Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

This subject has been discussed at length, so sometimes it's best to break it down bite-size. When trying to determine the role of a Pastor in the New Testament, it would be helpful to read the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1st and 2nd Timothy). This is not meant to support particular standards, but in reading these books, it clearly shows the job of the pastor and his right/license to ask specific things of the followers of Christ with regard to their current culture.

An example would be with regard to slaves and masters. Or maybe widows. Or maybe who should be used in ministry (so much for those who say use whoever you want regardless if they are saved or not). There's a wealth of resource in these epistles. The pastor is not a lame duck that smiles and says "amen." On the flip side, what was the role of the elders in each church? That's a better question.

Again, this was not intended to pardon any doctrinal discussions concerning specific standards that are purported to have support of Scripture (pants, jewelry, hair, etc). But Christian Living is a major goal of the NT Pastors. Thoughts?

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

And what does "for they give account for your soul" mean to you?

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

To me this means Elders give an account for how they instruct and nurture the flock of God.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

I would take this to mean also to mean that Pastors will give an account in that must make sure that what they teach and preach is biblical.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

I definitely think a pastor's authority is evident without question in the NT. I think the concern is how we apply poor exegesis on scriptures and enforce the results on the Body.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

What type of authority, and how much?

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Could Pastoral authority mean authority to instruct in the word,and authority to instruct the saints in biblical instruction,but not authority as overlords and dictators ?

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Try as I might I have been unable to find Pastoral Authority Part 898,229

I just hate missing an episode....

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

[QUOTE=GrowingPains;760965]This subject has been discussed at length, so sometimes it's best to break it down bite-size. When trying to determine the role of a Pastor in the New Testament, it would be helpful to read the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1st and 2nd Timothy). This is not meant to support particular standards, but in reading these books, it clearly shows the job of the pastor and his right/license to ask specific things of the followers of Christ with regard to their current culture.

It does? Where pray tell me does it give the pastor or what ever one calls him the right to ask... Im not saying that there are not times that he needs to ask things of the followers but that is just the thing to ask.
I cannot understand how someone can be so indoctrinated in one way by tradition and man teaching that they can read something a hundred times an still not see the truth in the word of God.

Example I have heard all my life the authority of the pastor is that one must obey him as long as he is not preaching false doctrine or asking you to sin. And that to not to obey is to put yourself in rebellion which as everyone knows is as the sin of witchcraft in the eyes of God.

Here is something to consider as you set this mere man up on his lofty perch. And blindly follow him on his word alone. Without questioning the word he preaches. Oh I just have anew thought I used to get so upset when people would tell me I was part of a cult because I would give so much obedience to a man and obey him as if his word was law. Note the verse below most specificly the word obey.


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.


peithō
pi'-tho
A primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty): - agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) content, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.
Understand we are not to blindly obey any man just because of his position but we are to be persuaded. This means we question the word he/she preaches and study things out for ourselves.

And while one is studying the authority of the leaders go back and look up the meaning of some of the words in the chapters given, Titus, Timothy. And finally study Ephesians where Paul gives the line of authority and it does not include the ministry at all.
The ministry is given to the church to equip and edify the church, as a gift. The church is not given to the ministry to rule. Remember We are the body Christ he is the head not the minister.
Just my opinion sorry to come across so vehimanitly

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

A few things:

1 - Why do we call these epistles (Titus, both Timothy) the "Pastoral Epistles"? The word "pastor" does not even occur in any of them. Are we making an assumption based on our current congregational model/paradigm that Titus and Timothy were lone, singular-rule pastors of congregations as we know them? Do we have either scriptural context or historical accounts that would verify such a statement?

2 - The word "pastor" does not occur in the New Testament canon. The plural form, "pastors" does however - but only twice. We've allowed centuries of tradition to form our logic, and thus we just assume that the correct model for the church is for the main body (laity) be under the authority and leadership of a figurehead (minister), who serves as our vicar. He speaks for God to us, and we ask questions of him in God's stead. But is that the real NT model? There was one example of this in the scripture, but it wasn't referred to favorable. Diotrephes loved to have the pre-eminence... he had to be in charge... he spoke badly about the other ministers around him... wouldn't allow the saints to fellowship outside his congregation. Sound familiar? Check out 3 John.

