Originally Posted by leftcoast1 (Post 1601916)

Many of the right wingers put pastors on such a high pedestal to where the individual saints will not have a word to say for themselves in judgement. Only the pastor will "give an account."

There was a fairly recent sermon preached by a now unnamed individual who said "there is a not a place in the Bible where the people chose their pastor."

WHOA!

This is a strange doctrine even within the UPCI ranks.

Some of these folks will point to the election of Judas' replacement and how the apostilles cast lots. This pretty much confirms that other Bishops will vote among themselves for the pastoral replacement at another church?

When did the church become the House of Representatives to where the average person does not have a voice? The is the primary issue with unlearned men joining the clergy and correlates to my original point. Various offshoots of the UPCI have become a good ole boys club void of true leadership.

Originally Posted by leftcoast1 (Post 1601916)

Many of the right wingers put pastors on such a high pedestal to where the individual saints will not have a word to say for themselves in judgement. Only the pastor will "give an account."

There was a fairly recent sermon preached by a now unnamed individual who said "there is a not a place in the Bible where the people chose their pastor."

WHOA!

This is a strange doctrine even within the UPCI ranks.

Some of these folks will point to the election of Judas' replacement and how the apostilles cast lots. This pretty much confirms that other Bishops will vote among themselves for the pastoral replacement at another church?

When did the church become the House of Representatives to where the average person does not have a voice? The is the primary issue with unlearned men joining the clergy and correlates to my original point. Various offshoots of the UPCI have become a good ole boys club void of true leadership.

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968 (Post 1601921)

Acts 1:23-26
[23] And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
[24] And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men , shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
[25] That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
[26] And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Who are the “they” in this portion of scripture?

Was it everyone in the upper room? I personally don’t believe so. I believe it was the apostles. This is a good reference that each Pastor should hold dear when he is coming to the end of his Pastorship.

Originally Posted by votivesoul (Post 1601927)

Honestly, if an argument is going to be made against nepotism in the church, particularly against ministers raising up their sons to replace them after they are gone, I think some Scriptures needs to be looked at, namely these:

Philippians 2:19-22,



Here, Paul acknowledges Timothy before the Philippians as someone who ministered with him as closely as if Timothy had been his own biological offspring, thus suggesting that if Timothy had indeed been born of Paul's flesh, and not just of the Spirit, Paul would have used Timothy in ministry in a way that suggests dads are expected to raise up their sons to work with them and perhaps even replace them after they are gone.

See also: 1 Timothy 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:18, 2 Timothy 1:2

Likewise, take a look at Titus:

Titus 1:4,



Paul thought of Titus as his particular son. Again, not by biological descent, but through the Spirit. Yet, Paul, who raised and nurtured Titus in the things of the Spirit and the common faith of Christ, made use of him as a son, by sending him throughout the Mediterranean.

See also: 2 Corinthians 8:23

Do these verses then speak of nepotism? If not of biological offspring, but then perhaps of spiritual fellowship and ministry?

The people Paul entrusted the most to carry on after him once he was gone he considered his sons. He passed on to them the responsibility of his ministry.

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister (Post 1601932)

No brother. This is not nepotism. It is in fact, the opposite of nepotism.

You’re way smarter than that.

Originally Posted by votivesoul (Post 1601934)

I am not saying it is or it is not, but that those verses needed to be entered into the discussion. And please do not presume upon my intelligence! :D

However, I will say this:

Definitionally, this is nepotism:

From: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/nepotism

- favouritism shown to relatives or close friends by those with power or influence

Paul definitely showed favoritism to close friends, those he considered fellow laborers and sons in the Gospel. Just because they were not biological relatives of the flesh, doesn't mean nepotism wasn't at play.

Doesn't mean it was, either. I am leaving it up to the members to hash it out. I am merely bringing up what seems to be unconsidered issues. So, you are welcome to make the case, one way or the other.

Originally Posted by returnman (Post 1601899)

I can appreciate your loyalty to whomever you serve under and also a man's labor should be recognized and rewarded but principles are either followed or not. Are we building earthly kingdoms or heavenly? The way some of this operates you'd very likely have these churches stay in single family control for 150 years.