because Peter and Paul didn't have pastors we don't nned them then that is absurd.

[thephnxman]

More correctly everyone needs a covering and authority they're under and submit themselves beneath.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ..."

Jesus Christ is man's covering (head), and His word (scriptures) our authority.
No man is called to be another man's covering, but a servant. If we serve a
man (have a man for our covering), we actually are serving the Tabernacle.

When we make the Lord our covering, we will serve Him, that is the ONE
that is IN the Tabernacle!

[Monterrey]

More correctly everyone needs a covering and authority they're under and submit themselves beneath.

Isa 30:1 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

.........:happydance

[KeptByTheWord]

Nothing grander than circular logic! I guess we are to ignore Ephesians 4:11-13 because the founding fathers of the church in Acts did not list who their pastor was.

Lets just ignore the whole fact that they were the pioneer of the church establishing the first christian churches.

If the proposition is that because Peter and Paul didn't have pastors we don't nned them then that is absurd.

Where is the circular logic here?

I think you are just wanting to stir the pot, lol...

There are plenty of scriptures to support plural leadership, as noted above.

By all means, post the scriptures that support a one man pastor leadership.

[houston]

Paul submitted to the Apostles? BAHAHAHAHA! Ok.

That rebel, Paul. Calling out his godly pastor Peter for being
a Jew around Jews and a gentile around gentiles.

Paul that stated of his meeting with the Apostles that those
who should have added to his stature added nothing...


Carry on...

[Esaias]

Nothing grander than circular logic! I guess we are to ignore Ephesians 4:11-13 because the founding fathers of the church in Acts did not list who their pastor was.

Lets just ignore the whole fact that they were the pioneer of the church establishing the first christian churches.

If the proposition is that because Peter and Paul didn't have pastors we don't nned them then that is absurd.

Mrs CC must have misplaced your TUMS again.

[mfblume]

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ..."

Jesus Christ is man's covering (head), and His word (scriptures) our authority.
No man is called to be another man's covering, but a servant. If we serve a
man (have a man for our covering), we actually are serving the Tabernacle.

When we make the Lord our covering, we will serve Him, that is the ONE
that is IN the Tabernacle!

I cannot disagree more. We MUST have a man over us as a covering. Even Moses had groups allotted under him to take care of people for counsel.

Exo 18:21-22 KJV Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: (22) And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.

[mfblume]

Paul submitted to the Apostles? BAHAHAHAHA! Ok.

That rebel, Paul. Calling out his godly pastor Peter for being
a Jew around Jews and a gentile around gentiles.

Paul that stated of his meeting with the Apostles that those
who should have added to his stature added nothing...


Carry on...

Nope Paul submitted himself.

They submitted ONE TO ANOTHER. Peter submitted to Paul in that gentile issue, and Paul submitted to Peter when he compared notes of his revelation.

Gal 1:18 KJV Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Gal 2:2 KJV And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Gal 2:9 KJV And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Paul had the submissiveness to ensure he receive their approval, for they walked with the Lord.

[mfblume]

Isa 30:1 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

.........:happydance

That is taken out of context! A human church member as an elder is a covering of the Spirit of God.

If that were the case, how come Moses told people on God's side to come to him, when the people worshiped the golden calf?? Why did Jesus honour the faith of the centurion who said BECAUSE he was a man under authority he himself had authority?

Mat 8:9-10 KJV For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. (10) When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

The whole principle was perfect in the kingdom.

Why did Paul submit to the apostles when he first received revelation to get their right hand of fellowship?

[mfblume]

Paul started out with a lack of wisdom and stirred up undue persecution. The apostles talked to him and sent him away for a while to Tarsus. Paul submitted and departed.

Act 9:29-31 KJV And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. (30) Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. (31) Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Study it out. After they sent him away, the comfort of the Holy Ghost hit the place. He actually had to step aside for a while.

[thephnxman]

I cannot disagree more. (1) We MUST have a man over us as a covering. (2)
Even Moses had groups allotted under him to take care of people for counsel.
(3) Exo 18:21-22 KJV Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: (22) And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.

,,,or disagree with scripture...!

(1) We (the Church) DO have a man over us: "...the man Christ Jesus."

(2) Moses is the Old Testament parallel of the New Testament Christ. The
two biggest differences between Moses and the other prophets are these:
(a) the prophecy that another prophet would come, who would be like Moses;
and (b) the Spirit that Moses received was imparted to another seventy.

(3) No other prophet but Moses has that testimony, though many were
used in signs and wonders.
Jesus also chose another seventy whom he sent out to preach; additionally,
Jesus established the Ministry "...for the perfecting of the saints, etc. ..."
Contrary to popular opinion (by many pastors), no other man TODAY can be
compared or act as a figure or type of Jesus Christ.

Only Jesus is our head, and only his words (scriptures) are our authority.

[mfblume]

,,,or disagree with scripture...!

(1) We (the Church) DO have a man over us: "...the man Christ Jesus."

(2) Moses is the Old Testament parallel of the New Testament Christ. The
two biggest differences between Moses and the other prophets are these:
(a) the prophecy that another prophet would come, who would be like Moses;
and (b) the Spirit that Moses received was imparted to another seventy.

(3) No other prophet but Moses has that testimony, though many were
used in signs and wonders.
Jesus also chose another seventy whom he sent out to preach; additionally,
Jesus established the Ministry "...for the perfecting of the saints, etc. ..."
Contrary to popular opinion (by many pastors), no other man TODAY can be
compared or act as a figure or type of Jesus Christ.

Only Jesus is our head, and only his words (scriptures) are our authority.

The scriptures teach submission to each other as Peter did to Paul and Paul did to Peter. Moses standing as Christ had men organized beneath him over others.

[Esaias]

I cannot disagree more. We MUST have a man over us as a covering. Even Moses had groups allotted under him to take care of people for counsel.

Exo 18:21-22 KJV Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: (22) And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.

Where does the Bible say "we must have a man over us as a covering"?

[Esaias]

Paul started out with a lack of wisdom and stirred up undue persecution. The apostles talked to him and sent him away for a while to Tarsus. Paul submitted and departed.

Act 9:29-31 KJV And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. (30) Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. (31) Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Study it out. After they sent him away, the comfort of the Holy Ghost hit the place. He actually had to step aside for a while.

Where does it say Paul started out lacking in wisdom?

[thephnxman]

The scriptures teach submission to each other as Peter did to Paul and Paul did to Peter. Moses standing as Christ had men organized beneath him over others.

"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you
be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility..."

Is there another Moses TODAY , or perhaps I have missed
something? Yes, the offices in the Ministry should submit one to another,
for none is greater than the other: but all complement one another!

[B]The one-man rule is contrary to scripture.

[good samaritan]

The Bible says nowhere that a man needs another man as a covering. A woman on the other hand covers her head to symbolize the authority over head which is the man. A lady is submissive to her husband, but the man is to protect her and care for her (lead his family). The Lord is the leader protector of the man (and the woman as well). Leadership is essential, but submission shouldn't be demanded. As a man, to feel that I need another man as a covering of protection over me is against my masculinity and also God's word. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. The idea that a minister is going to stand in between us and God takes us back to the law of Moses.

A person is wise to be submitted to the God called ministries that is in the Church when they are operating under the direction of God. I have seen pastors before idolized to a degree that people were made to feel like the pastor should not mow his own yard and people should be eager to jump in and serve him. That is not what I see in the scriptures at all. Of course we should honor those who labor in the work of God, but not above that is written.

Submission is a choice and there are natural checks and balances that restrict submission. If someone is a manipulator then many people will read through that an avoid them. If people sense that we are being led of the Lord and we are not self motivated, submission occurs natural and freewill (except for those cases of people who won't submit to anything but self). Submission should also occur in every direction. Not just in one direction upward as in some hierarchy of earthly power.

The apostles and church leaders where found submitting more than anyone. How many days and nights do you suppose the apostles neglected their own wants in order to help others to come to the Lord. The question on this thread is asked in a dogmatic way (as to tear down pastoral leadership as we know it today). The scriptures say that God gave some pastors and so it is obvious that it is a necessary part of the church. Why wouldn't everyone want a pastor in their life? I think the problem is the role of a pastor that is misunderstood with so many. I think the question should not be should everyone have a pastor, but instead what is the biblical role of a pastor.

[CC1]

Where is the circular logic here?

I think you are just wanting to stir the pot, lol...

There are plenty of scriptures to support plural leadership, as noted above.

By all means, post the scriptures that support a one man pastor leadership.

The Bible is not specific regarding a lot of aspects of church government. I don't think the bible advocates or prohibits plural equal leadership. However I do believe that common sense and human nature precludes it from being successful the vast majority of the time.

Nature does not have many if any two headed animals. I believe in checks and balances and no one person should have unchecked power and no accountability. However at the end of the day I believe that leadership in any endeavor only works with one person being the primary leader. We don't hve Co Presidents of the United States nor do countries with a parlimentarian form of government have Co Prime Ministers. There is a reason for that. The reason is that it will not work. Are there exceptions? Of cousre just as there is with most things.

If you want to dabble in co equal plural leadership I say go for it. Hope it works for you. Not for me though and certainly not something the bible calls for.

[good samaritan]

I believe what we call a pastor is correctly a bishop although the calling of pastor is specific to that role. A person can have a pastoral calling without being in the office of bishop, but a bishop can never be without a pastoral calling. IMO. I think there are different pastors (youth leaders, outreach directors, etc..) in churches but only one bishop to a particular assembly (I think our terminology is just off). Otherwise, it seems it would be counterproductive. I agree with you CC.

[Esaias]

The Bible is not specific regarding a lot of aspects of church government. I don't think the bible advocates or prohibits plural equal leadership. However I do believe that common sense and human nature precludes it from being successful the vast majority of the time.

Nature does not have many if any two headed animals. I believe in checks and balances and no one person should have unchecked power and no accountability. However at the end of the day I believe that leadership in any endeavor only works with one person being the primary leader. We don't hve Co Presidents of the United States nor do countries with a parlimentarian form of government have Co Prime Ministers. There is a reason for that. The reason is that it will not work. Are there exceptions? Of cousre just as there is with most things.

If you want to dabble in co equal plural leadership I say go for it. Hope it works for you. Not for me though and certainly not something the bible calls for.

What exactly is being 'led' that REQUIRES 'one man in charge besides Jesus'?

I mean, aren't elders supposed to be teaching the saints, preaching the gospel? Why would that require 'one man in addition to Jesus'?

Or do you mean that a business running itself as a 'non profit religious organisation' needs one man in charge (besides Jesus) otherwise there might be gridlock and the money get's locked up and somebody ain't gettin' paid?

[votivesoul]

Since "pastor" is merely one of five different grace gifts Christ has given to the church, it stands to reason "pastor" is just as important (but not more so) as the other four in fulfilling the purpose for why they were given by the Lord in the first place:

Perfect the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ (notice NO commas!).

Be this as it may, would we ever ask the following:

- Does everybody need an apostle?
- Does everybody need a prophet?
- Does everybody need an evangelist?
- Does everybody need a teacher?

If the answer is "no" to any of the four questions above, it's automatically precluded that the answer is the same "no" for the question: does everybody need a pastor?

[votivesoul]

Since "pastor" is merely one of five different grace gifts Christ has given to the church, it stands to reason "pastor" is just as important (but not more so) as the other four in fulfilling the purpose for why they were given by the Lord in the first place:

Perfect the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ (notice NO commas!).

Be this as it may, would we ever ask the following:

- Does everybody need an apostle?
- Does everybody need a prophet?
- Does everybody need an evangelist?
- Does everybody need a teacher?

If the answer is "no" to any of the four questions above, it's automatically precluded that the answer is the same "no" for the question: does everybody need a pastor?

And yet, I think it wise to say that the CHURCH needs pastors, as much as the other gifts. But are pastors needed at the individual level? Yes, for a time, they are. Neophytes need someone--actually several "someones"--to care for them, be an example in faith and charity, and feed them the "sincere milk of the Word", especially when coming out of the world. But as they mature and transition into stability, there needs to be a transferrence in regards to who now pastors that saint. At some point, when maturity is achieved, an indvidual saint shouldn't need someone to care for them, be an example in faith and charity, and feed them. Jesus should take over that role completely.

I mean, if after 10-15 years in the faith, a saint still needs someone else to care for their soul, be the example they themselves should now be for others, and/or needs someone else to feed them, instead of them feeding themselves and others, then something is wrong.

If this was a purely non-spiritual example, we'd say such a "teenager" was disabled. So why have a bunch of disabled saints who can't care for themselves, be an example themselves, and a feed themselves?

[votivesoul]

From my own life:

YHWH is my shepherd, and I shall not want. He has appointed His Son to be the chief shepherd over all that I am and do. I shepherd my wife and children.

That's it. I don't have a "pastor". I have friends and trusted colleagues with whom I talk and share, fellowship and worship. But none of us tries to "pastor" any of us.

[votivesoul]

At what point should those who are in constant, life long need of a pastor change the word pastor to priest?

Does everybody need a priest? If not, why not? And if not, then how can everybody need a pastor at all times forever? Many pastors today give counsel and receive confession, know everything going on in a person's life, including at times the marriage bed, and even indirectly absolve those who have sinned by telling them God has forgiven them or that they can now be reinstated as members, or into a ministry, or whatever.

It's not much different than a catholic priest, when everything else that might be different is boiled down and away.

[Praxeas]

Where do y'all get that Peter was Paul's pastor?
Maybe not Peter but maybe John or James. He went to them in Jerusalem for guidance

[thephnxman]

Maybe not Peter but maybe John or James. He went to them in Jerusalem for guidance

Paul's concern was for the Church and sound doctrine, not that he needed
guidance. After all, he was the "apostle to the Gentiles".

[shazeep]

At what point should those who are in constant, life long need of a pastor change the word pastor to priest?

Does everybody need a priest? If not, why not? And if not, then how can everybody need a pastor at all times forever? Many pastors today give counsel and receive confession, know everything going on in a person's life, including at times the marriage bed, and even indirectly absolve those who have sinned by telling them God has forgiven them or that they can now be reinstated as members, or into a ministry, or whatever.

It's not much different than a catholic priest, when everything else that might be different is boiled down and away.amen!

[KeptByTheWord]

The Bible is not specific regarding a lot of aspects of church government. I don't think the bible advocates or prohibits plural equal leadership. However I do believe that common sense and human nature precludes it from being successful the vast majority of the time.

Nature does not have many if any two headed animals. I believe in checks and balances and no one person should have unchecked power and no accountability. However at the end of the day I believe that leadership in any endeavor only works with one person being the primary leader. We don't hve Co Presidents of the United States nor do countries with a parlimentarian form of government have Co Prime Ministers. There is a reason for that. The reason is that it will not work. Are there exceptions? Of cousre just as there is with most things.

If you want to dabble in co equal plural leadership I say go for it. Hope it works for you. Not for me though and certainly not something the bible calls for.

Since when was the church supposed to operate like the rest of the world government systems? See, that is the kind of reasoning that people use to prop up a pastor/priest idea.

God gave gifts to the church, there were 5 gifts of governing ministry, not one. Jesus is the head, and all ministry submits to Christ. Pretty simple.

Yet, the dictatorship idea continues, because man really wants a kingdom to be built, his kingdom, and not God's. Jesus came to change the way ministry operates, and it was never designed to be a one-man show.

Remember, there were five gifts of ministry given, not one! And Christ the head over all.

[shazeep]

Since when was the church supposed to operate like the rest of the world government systems? See, that is the kind of reasoning that people use to prop up a pastor/priest idea.

God gave gifts to the church, there were 5 gifts of governing ministry, not one. Jesus is the head, and all ministry submits to Christ. Pretty simple.

Yet, the dictatorship idea continues, because man really wants a kingdom to be built, his kingdom, and not God's. Jesus came to change the way ministry operates, and it was never designed to be a one-man show.

Remember, there were five gifts of ministry given, not one! And Christ the head over all.yup! And i suggest that our definition of "church" is not God's, for these reasons. The Church is alive and well, and probably not what you think it is.

[CC1]

Yet, the dictatorship idea continues, because man really wants a kingdom to be built, his kingdom, and not God's. Jesus came to change the way ministry operates, and it was never designed to be a one-man show.

Remember, there were five gifts of ministry given, not one! And Christ the head over all.