3 - How can you say that a pastor's authority is evident without question in the NT? Can you show us? And it needs to be something more than Hebrews 13.17, because it takes a pretty impressive scriptural acrobatics to make the assumption that the writer of Hebrews was absolutely talking about single pastor rule. The entire book of Hebrews doesn't mention the pastor at all. Are we making an assumption based on our current model? Are we interpreting scripture through our 21st century understanding?

The church has ONE HEAD... Jesus Christ (not some earthly potentate)
There is ONE MEDIATOR between God and man... Jesus Christ (not a pastor/vicar)

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Scott, though I believe you are right, the problem is the context: obey them that have the rule over you, for they give account for your souls. This obviously has something to do with the saints first and foremost. What you have said is right as well, though not the primary meaning of the verse. Do you agree?

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

That is the question. Not to become a dictator, but to admonish and provoke toward good works. What did Paul say in the letters? That's are greatest clue. If a pastor is giving account for your soul, I'd say God also gave him some authority. It's not authority to go outside of scripture, but it is God's model leave his undershepherds with the authority. They are not lords, but they have a sobering responsibility to preserve the church from sin, false doctrine and division.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

For the sake of having discussion, allow me to respond.

That they are called Pastoral epistles has been true for centuries. They were words given to men who were over particular churches, as well as instructions regarding how to pick elders and deacons. Any seminary class will be proof to this, and any serious scholars, without question, refer to Titus and 1/2 Timothy as the Pastoral Epistles. Please read these books. Then I ask you, who were Titus and who were Timothy? These evidently were sharing Paul's letters (as we do today) with the church -- including instructions that were intended to preserve the image of Christians as not of mean-spirited rebels, but of Christ. This is why he instructs women's role in the church, the relationship between slave and servant,

Perhaps the word "pastor" has taken by tradition, but understood what it was intended. NT uses the word overseer, elders, etc... Who, then, was the overseer? These young men were even instructed to put out troublemakers (kick them out!), but to others to work with in gentleness. Timothy is encouraged to take special attention to his learning, study and teaching, because "by doing this you will save yourself and your hearers." Timothy is told to "preach the word." He's given license to reprove, rebuke and exhort. He's told to do the work of an evangel.

Please read these (not that you never have), but again, and you will see how I can say there is clear pastoral authority granted in scripture... to reprove, rebuke, exhort, teach, preach, instruct in doctrine, kick out troublemakers, do the work of the evangelist... Titus 2:15 says to "rebuke with all authority."

While Christ is the head and mediator on behalf of our salvation, there is an obvious model in the NT that we can't ignore that has been gifted to the church for our sake.

How do you explain Heb 13? This can't be talking about the King, because he doesn't account for your soul. So what's your explanation?

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

I understand where you're coming from and what you're saying. I am very familiar with the passages to which you are referring, and have (I think) a pretty good understanding of what Paul is saying in them. Again, however, I would ask you to answer my questions.

I understand that centuries of tradition have called these "pastoral letters", but honestly, it's based on a weak assumption that Titus and Timothy were actual pastors as we know pastors today. We're putting our 21st century understanding into it instead of reading what it says. Again, you're assuming a one-man ruler over the church, and I don't believe the NT bears that out. There's an entire five-fold ministry that needs to be accounted for as well as the elders.

I'll answer more when I have more time, and can handle the Word responsibly (rather than just trying to answer off the cuff from my cell phone... LOL).

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Thanks. Looking forward to your response. The text doesn't seem to indicate that Timothy and Titus aren't pastors either, nor does it indicate they shared the same position as someone else in these churches. The letters were written directly to them.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

That some preachers need to get some polish and stop saying things off the top of their heads. They are accountable for the soul's they lead. That is the bottom line to that statement.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Neck, I agree with this statement -- however, that's not the context of the verse.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

To me this verse seems to be saying,obey those who lead you in the word,for they keep watch for your souls,as men who must give an account for the concern for the souls that they teach and preach to.
Those who have oversight over a flock of God must give an account of how concerned they were for the saints well-being.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

An elder, bishop, pastor-any church leader really-should preach the word (2 Tim 2:4). Some believe that includes certain "standards".