The part I bolded shows how you present a false conundrum. Having a pastor vs plural equal pastors does not mean the single pastor is a dictator.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because there are some bad apples out there who are dictatorial you want to replace them with a two headed monster than in most instances will not work.

As I said you are welcome to engage in whatever form of church government you like but don't act like it is some kind of biblical imperative that we all join your lunacy.

[YounginHope]

yup! And i suggest that our definition of "church" is not God's, for these reasons. The Church is alive and well, and probably not what you think it is.

Yes!

[Esaias]

Maybe not Peter but maybe John or James. He went to them in Jerusalem for guidance

So, a pastor then is simply someone you go to for. guidance? So if I seek guidance from a guy 500 miles away once every, say... 15 years, they are my pastor?

And, where did Paul seek guidance from James or John? He was SENT by the church to inquire about a matter of doctrine that was affecting the entire church. And the whole church came to a conclusion theocratically, not pastorally.

[votivesoul]

That is taken out of context! A human church member as an elder is a covering of the Spirit of God.

If that were the case, how come Moses told people on God's side to come to him, when the people worshiped the golden calf?? Why did Jesus honour the faith of the centurion who said BECAUSE he was a man under authority he himself had authority?

Mat 8:9-10 KJV For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. (10) When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

The whole principle was perfect in the kingdom.

Why did Paul submit to the apostles when he first received revelation to get their right hand of fellowship?

I don't think the verse means what you think it means.

We aren't to think that because the roman soldier was a man under authority that it somehow granted him exceptional faith.

Rather, because he was a man under authority, he realized in the same way, the sickness afflicting his servant was under the authority of Christ, and in the same way he could give an order to an underling and expect it to be obeyed, the sickness could receive but an order from Christ, without any other demonstration, and it--the sickness--should obey the Lord.

This is what caused Jesus to marvel at the man's faith. Here a un-covenated pagan understood the Messianic authority over sickness better than the people of God who had been promised a Messiah with power over sickness and disease.

[votivesoul]

The part I bolded shows how you present a false conundrum. Having a pastor vs plural equal pastors does not mean the single pastor is a dictator.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because there are some bad apples out there who are dictatorial you want to replace them with a two headed monster than in most instances will not work.

As I said you are welcome to engage in whatever form of church government you like but don't act like it is some kind of biblical imperative that we all join your lunacy.

This opens up a new level to the conversation. What it comes down to is the teachings of the New Testament. Does the New Testament permit a one-man pastor model?

If yes, then it doesn't matter what anyone else has to say. If not, no amount of wanting it to be so can make it okay with God.

[Scott Pitta]

After 35 years, yes, I need a pastor.

Submission deflates pride.

Our pastor is not overbearing or controlling.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The part I bolded shows how you present a false conundrum. Having a pastor vs plural equal pastors does not mean the single pastor is a dictator.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because there are some bad apples out there who are dictatorial you want to replace them with a two headed monster than in most instances will not work.

As I said you are welcome to engage in whatever form of church government you like but don't act like it is some kind of biblical imperative that we all join your lunacy.

Two headed monster?

Seriously? :heeheehee

That like the young man who when asked "whose your pastor?'

He answered "Jesus"

The questioner then replied "Oh, your one of those?" :lol

If Jesus isn't your shepard, then no one is your shepherd.

Two headed monster?

Good God from Zion.

[mfblume]

After 35 years, yes, I need a pastor.

Submission deflates pride.

Our pastor is not overbearing or controlling.

:thumbsup

[mfblume]

I don't think the verse means what you think it means.

We aren't to think that because the roman soldier was a man under authority that it somehow granted him exceptional faith.

It was a principle Jesus condoned and approved of and means a whole lot. Jesus saw how he applied that principle to the Kingdom.

Rather, because he was a man under authority, he realized in the same way, the sickness afflicting his servant was under the authority of Christ, and in the same way he could give an order to an underling and expect it to be obeyed, the sickness could receive but an order from Christ, without any other demonstration, and it--the sickness--should obey the Lord.

He knew Christ was under authority.
This is what caused Jesus to marvel at the man's faith. Here a un-covenated pagan understood the Messianic authority over sickness better than the people of God who had been promised a Messiah with power over sickness and disease.

That and more.

[mfblume]

The Bible says nowhere that a man needs another man as a covering..

I disagree.

Heb 13:17 KJV Obey 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.

[mfblume]

"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you
be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility..."

Is there another Moses TODAY , or perhaps I have missed
something? Yes, the offices in the Ministry should submit one to another,
for none is greater than the other: but all complement one another!

[B]The one-man rule is contrary to scripture.

You missed what I said. Moses is like Jesus. And as Moses had men over thousands, etc. under them, Jesus has men over people as well. But the people are submitting to the Lord working through these men, not the men and nothing more.

Paul said "Follow me as I follow Christ." When Paul implied when if did not follow Christ, then not to follow him.

[mfblume]

Where does it say Paul started out lacking in wisdom?

Act 9:29-31 KJV And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. (30) Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. (31) Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Why do you think he stirred people up and the apostles sent him away? (Which the Spirit condoned, by the way).

[mfblume]

Where does the Bible say "we must have a man over us as a covering"?

Heb 13:17 KJV Obey 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.

[Esaias]

Act 9:29-31 KJV And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. (30) Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. (31) Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Why do you think he stirred people up and the apostles sent him away? (Which the Spirit condoned, by the way).

It doesn't say 'Paul lacked wisdom'. It just says he disputed with unbelieving Jews, and they went about to kill him. The brethren, desiring to save his life, sent him to Tarsus (which apparently was his home town?) and the churches had 'rest' in Jewry, because one of the main persecutors of the church was now an apostolic preacher.

If you are suggesting that people getting stirred up (becoming opposed to the gospel preaching) is a sign of lacking wisdom, then Paul never did wise up, cause his preaching eventually got him killed. Just like it got Jesus killed.

Also, it doesn't say 'the apostles' sent him away, it says 'the brethren' did that.

I think you are reading quite a bit into the text that isn't there?

[houston]

I am my pastor.

[Esaias]

Heb 13:17 KJV Obey 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.

It doesn't say anything about a 'covering'. It certainly says to respect and obey the eldership, but says nothing about 'you NEED a man to be your covering.' Believers should be in submission to those who have oversight of the assembly, indeed. And who are those who 'have the rule over you'?

I notice it says 'as they that must give account'. I think if more people understood the significance of that, fewer people would desire to 'have the rule'...

[Esaias]

If you are a pastor, who is YOUR pastor? And how does that pastoral relationship work?

What exactly do pastors DO? From my experience, most pastors preach and do adult Sunday School lessons on Wednesdays and Sundays. They manage the church service, basically, delegating the music to others, etc.

So then how does a pastor's pastor... pastor him? Do pastors call up their pastors for the upcoming weeks itinerary of events? Sermon texts? Etc? Obviously not, pastors' pastors do not manage any services except their own. So again, how does a pastor's pastor pastor him? (Say that real fast ten times...)

[KeptByTheWord]

The part I bolded shows how you present a false conundrum. Having a pastor vs plural equal pastors does not mean the single pastor is a dictator.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because there are some bad apples out there who are dictatorial you want to replace them with a two headed monster than in most instances will not work.

As I said you are welcome to engage in whatever form of church government you like but don't act like it is some kind of biblical imperative that we all join your lunacy.

I have not thrown the baby out with the bath water. I have not said that a pastor is not necessary. YOU are the one getting all riled up, and saying some really wild stuff, like a two-headed monster, lol!

I plainly shared scriptures that show that pastor is not the ONLY governing ministerial gift given to the church. Absolutely there should be a pastor, but there also should be other governing bodies as well. The church was set up with plural leadership because the kingdom of God is under Jesus Christ, and the 5 gifts of governing ministry were meant to balance the church out, and keep it from becoming a one man show.



Two headed monster?

Seriously? :heeheehee

That like the young man who when asked "whose your pastor?'

He answered "Jesus"

The questioner then replied "Oh, your one of those?" :lol

If Jesus isn't your shepard, then no one is your shepherd.

Two headed monster?

Good God from Zion.

:highfive

If you are a pastor, who is YOUR pastor? And how does that pastoral relationship work?

What exactly do pastors DO? From my experience, most pastors preach and do adult Sunday School lessons on Wednesdays and Sundays. They manage the church service, basically, delegating the music to others, etc.

So then how does a pastor's pastor... pastor him? Do pastors call up their pastors for the upcoming weeks itinerary of events? Sermon texts? Etc? Obviously not, pastors' pastors do not manage any services except their own. So again, how does a pastor's pastor pastor him? (Say that real fast ten times...)

One thing that is not clear in the NT is whether the gifts of the governing ministry were to be for each individual house or gathering, or a city, or a state, or even a nation. This point needs to be discussed further, I think.

For example, we know that the church met from house to house. Did they all, at one time, ever come together? I do not find that anywhere in scripture.

I do know that the gifts of the governing ministry need to be active in the church, but... what comprises the church... a house, a home, a group of homes, a city, a state, a nation of believers?

We know that in Revelation the Lord Jesus spoke to the angel of the church. Was this "angel" the governing body of ministry over an entire city, or just over just one group of people meeting in a home?

[houston]

If you are a pastor, who is YOUR pastor? And how does that pastoral relationship work?

What exactly do pastors DO? From my experience, most pastors preach and do adult Sunday School lessons on Wednesdays and Sundays. They manage the church service, basically, delegating the music to others, etc.

So then how does a pastor's pastor... pastor him? Do pastors call up their pastors for the upcoming weeks itinerary of events? Sermon texts? Etc? Obviously not, pastors' pastors do not manage any services except their own. So again, how does a pastor's pastor pastor him? (Say that real fast ten times...)

You and I both know that it is a formality. That is all.

[votivesoul]

It was a principle Jesus condoned and approved of and means a whole lot. Jesus saw how he applied that principle to the Kingdom.



He knew Christ was under authority.


That and more.

Hi, Mike.

Thanks for responding and engaging, but I still think you missed, not only my point, but the point of the story. Nothing about the Roman soldier being under authority speaks to us as the church being under the authority of some man apart from the man Christ Jesus.

Jesus specifically denounced the way the world exercises authority over each other, the Romans being no exception to that rule. The only condoning of what the man said regarding authority had to do with him recognizing the absolute power and authority Jesus Christ had over the sickness afflicting his servant.

This story isn't about telling the church how to submit to some human tradition called "covering". It's about teaching the church that her Messiah is so powerful that even diseases respond to Him simply speaking "the Word".

It's about the type of dominion that the Body of Christ should have over sickness and disease. Not because we submit to a man apart from Jesus so he, whoever "he" is, can cover us (what does that mean, any way?), but that, in submission to the Messiah, we have access to all the power He had access to, even to the curing of diseased and afflicted people, simply by speaking "the Word" (as opposed to having to go directly and bodily to a home and performing a ceremony in order to make someone whole).

I mean, have you never prayed in your room and the power of the Most High came upon you, and you spoke "the Word" in faith, and God answered your prayer, even though what you prayed for was for someone else in another location?

That's what this is all about. And ONLY THIS, I might add.

[votivesoul]

It doesn't say 'Paul lacked wisdom'. It just says he disputed with unbelieving Jews, and they went about to kill him. The brethren, desiring to save his life, sent him to Tarsus (which apparently was his home town?) and the churches had 'rest' in Jewry, because one of the main persecutors of the church was now an apostolic preacher.

If you are suggesting that people getting stirred up (becoming opposed to the gospel preaching) is a sign of lacking wisdom, then Paul never did wise up, cause his preaching eventually got him killed. Just like it got Jesus killed.

Also, it doesn't say 'the apostles' sent him away, it says 'the brethren' did that.

I think you are reading quite a bit into the text that isn't there?

I see it the same way, Esaias. Thank you for elucidating an alternative view of Acts 9:29-31.

[Nitehawk013]

I think I will take the middle road in this. I feel that we both need a Pastor, and yet also feel you would be hard pressed to prove scripturally that all men must submit to an appointed "pastor".

We all, no matter how spiritual we think we are, will find ourselves at some point NEEDING a leader or Pastor in our lives who we are submitted to that can correct us, rebuke us, etc. A man who can put his finger in our faces and flat out tell us we are wrong when we are wrong.

No matter how spiritual you may convine yourself that you think you are, sometimes you need a MAN to do this because you are not hearing clearly from God. God doesn't always speak as palinly and audibly as a godly Pastor or leader will.

On the other hand, I often wonder who exactly all these Pastor's pastors are? I knwo they talk with other Pastor buddies, but how much correction and pastoring are you getting when most of these groups seem to do nothing but puff up one another and talk about "their" saints.

Paul seemed to have no real Pastor or authority to rebuke him except Christ. While he clearly worked with the Apostles in the mission, he seemed to rebuke them and call them out more than they ever did him.

And how would it work iin modern church anyways? Bro Blume, as a Pastor who is YOUR pastor? What woudl you do if your Pastor called you and told you in no uncertain terms that Preterism was a damnable heresy? Do you submit to our Pastor after telling all here how we ought to obey them who rule over us?

I suppose my point is that of course Pastors LOVE the idea that all men need a Pastor. It affords them the ability to rant from the pulpit that all saints must in turn submit to them and their vision. To submit to them and whatever decision they make. You get no say in most things. Just show up, shut up and turn in your money to fund his "vision". How terribly convenient!

And yet again though, I believe each of us do need someone over us who can correct and sometimes direct us.

Unlike the business world, I guess I tink a Pastor should not actually want men to just submit to him as if he is the "boss". Rather, I think they should be servant leaders who just do their job and if people willingly submit to them, then great. Otherwise...a true Pastor wouldn't be interested in hoarding power over people's lives in the first place.

A friend of mine was absent from his current church this past Sunday. He and his family went to be in attendance at another Apostolic church, the church he had been saved in years ago before joining the church he is in now. His former church that he visited lost their Pastor to cancer a few weeks ago. Anyways, his current Pastor hear he had gone to his former church and texted him telling him how disappointed he was that they had skippped church to be in attandance at this other church on a Sunday instead of a Wednesday night.

That is the business world mentality. The "boss" not wanting his employees anywhere but at work. The man interested in his own little castle instead of the KINGDOM. And that is why so many are sick of hearing about how much we all need to submit to a Pastor.

If Pastors are that petty, and lets not pretend that THOUSANDS aren't that way, then who wants to be in submission to them? I don't. I want my Pastor to be above such petty, childish, territorial nonsense. But I DO still want and need a Pastor or man in my life because I KNOW myself enough to know that at times I will NEED a man to rein me in and set me straight.

[votivesoul]

I think I will take the middle road in this. I feel that we both need a Pastor, and yet also feel you would be hard pressed to prove scripturally that all men must submit to an appointed "pastor".

We all, no matter how spiritual we think we are, will find ourselves at some point NEEDING a leader or Pastor in our lives who we are submitted to that can correct us, rebuke us, etc. A man who can put his finger in our faces and flat out tell us we are wrong when we are wrong.

No matter how spiritual you may convine yourself that you think you are, sometimes you need a MAN to do this because you are not hearing clearly from God. God doesn't always speak as palinly and audibly as a godly Pastor or leader will.

On the other hand, I often wonder who exactly all these Pastor's pastors are? I knwo they talk with other Pastor buddies, but how much correction and pastoring are you getting when most of these groups seem to do nothing but puff up one another and talk about "their" saints.

Paul seemed to have no real Pastor or authority to rebuke him except Christ. While he clearly worked with the Apostles in the mission, he seemed to rebuke them and call them out more than they ever did him.

And how would it work iin modern church anyways? Bro Blume, as a Pastor who is YOUR pastor? What woudl you do if your Pastor called you and told you in no uncertain terms that Preterism was a damnable heresy? Do you submit to our Pastor after telling all here how we ought to obey them who rule over us?

I suppose my point is that of course Pastors LOVE the idea that all men need a Pastor. It affords them the ability to rant from the pulpit that all saints must in turn submit to them and their vision. To submit to them and whatever decision they make. You get no say in most things. Just show up, shut up and turn in your money to fund his "vision". How terribly convenient!

And yet again though, I believe each of us do need someone over us who can correct and sometimes direct us.

Unlike the business world, I guess I tink a Pastor should not actually want men to just submit to him as if he is the "boss". Rather, I think they should be servant leaders who just do their job and if people willingly submit to them, then great. Otherwise...a true Pastor wouldn't be interested in hoarding power over people's lives in the first place.

A friend of mine was absent from his current church this past Sunday. He and his family went to be in attendance at another Apostolic church, the church he had been saved in years ago before joining the church he is in now. His former church that he visited lost their Pastor to cancer a few weeks ago. Anyways, his current Pastor hear he had gone to his former church and texted him telling him how disappointed he was that they had skippped church to be in attandance at this other church on a Sunday instead of a Wednesday night.

That is the business world mentality. The "boss" not wanting his employees anywhere but at work. The man interested in his own little castle instead of the KINGDOM. And that is why so many are sick of hearing about how much we all need to submit to a Pastor.

If Pastors are that petty, and lets not pretend that THOUSANDS aren't that way, then who wants to be in submission to them? I don't. I want my Pastor to be above such petty, childish, territorial nonsense. But I DO still want and need a Pastor or man in my life because I KNOW myself enough to know that at times I will NEED a man to rein me in and set me straight.

There is a lot of good stuff in there. And I can tell it came from a loving, impassioned heart. Thanks for sharing.

And yet, one thing stands out to me. More than once you used the word "over", as in, to have a man over you, in the Lord. How about instead of "over" you and me, and everyone else began using the words "in front of", as in someone who has gone before us, has a deeper walk with the Lord, has gained more wisdom through experience, and so, from that vantage point, like a soldier who scouts out ahead, such a brother or sister in the Lord can speak into our lives?

When we use the word "over" (which is NOT in the Greek text!) we begin to suggest something neither God or Christ intended: a second mediator who we have to approach, who then approaches Christ on our behalf, as if there was such a "chain of command" structure in the church, when there isn't.

[Godsdrummer]

Just and added thought on the subject. Placing Ephesians 4:11 in context. The beginning of the chapter Paul makes a call to all to walk after the vocation they are called to. Saints is not a vocation. Saints is used on reference to the church as a whole, and Paul does not separate between saints and leaders when he directs his letter.

Secondly where do we read into this passage that these gifts are positions of authority?

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the equipping of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

The passage says "for the equipping of the saints to minister" to edify the body of Christ.

Finally Paul is writing to a single church group, and uses the plural use of the word pastors, which by the way is shepherd. A shepherd did not corral the sheep, did not drive sheep, did not feed the sheep dried hay or straw. But rather led the sheep to forage for themselves, fresh green grass.
Because of the hierarchy we find in many churches today we have anemic saints that only know what they are told by their individual pastor, or organization. They are feed canned sermons and not taught to forage for themselves, they are fenced in by standards and not allowed to think for them selves.
I don't believe this is the way God intended his ecclesia to function.

[mfblume]

It doesn't say anything about a 'covering'. It certainly says to respect and obey the eldership, but says nothing about 'you NEED a man to be your covering.' Believers should be in submission to those who have oversight of the assembly, indeed. And who are those who 'have the rule over you'?

I notice it says 'as they that must give account'. I think if more people understood the significance of that, fewer people would desire to 'have the rule'...

I think it's obvious. He lacked wisdom as many preachers do, and the brethren who had any authority at all to send him away would be the apostles Peter and John, etc.

I will gather some notes on authority in the kingdom of God to post here in this thread since it's a very vital issue so many are unaware of.

I've seen no responses to verses KeptByTheWord noted.

Heb 13:17 KJV Obey 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.

Houston, you said you're your own pastor. You don't fall under this category of what this verse teaches?

[mfblume]

First of all,
Joshua had Moses.
Elisha had Elijah.
Timothy had Paul.

The sons of the prophets were students under the prophets, as under Elijah and Elisha.
They were mentored.

Ministers need ministers over them:

2Ki 6:1 KJV And the sons of the prophets said unto Elisha, Behold now, the place where we dwell with thee is too strait for us.

They had a sort of BIBLE SCHOOL under Elisha. And there were so many they needed to expand their house.

Moses laid his hand on Joshua and Joshua received the spirit of Moses.

Deu 34:9 KJV And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.

Elijah was directed to mentor Elisha.

1Ki 19:16 KJV And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room.


God did not directly train Elisha but used Elijah to do so.

1Ki 19:19-21 KJV So he departed thence, and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he with the twelfth: and Elijah passed by him, and cast his mantle upon him. (20) And he left the oxen, and ran after Elijah, and said, Let me, I pray thee, kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow thee. And he said unto him, Go back again: for what have I done to thee? (21) And he returned back from him, and took a yoke of oxen, and slew them, and boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen, and gave unto the people, and they did eat. Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and ministered unto him.


Israel had government in their setup under God.

Exo 18:21 KJV Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:


Government is in the kingdom of God, plain and simple. Spiritual government.

Not only did Exodus show people positioned in government over God's people., but the people went to these leaders for help and did not go directly to God. That is not to say we cannot seek God, but it does say God uses people to whom we submit in regard to their advice.

Elders were in the church to whom people went to for prayer. Notice the bible commanded this, and many today think they don't need anyone to go to.

Jas 5:14 KJV Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:


These elders were a form of spiritual government.

Act 14:23 KJV And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Tit 1:5 KJV For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

1Ti 5:17 KJV Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.


Paul repeatedly instructed Timothy to heed the doctrine he got from Paul.

1Ti_1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Ti_1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1Ti_4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
1Ti_4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
1Ti_4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
1Ti_5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
1Ti_6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
1Ti_6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
2Ti_3:10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti_4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti_4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

[KeptByTheWord]

I have not thrown the baby out with the bath water. I have not said that a pastor is not necessary. YOU are the one getting all riled up, and saying some really wild stuff, like a two-headed monster, lol!

I plainly shared scriptures that show that pastor is not the ONLY governing ministerial gift given to the church. Absolutely there should be a pastor, but there also should be other governing bodies as well. The church was set up with plural leadership because the kingdom of God is under Jesus Christ, and the 5 gifts of governing ministry were meant to balance the church out, and keep it from becoming a one man show.

One thing that is not clear in the NT is whether the gifts of the governing ministry were to be for each individual house or gathering, or a city, or a state, or even a nation. This point needs to be discussed further, I think.

For example, we know that the church met from house to house. Did they all, at one time, ever come together? I do not find that anywhere in scripture.

I do know that the gifts of the governing ministry need to be active in the church, but... what comprises the church... a house, a home, a group of homes, a city, a state, a nation of believers?

We know that in Revelation the Lord Jesus spoke to the angel of the church. Was this "angel" the governing body of ministry over an entire city, or just over just one group of people meeting in a home?

Bumping this... :)

Anyone want to address this? Is there any historical evidence to support that the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation were just one building with people attending, or was it the entire group of believers in that city?

This is an important piece of this discussion... does every small home group/church need all five governing bodies of ministry, and all the gifts of the spirit functioning in each particular home, or would that nucleus extend to a far greater area?

[mfblume]

People think of spiritual government is people dominating saints. That is not so. Jesus spoke of his leaders not dominating people.

They ruled spiritually but not as though people served THEM, but these leaders directed people to serve God.

Rom 13:1-7 KJV Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: (4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (6) For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. (7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.


God has authority we are meant to recognize as authority.

EVEN JESUS recognized spiritual authority and would not respond to the high priest until the high priest, said, "I adjure thee by the living God, tell me..."

Mat 26:62-64 KJV And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? (63) But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. (64) Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

[mfblume]

God sent people to be saved to OTHER PEOPLE.

Angels won't preach the gospel.

Act 10:1-6 KJV There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, (2) A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. (3) He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. (4) And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. (5) And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: (6) He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.


Cornelius could have said, "You tell me. I don't need man. Angel, preach what I need to do."

No. God set PEOPLE over the church and we must heed them.

Paul is dealt with by Jesus Himself! And Jesus Tells Paul to go to Ananias.

Act 9:6 KJV And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Act 9:10-17 KJV And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. (11) And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, (12) And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. (13) Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: (14) And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. (15) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: (16) For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. (17) And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.


Over and over again we see PEOPLE submitting to other PEOPLE in the church, when God could have easily had them do what He said directly without any Ananias's or Peters involved.

Ananias was barely mentioned in the New Testament. Almost a nobody. But Jesus directs Saul to go to him and obey his words. It is the authority of God that is the point here, not a man. Saul met the authority of God working through Ananias. He was actually obeying God when Ananias spoke to him. It's not the person we are obeying, but God's authority in the person.

I already showed Jesus being silent before the high priest until the high priest adjured Him by the true God. Paul also showed respect to offices God set up, even though the PERSON might not be right in what he was doing. It was an office GOD instituted.

Act 23:1-5 KJV And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. (2) And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. (3) Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? (4) And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? (5) Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.


Read that carefully. Paul rebuked the high priest and spoke harsh words to him. He called the man a whited wall. PAUL APOLOGIZED when they told him the man whom he just spoke to was the high priest. "Revilest thou God's high priest? (5) Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."

Jude speaks of this as well, even when it came to SATAN!

Jude spoke of people disrespecting authority. Satan was a fallen angel. He once held a position ordained of God but fell from his first estate. Michael contended with Satan, and Jude flatly stated Michael would not rail against the devil, but had somewhat of a respect, seemingly for his former position.

Jud 1:8-9 KJV Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. (9) Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.


The context is people despising dominions. Jude's point was that if Michael would respect satan to a degree, not because of the person of satan, but because of the position God formerly gave to him, then how much more should we respect authority God has ordained in PEOPLE? Jude's point was that people in churches have no respect for God ordained authorities, when Michael an arch angel even respected satan. What a reproach to have people disrespect authority over them by so much as saying they have no authority over them but God. The fact is the PERSON over us in God's government is acting in God's authority. It's not that person we are obeying but rather the authority of God in that person. That's why Moses said those on God's side come to him. He did not say those on Moses' side come to Moses, but those on God's side come to Moses.

[KeptByTheWord]

People think of spiritual government is people dominating saints. That is not so. Jesus spoke of his leaders not dominating people.

They ruled spiritually but not as though people served THEM, but these leaders directed people to serve God.

Rom 13:1-7 KJV Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: (4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (6) For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. (7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.


God has authority we are meant to recognize as authority.

EVEN JESUS recognized spiritual authority and would not respond to the high priest until the high priest, said, "I adjure thee by the living God, tell me..."

Mat 26:62-64 KJV And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? (63) But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. (64) Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.


It is quite obvious through the scriptures, as you have shown plainly, that spiritual authority was part of the NT churches. There was a respect for elders, wives were to be subject to their husbands, and the governing ministerial gifts were to be subject one to another, as members all part of one body.

The reason the physical body is used as the example of how the church is to operate is very simple. The body has many different functions, hands, arms, feet, head, legs... and all are necessary to the proper function of the body. We have two feet that have to coordinate in order to walk. Such is the way the church was designed to operate.

There is an understanding that no one is "over" anyone, but yet, we are all subject to each other.. working together to accomplish the overall plan for the kingdom of the Lord.

[mfblume]

Yes, some ministers ABUSED this concept and make people obey them, personally. No. Paul said follow him AS HE FOLLOWS CHRIST. I will not follow a minister who directs me to something that is not of Christ. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and think because men abused leadership that we should never obey a person in spiritual authority.

[Esaias]

Yes, some ministers ABUSED this concept and make people obey them, personally. No. Paul said follow him AS HE FOLLOWS CHRIST. I will not follow a minister who directs me to something that is not of Christ. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and think because men abused leadership that we should never obey a person in spiritual authority.

I am not certain anyone here is arguing there is 'no authority in the church' or that there is no system of 'government' in the church. The question is 'what does it properly look like?'

Brother Blume, who is your pastor, and how does he pastor you?

[Monterrey]

I am not certain anyone here is arguing there is 'no authority in the church' or that there is no system of 'government' in the church. The question is 'what does it properly look like?'

Brother Blume, who is your pastor, and how does he pastor you?

Oooops....

And make sure you ask him if he pays tithe to that pastor.......

Very, very important.

[Monterrey]

So Moses was Joshua's pastor, but who was Moses pastor?

How about Elijah? Who was his?

Hmmmmmmmmm

[Esaias]

Hey, I'm not trying to argue one way or another, I'm just asking questions, is all...

:)

[good samaritan]

Joshua had to be led and groomed as well as called to lead. There comes a time when people are sent depending on their calling it may be to another location or may just be a change in the local venue. Just because Timothy left Paul's side on the ministry journey didn't mean that he ceased being his pastor. I don't talk to my last pastor real often but that doesn't change my view of him. If he ever calls me up with godly direction I take heed. I also value the body entirely.

E. how would define the role of a pastor and how it is to operate?

[Esaias]

Joshua had to be led and groomed as well as called to lead. There comes a time when people are sent depending on their calling it may be to another location or may just be a change in the local venue. Just because Timothy left Paul's side on the ministry journey didn't mean that he ceased being his pastor. I don't talk to my last pastor real often but that doesn't change my view of him. If he ever calls me up with godly direction I take heed. I also value the body entirely.

E. how would define the role of a pastor and how it is to operate?

Pastors are part of the eldership and usually take part in the oversight of the local assembly. A pastor (shepherd) is one who 'teaches', because they 'feed the flock' with the Word, demonstrating it's truths by their examples of godly and faithful living. A local assembly may have several 'pastors', just as it may have several prophets, evangelists, etc.

Pastor is not an office in the assembly, it is a gift, it is how the Spirit operates through a particular individual for the benefit of the assembly. The offices are bishops (overseers) aka elders, and deacons (servants). An overseer (bishop or elder) charged with oversight may be a pastor. Or he may be a prophet. Or he may be an evangelist. Or he may be something else, depending on how the Spirit manifests through him (see 1 Cor 12-14, Romans 12, etc).

Nobody appoints or elects teachers, prophets, evangelists, etc. But, bishops and deacons are appointed. The two classes therefore are not synonymous. What most people call a 'pastor' I would call an elder or bishop/overseer, somebody with oversight of the local assembly.

And the ideal (depending on the situation) seems to be plural eldership in the local assembly.

[mfblume]

So Moses was Joshua's pastor, but who was Moses pastor?

How about Elijah? Who was his?

Hmmmmmmmmm

Are you saying you are more in the position of Moses than Joshua, and more like Elijah than Elisha?

[mfblume]

I am not certain anyone here is arguing there is 'no authority in the church' or that there is no system of 'government' in the church. The question is 'what does it properly look like?'

Brother Blume, who is your pastor, and how does he pastor you?

I already stated in my first post that it is more of an issue of having some kind of covering of ministry over you than it is a pastor in every case.

[mfblume]

Paul was changed so much. He met the Lord on the road to Damascus while he was kicking against the pricks in his attacks against the church. He was so totally affected and changed by that experience, he submitted to a nobody named Ananias at Damascus. When a person is struck by meeting God's authority, it changes them and they become respectful and submissive. That's also how the brethren recommended he go to Tarsus after wreaking havoc by the way he preached in Jerusalem.

If we think it's obeying a man and not the authority of God in the person, then we missed it. We WILL throw the baby out with the bathwater in that case.

When John heard a voice calling to him while he was in the spirit on Patmos, Revelation 1 shows us the first thing he turned to see was the seven golden candlesticks, and Jesus was NEXT seen in its midst. When we're told what the candlesticks were, we learn they represented the seven churches. Jesus speaks through the church. And as KBTW already shared, he also wrote to the ANGEL of each church, which was a human leader.

People in the Spirit will recognize God's authority in a human being and submit to it. Again, it's not the person, but God's authority in the person.

[mfblume]

It is quite obvious through the scriptures, as you have shown plainly, that spiritual authority was part of the NT churches. There was a respect for elders, wives were to be subject to their husbands, and the governing ministerial gifts were to be subject one to another, as members all part of one body.

The reason the physical body is used as the example of how the church is to operate is very simple. The body has many different functions, hands, arms, feet, head, legs... and all are necessary to the proper function of the body. We have two feet that have to coordinate in order to walk. Such is the way the church was designed to operate.

There is an understanding that no one is "over" anyone, but yet, we are all subject to each other.. working together to accomplish the overall plan for the kingdom of the Lord.


Actually people can be OVER us.

Heb_13:7 Remember 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.

Heb_13:17 Obey 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.

Heb_13:24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

[mfblume]

David knew authority in a man, even in SAUL when Saul was evil.