They are to "reprove, rebuke and exhort". However, that quote doesn't equate to "blast, blast, blast." :) (Sorry, pet peeve of mine.) Reproof is gentle correction. Rebuke is more "ye generation of vipers". Exhortation is uplifting and encouraging people to live for God.

They are to lead by example. (1 tim 3, Titus 1, 1 Tim 4:12) Their families are actively involved in their ministry, as they are to have godly wives and children who are to lead by example as well. They are to be patient, slow to anger... in the New Testament, they were setting a course for the church of God. They were not to place undue restrictions on their people, however. (1 Tim 4:3)

They are to teach (1 tim 3:2) and to preach (2 tim 4:2) Jesus. They are not there to lift up themselves or make a show of or by their buildings or their activities or lifestyles, but to walk humbly, giving honor to God as His servants. (Mt 6:1-6, Mt 23:11, 2 cor 4:5, Acts 28:31...)

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Is it abusive for them to ask their leaders not to wear tank tops? Is that decent under the admonishment of being modest? We make it sound as if they are to be an example only, but to be silent on what they are an example of. Don't we all draw lines somewhere? Sure, uncut hair and others have a place for debate about whether or not they are scriptural, but matters of modesty? And just how modest is women's pants? I know, not enough to ban pants, but the greater issue is modesty and gender distinction.

I'm opening a can, I know... so perhaps let's stick to the first part of my questions.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

I didn't say that they were abusive to admonish people to good works. In 1 Tim 2:10, 1 Tim 5:10, 1 Tim 6:18, Paul does this.

2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Raven -- because the word I'm using to describe a concept is not in Scripture is not a logical reason to invalidate it. In all due respect, the ideas that pastors and authority are not joined together is indeed ignorant to say the least.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Titus 2:15 says to "rebuke with all authority."

That implies pastoral authority. So let's at least continue the discussion understanding there is SOME authority here.

Let me also point out that there is some challenges in our society. First, the culture the Early Christians lived under was very "anti-Christ" and pagan. Who knew thousands of years later a nation would be built by Christians, whose laws and cultures are still very much Christian-oriented? It's amazing. This changes things up a bit when we interpret things like "in the world, not of it", and referring to PTA's and Little League in the same sentence.

In fairness, Paul set an example for pastors to use. He suggested behavior concerning veils, slaves and servants, and owing debts. This means he applies Christian living to his cultural context -- and so, shouldn't the Pastor also make that application? Or should it be left as an unspoken ideal? He told the church to wear veils because of the way it would otherwise make the Christian church appear. We can take that principle and apply it in the 21st Century (which in some ways, I see a point of advocating wedding bands, because of the nobility of the symbol in our modern-day context).

Please, if you're just going to fire nonsense back, don't post here. There's plenty of posts elsewhere. If you want to sincerely discuss this, please continue to do so -- no matter your opinion.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

It seems to me you are trying to justify your own agenda. If anyone is pulling scripture out of context it is you. Just because you think authority gives one the right to expect those in your relm to do what you preach or obey you because "you are the pastor" is not what is ment by this scripture. The Pastor has the authority to preach he does not have the authority to cause saints to obey him. The Pastor will give account to God for whether he preached the word or not, not whether the saints obey him or not.

Here is a thought for every one to ponder, pastor has been likened to a shephard, saints to sheep. A good shephard leads his sheep, he is out in front of them. The job of the shephard is to lead the sheep to good food, good water, and to nurture the sheep to keep them in good health. The shephard has this authority. The question is how does the shepherd use the authority he has been given. There is where he is going to be held in account, as to did he lead his sheep to good food, and water etc. The Pastor should not let his little bit of authority go to his head because the sheep that are driven and not allowed to graze on their own become sickly and week. They die. So as you look at the definition of authority look at the way our forefathers handled things and learn from their mistakes.

A stong church is one where the leadership works in tandem with one another, all the ministry. The saints are lead and shown good feed, not driven and kept in a corral and only given dried straw and hay to eat. Are you getting a picture hear I don't know any other way to discribe it.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Thanks for your comments on this. I have no agenda. That's the honest truth. Look at my user name -- I'm growing. I may ask questions from every possible angle, but that's not some secretive agenda. If there is any agenda, it's to be certain about church government, structure and doctrine.