1 Sam. 24.4-6 And the men of David said unto him, Behold, the day of which Jehovah said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thy hand, and thou shalt do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul’s robe privily. And it came to pass afterward, that David’s heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul’s skirt. And he said unto his men, Jehovah forbid that I should do this thing unto my lord, Jehovah’s anointed, to put forth my hand against him, seeing he is Jehovah’s anointed.


Reminds me of Michael respecting satan.

1Sa 26:8-11 KJV Then said Abishai to David, God hath delivered thine enemy into thine hand this day: now therefore let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear even to the earth at once, and I will not smite him the second time. (9) And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not: for who can stretch forth his hand against the LORD'S anointed, and be guiltless? (10) David said furthermore, As the LORD liveth, the LORD shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle, and perish. (11) The LORD forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the LORD'S anointed: but, I pray thee, take thou now the spear that is at his bolster, and the cruse of water, and let us go.


2Sa 1:6 KJV And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.

2Sa 1:10 KJV So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.

2Sa 1:11-14 KJV Then David took hold on his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him: (12) And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the LORD, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword. (13) And David said unto the young man that told him, Whence art thou? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite. (14) And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD'S anointed?


Look at the respect David had for Saul when Saul was acting in evil.

[mfblume]

1Th 5:12-13 KJV And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; (13) And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.


Is this all but gone amongst many today in church? Can we think as the scriptures relate to us to think, when we say we're our own pastors?

1Co 16:15-16 KJV 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.

1Ti 5:17 KJV Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.



Peter noted the same thing Jude did in angels respecting even the devil.

2Pe 2:10-11 KJV But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. (11) Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.


The interesting thing is angels fell and even the unfallen angels respect since they do not want to get the same spirit of rebellion the devils got.

People can learn a lesson from this!

[good samaritan]

Pastors are part of the eldership and usually take part in the oversight of the local assembly. A pastor (shepherd) is one who 'teaches', because they 'feed the flock' with the Word, demonstrating it's truths by their examples of godly and faithful living. A local assembly may have several 'pastors', just as it may have several prophets, evangelists, etc.

Pastor is not an office in the assembly, it is a gift, it is how the Spirit operates through a particular individual for the benefit of the assembly. The offices are bishops (overseers) aka elders, and deacons (servants). An overseer (bishop or elder) charged with oversight may be a pastor. Or he may be a prophet. Or he may be an evangelist. Or he may be something else, depending on how the Spirit manifests through him (see 1 Cor 12-14, Romans 12, etc).

Nobody appoints or elects teachers, prophets, evangelists, etc. But, bishops and deacons are appointed. The two classes therefore are not synonymous. What most people call a 'pastor' I would call an elder or bishop/overseer, somebody with oversight of the local assembly.

And the ideal (depending on the situation) seems to be plural eldership in the local assembly.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

[mfblume]

Pastors are part of the eldership and usually take part in the oversight of the local assembly. A pastor (shepherd) is one who 'teaches', because they 'feed the flock' with the Word, demonstrating it's truths by their examples of godly and faithful living. A local assembly may have several 'pastors', just as it may have several prophets, evangelists, etc.

Pastor is not an office in the assembly, it is a gift, it is how the Spirit operates through a particular individual for the benefit of the assembly. The offices are bishops (overseers) aka elders, and deacons (servants). An overseer (bishop or elder) charged with oversight may be a pastor. Or he may be a prophet. Or he may be an evangelist. Or he may be something else, depending on how the Spirit manifests through him (see 1 Cor 12-14, Romans 12, etc).

Nobody appoints or elects teachers, prophets, evangelists, etc. But, bishops and deacons are appointed. The two classes therefore are not synonymous. What most people call a 'pastor' I would call an elder or bishop/overseer, somebody with oversight of the local assembly.

And the ideal (depending on the situation) seems to be plural eldership in the local assembly.

The term pastor applies to a person as much as apostle does, according to Eph 4. So if pastor is not what people today think it is, then what is it?

[votivesoul]

Actually people can be OVER us.

Heb_13:7 Remember 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.

Heb_13:17 Obey 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.

Heb_13:24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

Dear, Mike

I appreciate your sincerely held convictions, and you insistence on going to the Word for everything you're sharing here.

But please let me point something out to you about the verses you quoted, and then make some further points.

In the verses you presented, namely Hebrews 13:7, and Hebrews 13:7, and Hebrews 13:24, there is no use of any word for "over" in the Greek. The phrase "have the rule over" in all three cases, is one Greek word, hegoumenon, and it means "to lead the way, as in going before".

Sources:

Hegoumenon: http://biblehub.com/greek/2233.htm

Hebrews 13:7: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/13-7.htm

Hebrews 13:17: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/13-17.htm

Hebrews 13:24: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/13-24.htm

People who truly lead are not "over", as in above, but rather, are in "front" of. Only do we see in the world's system of governance and organization, that those who "lead" are likewise "over". But the church doesn't, or at least shouldn't, reflect the way the world governs itself.

Compare this to Hebrews 3:6,

But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Here, there is a Greek word for "over", and it is the preposition epi, which means "(up)on, over, or above".

Source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1909&t=KJV

The same is true in Hebrews 10:21,

And having an high priest over the house of God...

It's the same Greek preposition, epi, meaning "(up)on, over, or above".

What this means is that the author of Hebrews, in experiencing inspiration from the Holy Spirit, had the linguistic know-how to use the proper terms to designate intended meaning. When he wanted to express the fact that Jesus, as Son and High Priest, is positionally located OVER and ABOVE His house--that being the Son of God and High Priest is what makes Him so--He had the tools to do so. Therefore, had he, the author of Hebrews, so desired and wanted to, he could have easily expressed the same thing regarding the saints in the church later on in the letter (i.e. in Hebrews 13:7 and 17 and 24) by using the same Greek preposition, epi.

But he didn't do so. The Holy Spirit didn't inspire the use of epi in Hebrews 13:7 and 17, or 24.

As regards 1 Thessalonians 5:12,

And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you...

Here, the Greek word isn't epi, either. It's proistamenous, and it means to stand before, from pros meaning "before" and histemi, meaning to "stand".

Sources:

Pros: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4253

Histemi: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?

So what is Paul trying to indicate to the Thessalonians? That there are people "over" them? Not at all. Rather, that there are people who are before them in the Lord, i.e. elders who have been walking with the Lord longer, and have served God faithfully for a greater amount of time, and so, are before them, chronologically speaking (implicitly indicating that those who have been walking with the Lord for a longer amount of time ought to be wiser, more mature, more spiritually discerning, and over all, more adept in their calling and ability to be a good example the rest of the flock).

Finally, as regards 1 Corinthians 11:1,

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Note that the Greek word translated "followers" means to be an "imitator". In fact, the Greek word is mimitai, from whence we get not only the word "imitate", but also the words "mime" and "mimic".

Sources:

mimitai: http://biblehub.com/greek/3402.htm

1 Corinthians 11:1: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/11-1.htm

One who imitates as it pertains to Christianity, isn't one who simply marches behind because he or she has been told to by someone else. And they certainly aren't people being driven from behind, either.

Rather, it's someone who can walk in the same pattern, and follow the example. Paul wasn't calling for "followers" the way Jesus called out and said "Follow me" (The Gospels use completely different words. All but one time, the Greek word is akoloutheu. It means "to be in the same way with", i.e. "to accompany or walk the same path". The other word is deute and it means "a summons", i.e. to "come hither".

Rather, Paul was saying, imitate the pattern of my life even as I imitate the pattern of the life of Jesus Christ. It's not an injunction to make the Corinthians subordinate to Paul. Rather, it's an exhortation to encourage the Corinthians that if they will imitate Paul's example, they will in reality be imitating the example Christ Himself laid out for them.

I remember when I taught my niece how to swim. I had her watch me, and follow me in the pool, doing what I did, i.e. recreate my actions in her own body. I gave her instruction, and as she listened, and experimented on her own, she learned to swim in a couple of hours. But guess what! I wasn't "over" as some teacher. The only person "over" her that day was her father, who permitted me the opportunity to teach his daughter how to swim.

It's not different in the Kingdom. No one is "over" anyone else. Only Jesus is "over" the house of God. But there are times when the Lord permits us the opportunity to give instruction, have someone observe us, and recreate what we do spiritually for themselves with their own actions and behaviors, and if what we are instructing is Biblically sound, and if the practice of our faith is mature and legit, and has the seal of the Father upon it, as the person imitates us, they automatically begin imitating Christ, upon Whose life we have patterned our own.

This is world's away from what today's church (in general) attempts to do.

[Esaias]

I already stated in my first post that it is more of an issue of having some kind of covering of ministry over you than it is a pastor in every case.

How does this "covering of ministry" work?

[Esaias]

BTW Votive, that was an excellent presentation of exegesis and explanation.

[shazeep]

yes

[KeptByTheWord]

Excellent Votive! I came here this morning prepared to address the issue Bro. Blume raised about being "over" someone, as we had studied it out in our home bible study, but you did a much better job than I could have with it. Thank you!

[mfblume]

Thanks, votive. Will research that more. Also, I noticed it's the rule over others that's the issue, not the person over others.

However, the fact remains, God set ministries up we are to submit to. And they're in people. Submit to one another. I am sure Peter would submit to a twelve year old if the child felt to tell him something in the name of the Lord. Eli submitted to Samuel as a child and wanted to hear what the Lord was telling the child to inform him.

God uses people to whom we must submit.

And, everyone, please note the other scriptures I used as well. Not hearing any response about them.

[Esaias]

How does this "covering of ministry" work?

???

[good samaritan]

Dear, Mike

I appreciate your sincerely held convictions, and you insistence on going to the Word for everything you're sharing here.

But please let me point something out to you about the verses you quoted, and then make some further points.

In the verses you presented, namely Hebrews 13:7, and Hebrews 13:7, and Hebrews 13:24, there is no use of any word for "over" in the Greek. The phrase "have the rule over" in all three cases, is one Greek word, hegoumenon, and it means "to lead the way, as in going before".

Sources:

Hegoumenon: http://biblehub.com/greek/2233.htm

Hebrews 13:7: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/13-7.htm

Hebrews 13:17: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/13-17.htm

Hebrews 13:24: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/13-24.htm

People who truly lead are not "over", as in above, but rather, are in "front" of. Only do we see in the world's system of governance and organization, that those who "lead" are likewise "over". But the church doesn't, or at least shouldn't, reflect the way the world governs itself.

Compare this to Hebrews 3:6,



Here, there is a Greek word for "over", and it is the preposition epi, which means "(up)on, over, or above".

Source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1909&t=KJV

The same is true in Hebrews 10:21,



It's the same Greek preposition, epi, meaning "(up)on, over, or above".

What this means is that the author of Hebrews, in experiencing inspiration from the Holy Spirit, had the linguistic know-how to use the proper terms to designate intended meaning. When he wanted to express the fact that Jesus, as Son and High Priest, is positionally located OVER and ABOVE His house--that being the Son of God and High Priest is what makes Him so--He had the tools to do so. Therefore, had he, the author of Hebrews, so desired and wanted to, he could have easily expressed the same thing regarding the saints in the church letter on in the letter (i.e. in Hebrews 13:7 and 17 and 24) by using the same Greek preposition, epi.

But he didn't do so. The Holy Spirit didn't inspire the use of epi in Hebrews 13:7 and 17, or 24.

As regards 1 Thessalonians 5:12,



Here, the Greek word isn't epi, either. It's proistamenous, and it means to stand before, from pros meaning "before" and histemi, meaning to "stand".

Sources:

Pros: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4253

Histemi: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?

So what is Paul trying to indicate to the Thessalonians? That there are people "over" them? Not at all. Rather, that there are people who are before them in the Lord, i.e. elders who have been walking with the Lord longer, and have served God faithfully for a greater amount of time, and so, are before them, chronologically speaking (implicitly indicating that those who have been walking with the Lord for a longer amount of time ought to be wiser, more mature, more spiritually discerning, and over all, more adept in their calling and ability to be a good example the rest of the flock).

Finally, as regards 1 Corinthians 11:1,



Note that the Greek word translated "followers" means to be an "imitator". In fact, the Greek word is mimitai, from whence we get not only the word "imitate", but also the words "mime" and "mimic".

Sources:

mimitai: http://biblehub.com/greek/3402.htm

1 Corinthians 11:1: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/11-1.htm

One who imitates as it pertains to Christianity, isn't one who simply marches behind because he or she has been told to by someone else. And they certainly aren't people being driven from behind, either.

Rather, it's someone who can walk in the same pattern, and follow the example. Paul wasn't calling for "followers" the way Jesus called out and said "Follow me" (The Gospels use completely different words. All but one time, the Greek word is akoloutheu. It means "to be in the same way with", i.e. "to accompany or walk the same path". The other word is deute and it means "a summons", i.e. to "come hither".

Rather, Paul was saying, imitate the pattern of my life even as I imitate the pattern of the life of Jesus Christ. It's not an injunction to make the Corinthians subordinate to Paul. Rather, it's an exhortation to encourage the Corinthians that if they will imitate Paul's example, they will in reality be imitating the example Christ Himself laid out for them.

I remember when I taught my niece how to swim. I had her watch me, and follow me in the pool, doing what I did, i.e. recreate my actions in her own body. I gave her instruction, and as she listened, and experimented on her own, she learned to swim in a couple of hours. But guess what! I wasn't "over" as some teacher. The only person "over" her that day was her father, who permitted me the opportunity to teach his daughter how to swim.

It's not different in the Kingdom. No one is "over" anyone else. Only Jesus is "over" the house of God. But there are times when the Lord permits us the opportunity to give instruction, have someone observe us, and recreate what we do spiritually for themselves with their own actions and behaviors, and if what we are instructing is Biblically sound, and if the practice of our faith is mature and legit, and has the seal of the Father upon it, as the person imitates us, they automatically begin imitating Christ, upon Whose life we have patterned our own.

This is world's away from what today's church (in general) attempts to do.

Very good post.

I would say that for most part it is a terminology issue. I wouldn't use the phrase covering for ministry, but I don't think Bro. Blume was implying any Lordship over the church by his terminology. If I submit to someone I am in a sense placing them above myself. Not that they have more value or worth. It is freewill thing. By submitting myself to the word of God through earthly instructors "I am covered" (or protected) not by the pastor persay, but by the word that the pastor is representative of. Many people are very touchy on this subject because of the many manipulations that have taken place in the past and some struggle with pride. I think we can go to far to the right or left on this subject. The pastor, elder, bishop however you define the role, is not to control people's lives, but only to help in people's spiritual growth by the leading of the Holy Ghost and the written word of God.

P.S. individuals can think to highly of their pastor, to the point they don't question and search the word for their self. Others can struggle with a independent and rebellious spirit who don't want to follow anyone and choose to go to the school of hard knocks.

[YounginHope]

"P.S. individuals can think to highly of their pastor, to the point they don't question and search the word for their self. Others can struggle with a independent and rebellious spirit who don't want to follow anyone and choose to go to the school of hard knocks."

This is truth, imo. Almost to the point that they believe the pastor has the ability to save or condemn to hell. I fall in the other category where I'm probably too independent and suffer because of it.

[mfblume]

???

We take guidance from other people and submit to it, but it is not people lording over us whatsoever. We recognize the fact God uses people to direct us. Everyone should be able to go to someone in our lives who can correct us if we stray. And we should be humble enough to accept that.

[thephnxman]

We take guidance from other people and submit to it, but it is not people lording over us whatsoever. We recognize the fact God uses people to direct us. Everyone should be able to go to someone in our lives who can correct us if we stray. And we should be humble enough to accept that.

"As many as are led by the Spirit..."

Yes, Brother, and we need one another's guidance. But we must first be
sensitive to the voice of God to discern His voice, and the one speaking
should also be speaking by the Spirit.

"...they are the sons of God."

[Esaias]

We take guidance from other people and submit to it, but it is not people lording over us whatsoever. We recognize the fact God uses people to direct us. Everyone should be able to go to someone in our lives who can correct us if we stray. And we should be humble enough to accept that.

Having someone "to go to who can correct us" with no additional definition seems a little vague?

Who is to be the "someone"? What is a "ministry covering"? Does it work the same for a regular saint as it does for, say, a pastor of a church? So the pastor has friends who can give him honest, critical advice. So could a regular saint say "I have friends who keep me in check and advise me" without the pastor being one of those particular friends?

[mfblume]

Having someone "to go to who can correct us" with no additional definition seems a little vague?

Who is to be the "someone"? What is a "ministry covering"? Does it work the same for a regular saint as it does for, say, a pastor of a church? So the pastor has friends who can give him honest, critical advice. So could a regular saint say "I have friends who keep me in check and advise me" without the pastor being one of those particular friends?

The rule applies to EVERYONE. Pastor means SHEPHERD. People are called to be pastors. And sheep are in the fold. So, if a member of a congregation does not have the pastor as one of those in the church to whom he can go for advice, then the pastor is not his or her pastor. Pastors and congregation members all need someone to go to.

[mfblume]

"As many as are led by the Spirit..."

Yes, Brother, and we need one another's guidance. But we must first be
sensitive to the voice of God to discern His voice, and the one speaking
should also be speaking by the Spirit.

"...they are the sons of God."

Amen, but that is a given.

[mfblume]

"P.S. individuals can think to highly of their pastor, to the point they don't question and search the word for their self. Others can struggle with a independent and rebellious spirit who don't want to follow anyone and choose to go to the school of hard knocks."

This is truth, imo. Almost to the point that they believe the pastor has the ability to save or condemn to hell. I fall in the other category where I'm probably too independent and suffer because of it.

Good points. Either extreme is wrong.

[mfblume]

The fullest picture of the authority of God in church members is the BODY.

1Co 12:12-21 KJV For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. (13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (14) For the body is not one member, but many. (15) If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? (16) And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? (17) If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? (18) But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. (19) And if they were all one member, where were the body? (20) But now are they many members, yet but one body. (21) And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.


Each part of the body gets it's direction from the head. Christ is our Head. And Christ will work through the hand and the foot and the hand and foot must cooperate together. The hand cannot reject the direction of the head through the foot. That's why I've been insisting it is not the person we are submitting to so much as the Lord IN the person.

When we reject something coming from another person whom the Lord uses to direct us, we are actually rejecting the Lord. Nobody is saying people obey people, period. the directives from one member of the body to another is the head making that direction, and it is instruction or the other member to serve God and not the person. A true member of the body giving us direction will see us serve God more and not serve that person more.

To be one's own pastor like someone here said is like the foot saying I am the hand as well as a foot. No. SOME have the pastoral gift ministry, not all. And those of us who don't have it need to yield to it in another person, as much as a pastor has to allow someone with an evangelistic gift ministry to do that function, although we do read we can each fulfill SOME of these offices. But others are called to it fully, not all of us.

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

1Co 12:21 KJV And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

1Co 12:28-30 KJV 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. (29) Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? (30) Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

[good samaritan]

Some history sources I have recently read and listened to say that as early as the 2nd century churches that a singular bishop was to a church. Also at that the 2nd century churches had developed Christian synagogues for meetings. I don't believe we pattern our lives from history but from the scripture. I do think there is an element of progressiveness in the church. God's word doesn't change, but I do believe that the scripture may not be perfectly clear in places purposefully because of a necessary progressiveness for the survival of the church. In other words all the methods of the early church may have not been meant to be taken as an exact copy in all cultures and venues. I want to be clear that the gospel of Jesus Christ and that of sin is never changing, but I only refer to some methods. IMO

BTW I do believe there should be multiple elders in the church, but not multiple bishops to a single assembly.

[Esaias]

The rule applies to EVERYONE. Pastor means SHEPHERD. People are called to be pastors. And sheep are in the fold. So, if a member of a congregation does not have the pastor as one of those in the church to whom he can go for advice, then the pastor is not his or her pastor. Pastors and congregation members all need someone to go to.

So, then, everyone needs a pastor, correct? Even pastors? Which brings us back to square one and my original post. If you are a pastor, who pastors you, and how do they do that?

Does a pastor's relationship to his pastor work the same as a 'sheep' and their pastor?

OR, are you saying ANYONE in a congregation who has an advisory relationship to anyone else is in a pastoral relationship? The one being the advisor is the one who is pastor? That is to say, whoever it is (might be the sound guy, might be the janitor, might be a pew warmer, might be the accountant/treasurer) that functions an an advisor to ANYONE is THAT PERSON'S 'pastor'? Is that what you are saying?

Again, I am not trying to argue any particular point about this particular subject, I am trying to understand how this is supposed to work. Preachers often say 'everyone needs a pastor' and 'everyone needs to be under godly authority' and 'everyone needs a covering'. And for non pastors that means everyone needs to be in a church and submitted to pastoral oversight. But what does that mean for the pastors themselves? How does it work out? Does it work the same? Or is it different?

That's what I am trying to find out. If anyone wants to jump in with some actual, concrete specifics, that would definitely help clear things up immensely, as far as I am concerned. :)

[allstate1]

So, then, everyone needs a pastor, correct? Even pastors? Which brings us back to square one and my original post. If you are a pastor, who pastors you, and how do they do that?

Does a pastor's relationship to his pastor work the same as a 'sheep' and their pastor?

OR, are you saying ANYONE in a congregation who has an advisory relationship to anyone else is in a pastoral relationship? The one being the advisor is the one who is pastor? That is to say, whoever it is (might be the sound guy, might be the janitor, might be a pew warmer, might be the accountant/treasurer) that functions an an advisor to ANYONE is THAT PERSON'S 'pastor'? Is that what you are saying?

Again, I am not trying to argue any particular point about this particular subject, I am trying to understand how this is supposed to work. Preachers often say 'everyone needs a pastor' and 'everyone needs to be under godly authority' and 'everyone needs a covering'. And for non pastors that means everyone needs to be in a church and submitted to pastoral oversight. But what does that mean for the pastors themselves? How does it work out? Does it work the same? Or is it different?

That's what I am trying to find out. If anyone wants to jump in with some actual, concrete specifics, that would definitely help clear things up immensely, as far as I am concerned. :)

I'm with you on this subject.

[KeptByTheWord]

And another question... is every group of believers to have all governing gifts of the ministry in operation? Would a "church" consist of a house church, a group of house churches in a town, a city, a county, a state, a country, or in the world?

What span of operation should the gifts of the ministry be in operation in the church? How did the early NT church do it?

[mfblume]

Esaias, I'm saying what I already said. I said it may not particularly be a pastor, but everyone needs someone who can correct them and give direction. And pastor simply means shepherd. Take it from here. What do YOU think a shepherd does in the church? You tell me. I know what a shepherd does. So do you. How does that apply to how SOME are shepherds and not all?

Pastors/shepherds also need someone to guide them and correct when they're wrong. It would rarely be something in the WORD in regard to being fed in green pastures or still waters, as a shepherd does for a sheep. But there are instances even that is necessary.

But as I already stated as well, Peter was corrected by Paul and Paul was corrected by Peter.

You asked what a covering is and I shared what I believe: Someone to go to who can also go to you and correct you or advise.

Shepherds lead sheep to feed sheep. I feed my congregation word they can't get on their own. The more I think about it that's a pastor. Saints in hthe church who have that gift also help. And shepherds sit there with the sheep and aid them in hurts etc.

Now where's the responses to my notes from Scripture about despising authorities and body members not all being the foot. .. not all a pastor? Someone said they're their own pastor. How does that not violate the word about bodily members?

The world has a "me on my own" mentality. I strongly disagree with many things on his thread as they are that world concept.

[good samaritan]

So, then, everyone needs a pastor, correct? Even pastors? Which brings us back to square one and my original post. If you are a pastor, who pastors you, and how do they do that?

Does a pastor's relationship to his pastor work the same as a 'sheep' and their pastor?

OR, are you saying ANYONE in a congregation who has an advisory relationship to anyone else is in a pastoral relationship? The one being the advisor is the one who is pastor? That is to say, whoever it is (might be the sound guy, might be the janitor, might be a pew warmer, might be the accountant/treasurer) that functions an an advisor to ANYONE is THAT PERSON'S 'pastor'? Is that what you are saying?

Again, I am not trying to argue any particular point about this particular subject, I am trying to understand how this is supposed to work. Preachers often say 'everyone needs a pastor' and 'everyone needs to be under godly authority' and 'everyone needs a covering'. And for non pastors that means everyone needs to be in a church and submitted to pastoral oversight. But what does that mean for the pastors themselves? How does it work out? Does it work the same? Or is it different?

That's what I am trying to find out. If anyone wants to jump in with some actual, concrete specifics, that would definitely help clear things up immensely, as far as I am concerned. :)

I would say that most pastors have cooperated in another church and submitted to the leadership there before being sent elsewhere. They probably would have never been sent anywhere had they not been discipled by a pastor. How many pastors do you know that just starting pastoring that does not have a time proven ministry through another local assembly. (I know of none).

There comes a time when people are sent. The role of pastor and disciple is then changed. The disciples in the gospels were known as the apostles through out the book of Acts on. Although, when the Apostle needed to make a doctrinal decision he sent back to Jerusalem for their counsel.

I think that the roles of a pastor and those he pastors are progressive. Basically he should constantly be working himself out of a job and preparing others for ministry. Of course there will be those who stay in the nest so to speak, but a pastor should be able to help recognize and cultivate the ministry in others. I don't think that a pastor has a regular acting pastor (he has already been prepared for the bishopric he has been appointed). Although he still must seek counsel just like every other at times.

Also as a side note I don't think megachurches are good. Unless there is a good pastoral staff, too often people fly under radar and never really connect to the body. And also the role of a pastor in those cases becomes too large. IMO

[mfblume]

I would say that most pastors have cooperated in another church and submitted to the leadership there before being sent elsewhere. They probably would have never been sent anywhere had they not been discipled by a pastor. How many pastors do you know that just starting pastoring that does not have a time proven ministry through another local assembly. (I know of none).

There comes a time when people are sent. The role of pastor and disciple is then changed. The disciples in the gospels were known as the apostles through out the book of Acts on. Although, when the Apostle needed to make a doctrinal decision he sent back to Jerusalem for their counsel.

I think that the roles of a pastor and those he pastors are progressive. Basically he should constantly be working himself out of a job and preparing others for ministry. Of course there will be those who stay in the nest so to speak, but a pastor should be able to help recognize and cultivate the ministry in others. I don't think that a pastor has a regular acting pastor (he has already been prepared for the bishopric he has been appointed). Although he still must seek counsel just like every other at times.

Also as a side note I don't think megachurches are good. Unless there is a good pastoral staff, too often people fly under radar and never really connect to the body. And also the role of a pastor in those cases becomes too large. IMO

Good stuff. I don't personally think a man should lead anybody unless he first has been led by someone else for a few years.

[shazeep]

i think you made a good point on the last page, GS, that the Church evolves, and trying to recreate the Early Church might be attempting human good. We read that at some point no one will have to teach Christ, as He will be written on every heart. When is this? Obviously the role of pastor will change then; and it is obviously changing now, if 65 million Americans have left the established church.

[good samaritan]

I see no other way to have proven/prepared a ministry if not for having had a pastor/disciple relationship. As has already been said there have been abusers, but people should not throw the baby out with the bath.

[mfblume]

I see no other way to have proven/prepared a ministry if not for having had a pastor/disciple relationship. As has already been said there have been abusers, but people should not throw the baby out with the bath.

Again, Joshua had Moses, and Elisha had Elijah. Sons (students) of the prophets had prophets.

[shazeep]

well, we are in the last days now--however that is defined--whereas they were not.I see no other way to have proven/prepared a ministry if not for having had a pastor/disciple relationship. As has already been said there have been abusers, but people should not throw the baby out with the bath.ha well that might be a decent argument for what people should do, but it doesn't address what they have done. The definition of "church" is changing before our eyes, and i think it is good to remember that the Holy Spirit is not bound by anyone's definition of "church."

[good samaritan]

The def. of Church is the body of Christ. That isn't going to change. Our methods of meeting may indeed change, but the only way the church is going to change is from corruptible to incorruptible.

[shazeep]

The def. of Church is the body of Christ. That isn't going to change. Our methods of meeting may indeed change, but the only way the church is going to change is from corruptible to incorruptible.i think that is a great way to put it, if it can be admitted that an Established Church is corrupted, as any empire built by men is bound to be. When 65 million people leave, the Holy Spirit is likely to have gone with them, speaking generally of course. Following the Holy Spirit may require redefining what "pastor" means, if such an exodus reflects upon the office, which i think it partly does.

We are also all nomads now, "A Nation of Strangers," which i think has played a big part. It is a breakdown, essentially; the destruction of community.

[Esaias]

Esaias, I'm saying what I already said. I said it may not particularly be a pastor, but everyone needs someone who can correct them and give direction. And pastor simply means shepherd. Take it from here. What do YOU think a shepherd does in the church? You tell me. I know what a shepherd does. So do you. How does that apply to how SOME are shepherds and not all?

Pastors/shepherds also need someone to guide them and correct when they're wrong. It would rarely be something in the WORD in regard to being fed in green pastures or still waters, as a shepherd does for a sheep. But there are instances even that is necessary.

But as I already stated as well, Peter was corrected by Paul and Paul was corrected by Peter.

You asked what a covering is and I shared what I believe: Someone to go to who can also go to you and correct you or advise.

Shepherds lead sheep to feed sheep. I feed my congregation word they can't get on their own. The more I think about it that's a pastor. Saints in hthe church who have that gift also help. And shepherds sit there with the sheep and aid them in hurts etc.

Now where's the responses to my notes from Scripture about despising authorities and body members not all being the foot. .. not all a pastor? Someone said they're their own pastor. How does that not violate the word about bodily members?

The world has a "me on my own" mentality. I strongly disagree with many things on his thread as they are that world concept.

I certainly agree with you about the 'me on my own' mentality. I gave a message not too long ago on the 'myth of a personal relationship with God' that addressed the very subject. We are not called by Christ to be islands in a sea of grace, but we are called to be a PEOPLE. Our relationship with God is not only vertical, but horizontal as well.

I was just trying to understand the 'everybody needs a pastor' concept as far as how it actually worked out in different settings. I am not a member of a denomination that does the whole licensing thing. My relationships with elders in my life would not seem to match the 'everybody needs a pastor' concept using the modern concept of 'pastor'. What you have described is actually much closer to how things work with us. The impression I got when I heard 'everybody needs a pastor' is that pastors (of denominational churches) need to be in a relationship that is mirrored by the relationship the congregants have with their pastor, and I was trying to figure out how that actually worked out in real time.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I certainly agree with you about the 'me on my own' mentality. I gave a message not too long ago on the 'myth of a personal relationship with God'that addressed the very subject. We are not called by Christ to be islands in a sea of grace, but we are called to be a PEOPLE. Our relationship with God is not only vertical, but horizontal as well.

I was just trying to understand the 'everybody needs a pastor' concept as far as how it actually worked out in different settings. I am not a member of a denomination that does the whole licensing thing. My relationships with elders in my life would not seem to match the 'everybody needs a pastor' concept using the modern concept of 'pastor'. What you have described is actually much closer to how things work with us. The impression I got when I heard 'everybody needs a pastor' is that pastors (of denominational churches) need to be in a relationship that is mirrored by the relationship the congregants have with their pastor, and I was trying to figure out how that actually worked out in real time.

Do you have that message on line?

[Esaias]

Do you have that message on line?

The recording was broken down into two parts. I probably rambled on too long lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5TuDhZRCtg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN3bTawsXqk

[Evang.Benincasa]

The recording was broken down into two parts. I probably rambled on too long lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5TuDhZRCtg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN3bTawsXqk

Thanks :thumbsup

[Evang.Benincasa]

Brother Blume do you have a teaching on line of you teaching on ministerial authority?

[returnman]

The Ministry and the callings?

Most denoms seem to place the "pastor" over the assembly and the rest
of the Ministry. I believe that thinking is derived from the same spirit that
asked the Prophet Samuel for a king. The people saw the pomposity of
the kingdoms around them, and wanted to partake of the same.

There is only ONE Ministry, but different callings. Each calling is
subject to one another, and are to complement each other.

I think you hit it pretty close and maybe nailed it. There is at least one denom that absolutely refute the word Pastor associated to one man, mainly the preacher. The whole status of onesness pentecostalism is "who's church" you go to.

[votivesoul]

Regarding the relationship of Moses to Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, and etc., I submit the following two points for consideration:

1.) We are not in the same covenant.

The promises are different. The priesthood is different. The way the covenant works is different. The mediator of the covenant is different. The experiences are different. The kingdom is different. The rituals are different. The laws are different. The expected conduct is different. The ethnic groups are different. Salvation is different. The stories are different. The way God operates is different.

The idea that any New Covenant individual should, to one man, that is, a pastor, do for him as Joshua did for Moses, and etc., isn't the testimony of New Covenant teachings (and Old Covenant Messianic Prophecies).

The testimony of New Covenant teachings is:

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more (Jeremiah 31:34 with Hebrews 8:11).

And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children (Isaiah 54:13 with John 6:45).

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus... (1 Timothy 2:5).

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ... (1 Corinthians 11:3.

But ye [all] are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light... (1 Peter 2:9; [all] inserted for clarity, as the "ye" is plural)

There is no way that any of us can be for a pastor what Joshua was for Moses, Elisha for Elijah, and etc. They made themselves slaves to these individual men. We are not slaves to a pastor. And there is no way a pastor can be for a man what Moses was for Joshua, or Elijah was for Elisha. And on down the list it goes, wherever we see that one to one relationship in the Old Testament.

At some point it has to be admitted, the comparisons very quickly breakdown, which leads to:

2.) Those Old Covenant relationships do serve as a typology, but not as a typology between a New Covenant pastor and a sheep, but rather, as a typology of Christ and a saint.

All those Old Covenant men (Moses, Elijah, etc.) were hand-selected by God, and had His Spirit put upon them with power. They represent the Christ-type. Additionally, their servants (Joshua, Elisha) were handpicked by God, too. They also had God's Spirit put upon them with power. This is the saint-type.

But note: They acted as replacements of and for their masters, i.e. they assumed the Christ-type, when the time came. Joshua replaced Moses when Moses died. Elisha replaced Elijah when he died. They transitioned between types.

If Moses, et al, are merely representative of a New Covenant "pastor", he, the pastor is fulfilling the Christ-type. But guess what? Since Christ has come, no more Old Covenant types are needed. The real deal has arrived, and no one but the entire Body of Christ can be His type, on earth (1 John 4:17).

Additionally, since many saints in today's world, and in times past, have all their life been "under a pastor", they never once get to transition into the Christ-type, the way Joshua, et al, did, EVEN THOUGH THE SPIRIT OF GOD HAS COME UPON THEM WITH POWER. This means regarding typology, there's always someone in the Body of Christ that doesn't get to do their part to fully represent Christ in typology, since their "pastor" is always doing it instead.

This is where the common model breaks down. Are there pastors in the church? Yes, as much as any of the other gifts of grace according to Ephesians 4:11. But does that mean that a pastor has authority over anyone or even in the church?

Where are the words pastor/s and power/authority linked in the New Covenant teachings (Note that 1 Timothy 5:17 doesn't count since the Greek word for "rule" is proestōtes, which means "to take the lead")?

Authority (usually power in the KJV) is always only linked to Jesus and the Apostles (Paul makes reference to his authority in the Gospel).

Bishops and elders are called to be leaders, to stand out in front as examples--as they model their life correctly, their life (more than their words or what they teach) preaches a message to the saints. A pastor/shepherd is called to do what? Feed God's sheep. But how?

We think it means weekly sermons or teaching Bible studies. Nope. Experience is the best teacher, not listening to a lecture. The five grace gifts, pastors included, are given by the Lord to the church, to do what? EQUIP the saints so they can themselves learn how to minister and edify the Body. Modern pastors usually don't, and often, can't do that, especially when someone in the assembly isn't called a to pastoral calling, but rather, to be an evangelist or prophet, or etc. Pastors train pastors, prophets train prophets, etc.

Sitting someone (or a bunch of someones) down and telling them a bunch of Bible facts can be interesting. Things can be learned, intellectually speaking. Sure, that's a given, but only in much the same way sitting in a math or health class. Until the student is at the board or in the gym, all the theoretical learning doesn't accomplish much.

The saints need to be shown (not just told) how to live for God effectively. They need to be the ones doing the majority of the ministering. Maybe I know how to effectively prepare a sermon or pray with someone to receive the Holy Spirit. Great! But am I showing anyone how? Who am I teaching these skills to? Unless and until I as the pastor/minister/leader/etc. get out of the way, no one I am disciplining will ever grow.

Jesus said "I have meat to eat you know not of...My meat is to do the will of the Father..."

That's how sheep ought to be fed, by actually and literally doing the will of the Father! Let them put their own hands on their own life, their own calling, their own ministry, and get to work. Sitting down for several hours a week while someone else does all the "feeding" so-called, doesn't allow for that.

There needs to be a paradigm shift. Consider your own assembly. How many people are effectively serving in the five gifts of grace? How many, even after years, continue to go to the "pastor" for everything? How many "pastors" are worn out, not spending enough time with their families, stressed about all the "sheep under their care", worried about how they can reach their community better, wondering if a new program is going to be successful, hoping enough money comes in this month to pay the bills, and etc.?

Friends, that's not pastoring. That's management. You're in the wrong line of work (lol)!

A pastor is called to the following: tend to God's people with loving, nurturing care while sharing the "sincere milk of the Word". This, more than a sermon, more than Bible study, more than a vision service, more than a building fund, more than a marriage counseling session, more than just about every single thing a modern day "pastor" does, looks like this:

Open you home to the saints. Cook them a meal. Befriend them in your living room. Insist they call you and your wife by your first names. Let them do most of the talking (i.e LISTEN INSTEAD OF PREACH), let their kids play with your kids, show them what a Godly marriage looks like, let them see the joy and bounty of God upon your life, discuss the Word together and openly without dominating the discussion, pray with and not for them, worship with them instead of directing them how to, and etc.

But you might say: that's just fellowship between saints!

Exactly! If the Lord has called you to be a pastor (or anything else), the grace He has given you for such a gifting will manifest everywhere. You won't have to do-do-do-do for the church just to keep the doors open. It will become evident in your loving concern and good treatment of the folks you have over to your house that you are a (not their) pastor. When it comes time for them to listen, they will, but not because you're "the pastor" and that's just what sheep do. But because they know you love them like their Chief Shepherd does, and would lay down your life for them, even if something you might have to say will be difficult for them to hear. They will joyfully yield (as opposed to submit; see the Greek word for submit) because they will see how much you, as a friend and fellow saint, are passionate about THEIR well being.

And I assure you, the saints will appreciate it and you a whole lot more. You won't be so burnt out, so desperate to get a "Word" from the Lord for next Sunday's sermon (Lord, what if there are are visitors?!), so removed from your wife and kids because duty calls (late night board meetings, or whatever), and etc.

You can actually get down to the business of nurturing God's flock the way you were intended to, by the Lord.

I've lived this life, the very one I just described, for the better part of 10 years. It works. It really does. And if you're a pastor, and what I've written speaks to your heart, seek the Lord and find our for yourself.

[votivesoul]

Elisha's school of the prophets:

We all may prophesy one by one, correct? We should all covet to prophesy, correct? If there is any typology in the New Covenant for the School of the Prophets in the Old Testament, it would be coming together as a Body and more successfully learning how to operate in the Gifts of the Spirit, under the leading of the Holy Spirit as the Head of the Church gives the unction to use someone.

I don't see anything in Elisha that would make me think of a New Covenant pastor being in charge of a bunch of people. Instead, I see in Elisha and his school Jesus taking us as His students and learning from Him how to correctly manifest and operate His gifts.

[Esaias]

Sitting someone (or a bunch of someones) down and telling them a bunch of Bible facts can be interesting. Things can be learned, intellectually speaking. Sure, that's a given, but only in much the same way sitting in a math or health class. Until the student is at the board or in the gym, all the theoretical learning doesn't accomplish much.

The saints need to be shown (not just told) how to live for God effectively. They need to be the ones doing the majority of the ministering. Maybe I know how to effectively prepare a sermon or pray with someone to receive the Holy Spirit. Great! But am I showing anyone how? Who am I teaching these skills to? Unless and until I as the pastor/minister/leader/etc. get out of the way, no one I am disciplining will ever grow.

Jesus said "I have meat to eat you know not of...My meat is to do the will of the Father..."

That's how sheep ought to be fed, by actually and literally doing the will of the Father! Let them put their own hands on their own life, their own calling, their own ministry, and get to work. Sitting down for several hours a week while someone else does all the "feeding" so-called, doesn't allow for that.



Can you describe this in a bit more detail? Give some examples, etc?

[votivesoul]

Despising dominion from Jude 1:8...

Look at the Greek word for "dominion". Notice what it is! Really notice!

It's kyrioeta, meaning lordship, from the Greek word kyrios, meaning Lord, as used for God and Jesus Christ and for Sarah calling Abraham "lord" in the New Covenant.

It is also used as the root word for katakyrieuontes, as in "exercise lordship over" in Mark 10:42 and Luke 22:25. As in "exercise dominion over" in Matthew 20:25. All things Jesus said the WORLD does to itself, but is something the CHURCH should never do to each other.

It's also the root for the Greek word kyrieuomen, meaning to "lord it over", as in 2 Corinthians 1:24, which reads in the KJV "Not that we have dominion over your faith".

Interestingly, the KJV translators neglected to translate the Greek DEFINITE article tes before "faith". The verse should literally read "Not that we have lord it over the faith of you".

Here, Paul makes it clear that not even he, the Apostle of the Gentiles, has any right to dominate (from dominion) anyone in their faith, which is to say, in their Christianity.

So what is Jude talking about? Is he talking about people refusing to submit to human authority in the church? NOPE. He's talking about people who DESPISE THE LORDSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST, because they, as false teachers, are antichrist (i.e. attempting to replace Jesus and His teachings with themselves and their (false) teachings).

So, how does a false teacher despise Christ's Lordship? By being a lord over God's heritage. And how does a false teacher lord it over God's heritage?

Note the Greek word kyrios really comes down to the idea of being someone who is of greater privilege and rank than someone else, and therefore, gets to be in control and have their way at the expense of everyone beneath them.

So, when anyone in the church, a pastor or anyone, even an apostle, has greater privileges and rights, and is considered of a higher rank than other saints, even if he's a nice and friendly guy, he's automatically, by word definition alone, a "lord" in the Church.

See why being "over" someone in the church is so wrong?

Until all saints are equal under Christ (last shall be first, first shall be last, i.e. equal) and ALL ARE ONE IN CHRIST JESUS, there will continue to be lord's over God's heritage.

Revival will never truly take place church wide. The church will never mature as one, together. There will be no true unity of the faith (can't have unity with someone who is "more equal than others"--cue Animal Farm reference), which means what?

No perfect man or measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.

[good samaritan]

We think it means weekly sermons or teaching Bible studies. Nope. Experience is the best teacher, not listening to a lecture. The five grace gifts, pastors included, are given by the Lord to the church, to do what? EQUIP the saints so they can themselves learn how to minister and edify the Body. Modern pastors usually don't, and often, can't do that (more on the can't later).

Sitting someone (or a bunch of someones) down and telling them a bunch of Bible facts can be interesting. Things can be learned, intellectually speaking. Sure, that's a given, but only in much the same way sitting in a math or health class. Until the student is at the board or in the gym, all the theoretical learning doesn't accomplish much.

The saints need to be shown (not just told) how to live for God effectively. They need to be the ones doing the majority of the ministering. Maybe I know how to effectively prepare a sermon or pray with someone to receive the Holy Spirit. Great! But am I showing anyone how? Who am I teaching these skills to? Unless and until I as the pastor/minister/leader/etc. get out of the way, no one I am disciplining will ever grow.

Jesus said "I have meat to eat you know not of...My meat is to do the will of the Father..."

That's how sheep ought to be feed. Let them put their own hands on their own life, their own calling, their own ministry, and get to work. Sitting down for several hours a week while someone else does all the "feeding" so-called, doesn't allow for that.

There needs to be a paradigm shift. Consider your own assembly. How many people are effectively serving in the five gifts of grace? How many, even after years, continue to go to the "pastor" for everything? How many "pastors" are worn out, not spending enough time with their families, stressed about all the "sheep under their care", worried about how they can reach their community better, wondering if a new program is going to be successful, hoping enough money comes in this month to pay the bills, and etc.?

Friends, that's not pastoring. That's management. You're in the wrong line of work (lol)!

A pastor is called to the following: tend to God's people with loving, nurturing care while sharing the "sincere milk of the Word". This, more than a sermon, more than Bible study, more than a vision service, more than a building fund, more than a marriage counseling session, more than just about every single thing a modern day "pastor" does, looks like this:

Open you home to the saints. Cook them a meal. Befriend them in your living room. Insist they call you and your wife by your first names. Let them do most of the talking (i.e LISTEN INSTEAD OF PREACH), let their kids play with your kids, show them what a Godly marriage looks like, let them see the joy and bounty of God upon your life, discuss the Word together and openly without dominating the discussion, pray with and not for them, worship with them instead of directly them how to, and etc.

But you might say: that's just fellowship between saints!

Exactly! If the Lord has called you to be a pastor (or anything else), the grace He has given you for such a gifting will manifest everywhere. You won't have to do-do-do-do for the church just to keep the doors open. It will become evident in your loving concern and good treatment of the folks you have over that you are a (not their) pastor. When it comes time for them to listen, they will, but not because you're "the pastor" and that's just what sheep do. But because they know you love them like their Chief Shepherd does, and would lay down your life for them, even if something you might have to say will be difficult for them to hear. They will joyfully yield (as opposed to submit; see the Greek word for submit) because they will see how much you, as a friend and fellow saint, are passionate about THEIR well being.

And I assure you, the saints will appreciate it and you a whole lot more. You won't be so burnt out, so desperate to get a "Word" from the Lord for next Sunday's sermon (Lord, what if there are are visitors?!), so removed from your wife and kids because duty calls (late night board meetings, or whatever), and etc.

You can actually get down to the business of nurturing God's flock the way you were intended.

I've lived this life, the very one I just described, for the better part of 10 years. It works. It really does. And if you're a pastor, and what I've written speaks to your heart, seek the Lord and find our for yourself.

Beautifully put.

I would add that all will not allow you to pastor them. They will shut you out. In most every church, each pastor has a circle of people who the pastor is as involved as you explained. (People who he breaks bread with, who he prays with, who talks the word with, etc...) The problem is that churches are not all made up of all those receptive people. Churches have a spectrum of people and many are not as easy to love as the people you have mentioned. As a shepherd a person has to allow for those hard to deal people as well.

This thread seems very dogmatic to a lot of people who pour their hearts into other people and most do it not for any gain of their own except for the joy of service to God and others. I think we can spend a lot of time trying to define the terms five fold. I think our motivations are usually more important than our methods. I really don't care if people feel there should be a plurality of pastors or just one so long as they are fulfilling the will of God in their lives.

I don't think that scriptures gives specific details on the exact numbers required per assembly nor does it have an exact job description for each calling. Again as has been said all the five fold ministries are necessary and so we must have them including a pastor. Whether you feel that is needful to be plural or singular is for each to decide.

I personally have been a part of churches with a singular pastor who didn't restrict the church people from operating in their callings. I am sure there are people who came from the same church who would give a different story. Sometimes blending people isn't easy and it may even fail for some, but we must remember that God uses our failures as well.

[votivesoul]

Can you describe this in a bit more detail? Give some examples, etc?

I've never held the title "pastor". I've never desired it. I've not "desired the office of a bishop". But, by the grace of God, I have been given the ability to love people, to prefer the brethren, and lay down my life for them.

What my wife and I have done over the years is, we invite people over. My wife makes some organic, home-made chicken noodle soup from her own bone broth, and we sit with our friends at the table and break bread together. We talk, we listen, we share, we laugh, we encourage. Sometimes, we pray together. We don't always pull out the Bible, even though we talk about the Word and what's in it. I get asked a lot of questions. I try to give sound, Biblical answers.

I've never once given anyone an order to do anything. I make suggestions based on circumstances (rarely) or share my own experiences, if I think I can relate. We're transparent. My wife usually minds the kids if the nature of the fellowship turns ministerial. Otherwise, my kids sit on my lap, and I hold them with one hand, even as I hold my Bible with the other.

I let people stay as long as they want (I purposefully try to schedule these get-togethers when I have the next day off of work). Sometimes I have several people over. Someone just one, or maybe a couple, with their kids.

Sometimes I meet someone at Culver's or Panera, and do much the same thing, except less freely because it's a public place.

By the end of the night, I'm usually giving someone a book to read, or recommending a place in the Bible to study out, just for homework, a.k.a. fun.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

I've taught and preached from a pulpit. I've done the lecture format Bible study (more times than I can remember). It just doesn't meet the Lord's criteria for how fellowship should take place. Imagine the Body being one big mouth while everyone else is a bunch of little ears, called to passively spectate while someone else does all the ministering.

I don't care to hear my own voice. I want to hear what God is doing in the lives of others. As much as I want to speak God's words, I'm equally and often more interested in hearing God speak through my brothers and sisters.

Case in point:

I recently ran into an old friend who I had not seen in a few years. We chatted for awhile. He gave me his phone number. I called him the next day and offered to get together, his family and mine. I was willing to have them over to our place, but we were invited there instead. So we went.

We caught up on old times, shared new times, and ate together. I'm not, or ever was their "pastor". But these people have been hurt, mistreated, even abused, and there is and was that recent night a world-weariness to them. They are still smarting. I listened way more than talked. People who are hurt need a good listener. They need to vent their feelings, get things off of their chest.

Everything ended well. They were on the verge of considering some big changes. I didn't tell them what to do, or even give an opinion. I didn't try to "pastor" them, in the modern sense of the word, even though I was actively tending to them like a shepherd would.

Their kids played with mine. We will get together again. No strings attached, no pressure given. But guess what? They trust me and my wife. They know I love them and care about them and have their best interests in mind. Several years ago they came to me and said "If anything should ever happen to us, we would like you to raise our children". They knew that at the time, no one else who so "naturally care[d] for [their] state" (Philippians 2:20).

I was surprised, but then they said it was because I was the one praying with two of their kids when they received the Holy Spirit, and for them, that sealed the deal regarding my character and commitment to them as a family.

What am I saying? Unfortunately, without trying to be anything but a friend, I've been more of a pastor to them then any of the literal "pastors" they've had over the course of 20 some years. And yet, guess what? They don't think of me in those terms, because I don't carry the title, and never did all the so-called pastorly things a "pastor" is supposed to do in order to be a pastor.

I simply cared for them and love/d them as I love myself.

[votivesoul]

Beautifully put.

Thank you.

I would add that all will not allow you to pastor them. They will shut you out. In most every church, each pastor has a circle of people who the pastor is as involved as you explained. (People who he breaks bread with, who he prays with, who talks the word with, etc...) The problem is that churches are not all made up of all those receptive people. Churches have a spectrum of people and many are not as easy to love as the people you have mentioned. As a shepherd a person has to allow for those hard to deal people as well.

I'm not trying to take away from your other comments, but this part really jumped out at me and I wanted to address it, to give you and other readers a different perspective.

In psychology there is such a thing as power differential. It speaks to the different levels of power, perceived or real, that exists between people. This can exist in a home between a husband and wife, between an older and younger sibling, between cousins, and etc. It certainly exists in the schoolyard, and in the office (or any other job).

When someone appears to hold power, there are those who become very shy, even scared. They may have been bullied or abused in someway by someone who was able to take power over them.

They come into the church, and they see a man called "the pastor". He holds the microphone and is undoubtedly, visibly in charge. Nothing there really happens (if we're honest) without his approval.

Immediately, the person in question has a hard time. Even if the "pastor" is kind-hearted, friendly, and non-domineering. Why? Was it something the "pastor" did or said? Probably not, and yet, still, yes, it is.

What is it? It's his inability to recognize and discern that the person in question is going to be at psychological loggerheards with him from the word "go" because of their past.

So, instead of coming up as just another friendly face, he comes up to them or is introduced to them as "the pastor". He's got a nice suit on. He's going to preach the Word and you better listen because ALMIGHTY GOD IS NOW SPEAKING (through the pastor, allegedly).

Even if the person in question responds to the Lord and God saves him or her, he or she will never respond well to the "pastor" and his ministry, or his efforts to "pastor" him or her.

People are terribly fragile. We can't begin to guess at the baggage some are bringing to the church with them. Imagine a sixteen year old girl coming to church with some friends from the youth group for the first time, and the "pastor" kind of looks like her dad, who sexually abused her. Is it the pastor's fault? No, he can't help what he looks like, not really, at least, or how he's perceived in the mind of a damaged girl.

But what if when she came to the meeting, it wasn't apparent to anyone who the "pastor" was? What if, like when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, they didn't even know they were talking with him, i.e. the pastor (made Himself of no reputation, right?)?

Imagine a meeting where the only tangible sense of power and authority was in the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ as Lord?

Jesus would know exactly how to minister to such a girl, without causing any traumatic feelings (a broken reed will He not break...).

And the list goes on.

The "hard to pastor" people are not likely so obstinate and difficult as many make them out to be. They are more likely mis-understood. How can I tell?

Because they make great friends with other saints, and easily receive the ministry of others who don't carry the title "pastor". If they really were so stubborn and hard-hearted, they wouldn't be able to befriend anyone, and no one would be able to reach them, and their time in the church would be woefully short, as God Himself, recognizing their wickedness, pruned them for being unfruitful.

If anyone is interested, I recommend reading the following, very short article. It covers much of what I've just written.

http://www.gloriouschurch.com/pdf/Letter-to-a-Pastor.pdf

[KeptByTheWord]

Votive... would to God there were more men out there with a heart like yours. I know they are out there, perhaps I just haven't met them... but sharing the compassion and love that you have with those whom you meet... is just what the Lord is calling men to do and be for people. May God raise up many more men who are willing to be bread and wine poured out to those hurting and hungry!

[KeptByTheWord]

I know there are others here who are doing what they can for kingdom of the Lord.. mentioning names is a bit dangerous - hoping I don't forget anyone... but Bro. Blume.. Bro. EB.... Bro. Esaias, Bro. GS... Bro. MTD ... Bro. Originalist... and I'm sure there are more... don't be afraid to be the bread and wine poured out to the people... I believe the Lord is raising up more hearts like yours to minister to the communities around you. Praying for all of you, and any I may have missed!

[shazeep]

Votive... would to God there were more men out there with a heart like yours. I know they are out there, perhaps I just haven't met them... but sharing the compassion and love that you have with those whom you meet... is just what the Lord is calling men to do and be for people. May God raise up many more men who are willing to be bread and wine poured out to those hurting and hungry!amen! :D

[mfblume]

Brother Blume do you have a teaching on line of you teaching on ministerial authority?

No I don't.

[mfblume]

The key I have tried stressing over and over again is there is a principle of leadership and guidance of people toward people. And the key point is the authority of God in the person is being recognized not the person. Again, God in a 12 year old ought to be heeded by a world renowned evangelist, when God speaks through such a child. A leader in the kingdom will move people to do more for the Lord and not for the minister.

[mfblume]

Elisha's school of the prophets:

We all may prophesy one by one, correct? We should all covet to prophesy, correct? If there is any typology in the New Covenant for the School of the Prophets in the Old Testament, it would be coming together as a Body and more successfully learning how to operate in the Gifts of the Spirit, under the leading of the Holy Spirit as the Head of the Church gives the unction to use someone.

I don't see anything in Elisha that would make me think of a New Covenant pastor being in charge of a bunch of people. Instead, I see in Elisha and his school Jesus taking us as His students and learning from Him how to correctly manifest and operate His gifts.

That's not my point. It's not being in charge of anyone except in mentorship. Every person needs another person to mentor them, for lack of a better word. Lording over God's people is for the Lord alone, not and human being except Christ.

This really comes to the forefront when we see the Apostles follow the Lord and then people continue in the apostles' doctrine. And the twelve apostles sit on twelve thrones spiritually speaking ruling the Israel of God which is the Church under their doctrine. No one will assume that status in the church except hose twelve, but ther eis the principle of men leading men in mentorship.

[mfblume]

Regarding the relationship of Moses to Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, and etc., I submit the following two points for consideration:

1.) We are not in the same covenant.

The promises are different. The priesthood is different. The way the covenant works is different. The mediator of the covenant is different. The experiences are different. The kingdom is different. The rituals are different. The laws are different. The expected conduct is different. The ethnic groups are different. Salvation is different. The stories are different. The way God operates is different.

The idea that any New Covenant individual should, to one man, that is, a pastor, do for him as Joshua did for Moses, and etc., isn't the testimony of New Covenant teachings (and Old Covenant Messianic Prophecies).

Any picture can be taken incorrectly, In the examples I was showing, the issue is simply mentorship. Spiritual authority rests on people and passes down to people in any covenant. the principle in the old is the same in the new, although details and extents are different.

There is no way that any of us can be for a pastor what Joshua was for Moses, Elisha for Elijah, and etc. They made themselves slaves to these individual men. We are not slaves to a pastor. And there is no way a pastor can be for a man what Moses was for Joshua, or Elijah was for Elisha. And on down the list it goes, wherever we see that one to one relationship in the Old Testament.

At some point it has to be admitted, the comparisons very quickly breakdown, which leads to:

2.) Those Old Covenant relationships do serve as a typology, but not as a typology between a New Covenant pastor and a sheep, but rather, as a typology of Christ and a saint.

Not always.

Elijah led Elisha and Elijah was taken into heaven to leave Elisha doing more than he did - a double portion. Jesus ascended and said we would do greater things than He, and I believe that meant in NUMBER. Elijah did 8 miracles and Elisha did 16.

The same horses and chariots of fire that took Elijah up were all around Elisha on earth later on. The same power that raised and enthroned Jesus is toward us in this earth!

So, Elisha speaks of the church and Elijah is the Lord.

And Elisha likewise had many following him who were the students of the prophets.

All those Old Covenant men (Moses, Elijah, etc.) were hand-selected by God, and had His Spirit put upon them with power. They represent the Christ-type. Additionally, their servants (Joshua, Elisha) were handpicked by God, too. They also had God's Spirit put upon them with power. This is the saint-type.

But note: They acted as replacements of and for their masters, i.e. they assumed the Christ-type, when the time came. Joshua replaced Moses when Moses died. Elisha replaced Elijah when he died. They transitioned between types.

Yes, and similarly, Jesus left and gave us his mantle.


If Moses, et al, are merely representative of a New Covenant "pastor", he, the pastor is fulfilling the Christ-type. But guess what? Since Christ has come, no more Old Covenant types are needed. The real deal has arrived, and no one but the entire Body of Christ can be His type, on earth (1 John 4:17).

It's not a type for saints to be mentored as the sons of the prophets were by Elisha after Elijah left. We see the identical thing in the church.

Additionally, since many saints in today's world, and in times past, have all their life been "under a pastor", they never once get to transition into the Christ-type, the way Joshua, et al, did, EVEN THOUGH THE SPIRIT OF GOD HAS COME UPON THEM WITH POWER.

No type is perfect. But I am not talking about types here. I am speaking about a principle of leadership and mentoring. Not lording over anyone.

This is where the common model breaks down. Are there pastors in the church? Yes, as much as any of the other gifts of grace according to Ephesians 4:11. But does that mean that a pastor has authority over anyone or even in the church?

Where are the words pastor/s and power/authority linked in the New Covenant teachings (Note that 1 Timothy 5:17 doesn't count since the Greek word for "rule" is proestōtes, which means "to take the lead")?

Authority (usually power in the KJV) is always only linked to Jesus and the Apostles (Paul makes reference to his authority in the Gospel).

Bishops and elders are called to be leaders, to stand out in front as examples--as they model their life correctly, their life (more than their words or what they teach) preaches a message to the saints. A pastor/shepherd is called to do what? Feed God's sheep. But how?

We think it means weekly sermons or teaching Bible studies. Nope. Experience is the best teacher, not listening to a lecture.

The word is the greatest form of pastoral ministry and Paul told Timothy to preach the word. The word is above the name of Jesus. And the issue, I think that stands out is the word can be in many forms, but it is still the word. NOTHING supercedes the anointed spoke word.

The five grace gifts, pastors included, are given by the Lord to the church, to do what? EQUIP the saints so they can themselves learn how to minister and edify the Body. Modern pastors usually don't, and often, can't do that, especially when someone in the assembly isn't called a to pastoral calling, but rather, to be an evangelist or prophet, or etc. Pastors train pastors, prophets train prophets, etc.

I agree to an extent. But pastors are not meant to only train pastors. Shepherds do not shepherd shepherds. They shepherd sheep. And we are all of the fold. In that a sense everyone needs a pastor. I think we can graduate form that, though. Everyone can pastor to a degree just as Timothy could fulfil the office of an evangelist without primarily being called to be an evangelist.

Sitting someone (or a bunch of someones) down and telling them a bunch of Bible facts can be interesting. Things can be learned, intellectually speaking. Sure, that's a given, but only in much the same way sitting in a math or health class. Until the student is at the board or in the gym, all the theoretical learning doesn't accomplish much.

Sitting and intellectually learning from someone is not necessarily sitting beneath a pastor. God speaks in a living manner, putting words into the heart of the minister that apply directly to who is there. This isn't about quarterlies being dictated to a people, but a man of God hear form the Lord for what He wants spoke, and saying things that he simply does not know even directly apply to any particular situation, while the people are hit between the eyes. That's what I call pastoring. And teaching people to operate in their gifts and showing them how it's done. Of course, that applies to work outside the pulpit in one on one and one with family as well. But it's way beyond intellectual transference of information, to say the least!

The saints need to be shown (not just told) how to live for God effectively. They need to be the ones doing the majority of the ministering. Maybe I know how to effectively prepare a sermon or pray with someone to receive the Holy Spirit. Great! But am I showing anyone how? Who am I teaching these skills to? Unless and until I as the pastor/minister/leader/etc. get out of the way, no one I am disciplining will ever grow.

Of course. What you described in that "pastoring" is not really pastoring a congregation. We need top move in the Spirit, teach people how to operate in the gifts , and make time and room for it in a meeting, as well as other gatherings. There's so much to it.

Jesus said "I have meat to eat you know not of...My meat is to do the will of the Father..."

That's how sheep ought to be fed, by actually and literally doing the will of the Father! Let them put their own hands on their own life, their own calling, their own ministry, and get to work. Sitting down for several hours a week while someone else does all the "feeding" so-called, doesn't allow for that.

The gatherings each week are necessary. The early church did it. There must be that spoken word. It created the worlds! And to create worlds of ministries in the church, the messages are things to actually be lived out, and reminded to the people later for them to practice. This causes the people to come to you and say the truths are changing the way they live in everyday life. It's not information, but life directions. People actually handle life differently as a result, or what they heard was really not worth hearing.

My burden is to see people grow in their own gifts by helping them discover them, practice them, and learn to handle life by self denial and really taking up their crosses. Seeing their characters change and watching them grow and get victory over personal glitches and quirks.

There needs to be a paradigm shift. Consider your own assembly. How many people are effectively serving in the five gifts of grace? How many, even after years, continue to go to the "pastor" for everything? How many "pastors" are worn out, not spending enough time with their families, stressed about all the "sheep under their care", worried about how they can reach their community better, wondering if a new program is going to be successful, hoping enough money comes in this month to pay the bills, and etc.?

Friends, that's not pastoring. That's management. You're in the wrong line of work (lol)!

A pastor is called to the following: tend to God's people with loving, nurturing care while sharing the "sincere milk of the Word". This, more than a sermon, more than Bible study, more than a vision service, more than a building fund, more than a marriage counseling session, more than just about every single thing a modern day "pastor" does, looks like this:

I describe a pastor as someone who teaches the people to overcome their weaknesses by teaching them who they are in Christ enough to see them apply that and make changes in how they react to life. The messages God gives me to give to them all focus on how we can live greater and more victorious lives. It is basically spiritual maturity. Teaching them to cast out devils and heal the sick is one thing, and necessary, but moreso is the need to lead them to carry their crosses and in everyday simple situations in life, at home and at work, overcome their fleshly weaknesses of temper, fear and hatred, and begin to see God live through them in the world where it counts.

Basically, teaching them how to let God live through them as per Gal 2:20 is the work of church meetings. I would say that is ultimate in a church meeting setting! But there's so much more outside the church.

Gal 2:20 KJV I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

[Evang.Benincasa]

No I don't.

Would you put something together soon?

Then send it to me. :)

[mfblume]

Would you put something together soon?

Then send it to me. :)

Will try!

[Godsdrummer]

We talk about scripture backing, but I can find no where in scripture that directs the church that there is to be a singular leader over the local assembly. How has the pastor the least of the gifts become the singular leader over so many churches? Especially when the term pastor is only used one time in all the NT.

Going one step father every time leadership is spoken of in the NT we find the plural terms not singular. Paul did not instruct Timothy to set an elder over the churches but rather elders.

Scripture does not say submit to the pastor anywhere, it does say submit one to another.

I have to say that we don't have an answer to the original question, because the spiritual authority set up in most churches is not biblical.

Sadly the church has become just another religious sect and not the vibrant moving ecclesia it was in the first century. When the church was persecuted in Jerusalem it grew in leaps and bounds. Because the saints that fled Jerusalem spread the good news. These were not apostles nor preachers. One could easily say thy did not have leaders yet they saw many believe. Who were these saints pastors?

[mfblume]

I see no least of gifts. They're all equally needed.

[good samaritan]

I think we don't use the original terms of some of these ministries although they still exist we identify them differently. When I hear someone called a prophet I think of someone who predicts future events. When they spoke in tongues and prophesied in the scriptures I feel they were speaking the word with an unction from God just like some preaching today (it doesn't have to always be future tense). God gave these ministries to the church and if we are still the church the ministry definitely still actively exist today.

Also the fact that if people refer to themselves as an apostle or a prophet we think it is arrogant. I agree with Bro. Blume I think the ministries are all equally important. Yet every one seems to hold some in higher regards then others. I think this is a "demean everyone called pastor" thread, but we all may be off in our interpretations a little.

As for plural elders on in a single assemble that is conjecture. When Paul spoke to the elders or bishops of a city as a plurality of leaders there is no way to prove there wasn't also a plurality of assemblies within that city. As CC said in a earlier post if you have multiple pastor/elders in your church and it works then great. If your church has a single pastor/elder in your church great so long as the church is doing what it is supposed to do the way it is supposed to do it.

Call it what you will, but if someone comes in your life speaking the word of God you better submit (no matter who are how many). It is not because the man is above you, but because God is (Don't kill the messenger). If you have a pastor of your local assembly who you find in error go to him about it. If he refuses to listen do what the scriptures say to do concerning someone in a fault.

Don't disrespect the the leadership of the local church, but don't depend on him to give you a relationship with God either. Walking with the Lord is personal but we all need instructors in some capacity or another in every walk of our life even people that currently hold a position in leadership.

[Monterrey]

We talk about scripture backing, but I can find no where in scripture that directs the church that there is to be a singular leader over the local assembly. How has the pastor the least of the gifts become the singular leader over so many churches? Especially when the term pastor is only used one time in all the NT.

Going one step father every time leadership is spoken of in the NT we find the plural terms not singular. Paul did not instruct Timothy to set an elder over the churches but rather elders.

Scripture does not say submit to the pastor anywhere, it does say submit one to another.

I have to say that we don't have an answer to the original question, because the spiritual authority set up in most churches is not biblical.

Sadly the church has become just another religious sect and not the vibrant moving ecclesia it was in the first century. When the church was persecuted in Jerusalem it grew in leaps and bounds. Because the saints that fled Jerusalem spread the good news. These were not apostles nor preachers. One could easily say thy did not have leaders yet they saw many believe. Who were these saints pastors?

The Greek is the word poimen, which is used 18 times in the new Testament, just saying.

G4166
ποιμήν
poimēn
poy-mane'
Of uncertain affinity; a shepherd (literally or figuratively): - shepherd, pastor.

Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me, (1722) this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd,4166 and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

[mfblume]

Plainly put, the reason PASTOR is focused upon more is due to lack of supernatural moving in certain circles. We have non-prophet organizations because the gifts of the Spirit are not in operation too much. Don't get me wrong.... all focus on gifts of the Spirit is not good, since the FRUIT is what determines maturity, just as in a tree. But still, the gifts require stepping out in faith and that lacks so much in a materialistically ridden mind.

It's easy to the flesh to accept the shepherd role since there's so many visibly practical things about a genuine shepherd, not one in name alone.

[Godsdrummer]

We talk about scripture backing, but I can find no where in scripture that directs the church that there is to be a singular leader over the local assembly. How has the pastor the least of the gifts become the singular leader over so many churches? Especially when the term pastor is only used one time in all the NT.

Sorry if the words do not get expressed when coming from my brain to my fingers some times. But what I meant to say is the word in is only translated "pastor" one time rather than shepherd.

Going one step father every time leadership is spoken of in the NT we find the plural terms not singular. Paul did not instruct Timothy to set an elder over the churches but rather elders.

Scripture does not say submit to the pastor anywhere, it does say submit one to another.

I have to say that we don't have an answer to the original question, because the spiritual authority set up in most churches is not biblical.

Sadly the church has become just another religious sect and not the vibrant moving ecclesia it was in the first century. When the church was persecuted in Jerusalem it grew in leaps and bounds. Because the saints that fled Jerusalem spread the good news. These were not apostles nor preachers. One could easily say thy did not have leaders yet they saw many believe. Who were these saints pastors?

The Greek is the word poimen, which is used 18 times in the new Testament, just saying.

G4166
ποιμήν
poimēn
poy-mane'
Of uncertain affinity; a shepherd (literally or figuratively): - shepherd, pastor.

Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me, (1722) this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd,4166 and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

Not sure what your wanting to get across with the passage above, But Christ is our shepherd as spoken many times through out the NT. And if someone is gifted to be a shepherd by all means let them learn what a shepherd is and act like one.

[Godsdrummer]

I see no least of gifts. They're all equally needed.

Mike I agree that statement did not come out as my mind was thinking. There is no least gift! Neither is there a greater gift, which is why they are to work together. All within the local assembly.

Basically I think we have it backwards, when we call the gift the ministry. The Saints are to be the ministers, and the gifts of ministry are given to equip the saints for that ministry, which is something I found lacking in most churches.
Most churches in my life the emphasis was getting people "saved" then straightening them out. Not ministering to the lost and one another.

[mfblume]

Mike I agree that statement did not come out as my mind was thinking. There is no least gift! Neither is there a greater gift, which is why they are to work together. All within the local assembly.

Basically I think we have it backwards, when we call the gift the ministry. The Saints are to be the ministers, and the gifts of ministry are given to equip the saints for that ministry, which is something I found lacking in most churches.
Most churches in my life the emphasis was getting people "saved" then straightening them out. Not ministering to the lost and one another.

Amen. We need preachers to show us how to let God use us and work through all members. THAT is a pastor. Feeding sheep the bread and wine of how the work of the cross puts them all in places of power... the same power that resurrected and enthroned Jesus! Imagine what we could do big that was preached to us steadily!

[Godsdrummer]

I think we don't use the original terms of some of these ministries although they still exist we identify them differently. When I hear someone called a prophet I think of someone who predicts future events. When they spoke in tongues and prophesied in the scriptures I feel they were speaking the word with an unction from God just like some preaching today (it doesn't have to always be future tense). God gave these ministries to the church and if we are still the church the ministry definitely still actively exist today.

Paul directly tell us what a prophet is or does in the book of Cor.
1Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
Before I left the UPCI though I had heard some call themselves a prophet I don't think we or I knew just what it was to be a prophet or prophecy. I was led to a church in which the gift of prophecy was strong. On the first Sunday I went there the one of the pastors spoke a word to me. I don't recall any of his exact words he spoke to me, because the spirit of God came over me and I could just worship God. But from that day my whole outlook and life was changed. Much like the day if not more so when I first received the spirit of God in my youth.


Also the fact that if people refer to themselves as an apostle or a prophet we think it is arrogant. I agree with Bro. Blume I think the ministries are all equally important. Yet every one seems to hold some in higher regards then others. I think this is a "demean everyone called pastor" thread, but we all may be off in our interpretations a little.

For me it does not matter what someone calls themselves Jesus said you shall know them by their fruits. I don't only speak from study but experience, and it is because of experience that I feel that the term pastor is not speaking of a singular pastor. Before I let my UPCI credentials laps, I was ask to be the assistant pastor of a church. Within the first six months I ask the pastor to let me step down, and it was in the same time period I let my credentials laps. There were reasons that I won't go into, but I no longer wanted the title, nor any title for that matter. My family stayed for ten years with the church. During that time I still fulfilled the duties of a minister without title. Because the church still looked to me as a associate minister and assistant to the pastor.

The point is the gifting Paul wrote to Ephesians are not positions of authority as much as gifting's of ministry given to equip the saints for their own ministry.


As for plural elders on in a single assemble that is conjecture. When Paul spoke to the elders or bishops of a city as a plurality of leaders there is no way to prove there wasn't also a plurality of assemblies within that city. As CC said in a earlier post if you have multiple pastor/elders in your church and it works then great. If your church has a single pastor/elder in your church great so long as the church is doing what it is supposed to do the way it is supposed to do it.

I would have to disagree, the very church in Jerusalem was presided over by the apostles, nowhere do we find that there was only one as pastor, that is conjecture.

Call it what you will, but if someone comes in your life speaking the word of God you better submit (no matter who are how many). It is not because the man is above you, but because God is (Don't kill the messenger). If you have a pastor of your local assembly who you find in error go to him about it. If he refuses to listen do what the scriptures say to do concerning someone in a fault.

Don't disrespect the the leadership of the local church, but don't depend on him to give you a relationship with God either. Walking with the Lord is personal but we all need instructors in some capacity or another in every walk of our life even people that currently hold a position in leadership.

No one is saying disrespect the leadership, the only thing I am saying is the leadership should not rest solely on the shoulders of one man.

[Godsdrummer]

Plainly put, the reason PASTOR is focused upon more is due to lack of supernatural moving in certain circles. We have non-prophet organizations because the gifts of the Spirit are not in operation too much. Don't get me wrong.... all focus on gifts of the Spirit is not good, since the FRUIT is what determines maturity, just as in a tree. But still, the gifts require stepping out in faith and that lacks so much in a materialistically ridden mind.

It's easy to the flesh to accept the shepherd role since there's so many visibly practical things about a genuine shepherd, not one in name alone.

Mike I agree to a point on what you said, but I have seen to many pastors that were worried about loss of their own authority at the helm of their personal church that they would only let the spirit use other within the realm of their authority.

[mfblume]

Mike I agree to a point on what you said, but I have seen to many pastors that were worried about loss of their own authority at the helm of their personal church that they would only let the spirit use other within the realm of their authority.

Pastors worried about losing control never were real pastors, or backslid from a real calling and degraded into hirelings.

[shazeep]

amen.
I think we don't use the original terms of some of these ministries although they still exist we identify them differently. When I hear someone called a prophet I think of someone who predicts future events. When they spoke in tongues and prophesied in the scriptures I feel they were speaking the word with an unction from God just like some preaching today (it doesn't have to always be future tense). God gave these ministries to the church and if we are still the church the ministry definitely still actively exist today...great post! I would say that there are good arguments for Apostles being eye-witnesses of Christ, and possibly better arguments for Prophets needing an open canon to prophesy into. I hesitate now to insist that the Church of today mirror the First Church; we have several clues that the Holy Spirit was "poured out" at that time, in a way that we look for in vain now--not saying that one could not have the Spirit come upon them, understand, but we witness no crowds in awe of miracles, nor xenoglossy, etc.

[Monterrey]

Not sure what your wanting to get across with the passage above, But Christ is our shepherd as spoken many times through out the NT. And if someone is gifted to be a shepherd by all means let them learn what a shepherd is and act like one.

You said the word pastor was only used once in the NT, that was a mistruth.

It is mentioned 18 times, but you have to look at the greek to see it.

It appeared that you were trying to use the idea that the use of the word once was some sort of justification to not use it today as doctrine.

Just saying.

[Godsdrummer]

You said the word pastor was only used once in the NT, that was a mistruth.

It is mentioned 18 times, but you have to look at the greek to see it.

It appeared that you were trying to use the idea that the use of the word once was some sort of justification to not use it today as doctrine.

Just saying.

Again I responded that the word was only translated Pastor once the rest of the time it is translated shepherd.

[thephnxman]

Those who believe in the “one-man rule”, do so only by tradition.

We must admit that “context” and “tradition” are incompatible. Context is
formed by like beliefs, while tradition could be defined as evolved and/or
corrupted context: which has been commonly been displayed here. If we
would “rightly divide” the scriptures, then would we be able to differentiate
between the two (context and tradition).

The Ministry has been given TO THE CHURCH, ”…for the perfecting of
the saints; for the work of the ministry; and for the edifying of the body
of Christ.” The Church has been placed and given TO THE WORLD, to
”…show forth the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness and
unto His marvelous light.” If the Ministry does the job commended to it;
then those who are called will hear the Church; those who hear the Church
will hear the Lord; and those who hear the Lord, will hear the Father.

Heb. 13:7
”Remember them which have the rule over (preceded/go before)
you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow,
considering the end of their conversation.” That is not speaking about
taking someone to “church” to have him hear the gospel by the pastor or
preacher. The Church must KNOW the gospel and be able administer the
same to the world; the Church must also be able to lead by example! But
tradition has taken away the true calling of the Church to “empower” a
limited number of men behind the pulpit.

”Judge righteous judgment.”

[Monterrey]

Again I responded that the word was only translated Pastor once the rest of the time it is translated shepherd.

Okay, I must have misread it.

Sorry.

[Aquila]

In our fellowship (we are house churchers), "pastors" are not professionals with an office, salary, nice suits, a pulpit, and CEO-like authority over the body. In our fellowship, pastors are more like spiritual mentors or guides that assist with one's spiritual walk and development. We also call them "elders".

Must one have an "elder" over them to be "saved"? Perhaps not. However, having an elder to turn to and lean on is truly beneficial and can help one avoid the pitfalls that many Christians often fall into along their journey.

[thephnxman]

In our fellowship (we are house churchers), "pastors" are not professionals with an office, salary, nice suits, a pulpit, and CEO-like authority over the body. In our fellowship, pastors are more like spiritual mentors or guides that assist with one's spiritual walk and development. We also call them "elders".
Must one have an "elder" over them to be "saved"? Perhaps not. However, having an elder to turn to and lean on is truly beneficial and can help one avoid the pitfalls that many Christians often fall into along their journey.

The Ministry (including the pastor) is much needed in the Church.

The problem arises because we are so indoctrinated by denominal
doctrine, that the proper ministerial duties of the Ministry seem to have
almost been forgotten...and the "pastors" have become dependent on
traditional morés: and the rest dependent and submissive to the "pastor".

From where comes the Ministry, if not from among the elders? And the
elders, if not from those in the congregation who have matured in the
faith? And the congregation: from the ministering of the gospel by the
Church to those lost and dying in the world.

"I write to you children...fathers...young men..."

[votivesoul]

The trouble that has arisen in the movement is the conflation of the the pastoral gifting with the other four giftings. The "pastor" has become the catch-all term for the entire ministry.

Many of the instructions Paul gave to Timothy and Titus were not instructions telling those men how to be good pastors. Timothy and Titus were not pastors. They were apostles. They appointed bishops and elders (i.e. pastors) according to the qualifications Paul gave them.

But what we've done is, we've read the badly called "pastoral epistles" and have assumed that the local pastor or pastors of an assembly are supposed to be doing the very things Paul told Timothy and Titus to do. This isn't so. Those instructions are for Apostles.

There are many men in the movement with real invitations from the Lord to be Apostle or Prophets or Evangelists, and they keep trying to be "pastors" because they and much of the movement with them, don't know how to separate the gifts into their respective categories.

But, because of the conflation, much confusion has arisen, and now, sadly, many people, without realizing it, read Ephesians 2:20 to read like this:

20. And are built upon the foundation of the [pastors] and [district officials]...

I think it meet to say that those posting here that seem, in the minds of some, to be anti-pastor are not really anti-pastor. Rather, we want to keep the proper New Testament perspective. We want to see the foundation restored. Power, or authority, for lack of a better word, doesn't belong to the pastor, it belongs to Apostles and Prophets.

1 Corinthians 12:28,

28. 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.

Governments, or pilotage, is second to last on this list. And yet, the Apostolic Church gives great precedent to speaking in tongues and to governments. The system is backwards.

But there are those of us, having seen it, are trying by the grace of God to right the ship, before it's too late.