What scriptures have I pulled out of context?

I agree with your second statement. I am telling you that there are some conservative churches (quite an exception) where the pastor is not driving them like cattle, but leading them like sheep -- yet, they have some of these standards. I started this post specifically for pastoral authority, because there are some that feel he has none, or he should be silent, etc... I am trying to bring balance that not everything is either/or, and you or I can't be guilty of building the same straw man arguments of them. Some have come out of horrid situations, but not all are in that boat. I'm challenging myself and other posters --- no agenda or set outcome. I'm looking to sharpen iron with iron -- sometimes it gets a little hot though :thumbsup

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

The early church had dealt with congregations in Corinth and Galatia on a host of cultural issues, that had to do with how Christians were perceived in their world. This meant dealing with veils, and asking the women to wear them (taking authority to do that), employer relationships, drinking of wine and kicking out troublemakers in the church. Paul gave this same authority to Timothy and Titus in his letters.

I'm not advocating a rebuke-only ministry that knows nothing of gentleness and love -- but I'm just balancing out the viewpoint that the pastor has no authority according to Scripture. There most definitely is authority in scripture. So... where is that line? Is it only what's in Scripture? Would that then miss the entire principle of the Epistles -- how they were cultural situations, which may mean it doesn't mean to them what it does to us -- but it means something. It means the church shares and teaches propriety in regards to their culture. We encourage saints to avoid strip clubs, swimming holes where people are half naked, bar rooms, etc... The early church was concerned with these cultural issues and so should we.

I personally feel fathers and households should be even more heavily involved in these matters, and not always just deferring to the Pastor. But perhaps the pastor meeting with the house pastors (fathers) is a good idea.

Just sharing thought and challenging myself in the process.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

GP, there are several perspectives on what you actually may be discussing, and we are all coming from different angles. I have been to churches where everything was "my way or the highway", and you were considered backslid if you disagreed. Problem: a saint can do everything the pastor says and yet if in his/her heart she is rebelling, if the attitude is "ok, if I have to," is this really pleasing to God? Especially if they could be directed or led to do right but in being forced they become rebellious? Perhaps people should be taught to seek personal convictions more than just "doing what the pastor says" and blindly following.

As far as pastoral authority, in most churches, the pastor only has as much authority as the saints give him by respecting and honoring him because he pastors in love.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

I'm appreciative to the different perspectives. As far as if there are some things we should obey without understanding -- well yes, we all compromise some things for the sake of unity. You won't find a church, a political candidate, a best friend that sees everything just like you. We won't. So, there is a point where we just chalk it up. If it's false doctrine, or rendering poor interpretation, that's another matter.

I'm just leery of the backlash of acknowledging some of our standards are poorly explained, and lack scriptural support -- and so instead of acknowledging that, there are whole groups of people that are changing the role of the pastor. The man of God should sometimes confront us, as Priscilla and Aquilla were, as David was, etc... I 100% agree we should not be ruled by fear, and that shouldn't be the MO for pastors. But let's not emasculate them either.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

For actual sin, don't you think? Lying, adultery, cheating, stealing.... that type of thing?

I also find it interesting that the Bible says that if a brother be found in a fault, go to him privately. Not publicly embarrass him from the pulpit, which is too often the way it is done. Maybe no names are called, but everyone knows whose "toes are being stepped on".

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Sorry is I came accross harsh it was not my intention. As I said I feel that the scripture in Hebrews is not speaking of the pastor. As I have come to understand in recent years I feel that God gave the ministry as a whole to the church (local) when Paul or the writter of Hebrews speaks of those that have the rule he is speaking in the plural. See here lies the problem the hyarcy of the church ( I know my spelling is bad) has been given over to one man in many organizations especialy conservitive churches. This is where we the church is wrong. Again as I have said before the ministry was given to the church not the church given to the ministry. It makes a differance, Ephesians tells us that God gave some to be .... (the ministry) to edify, and equip (to complete, furnish) the saints. I changed the wording abit because the word perfecting is not a very good translation of the Greek word,check out the nkj) Note where we are to be after we have been equipt, in verse 13
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 (again the word perfect would be better translated complete) man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

In other words we are to have the full five fold ministry working together in the local assebly (this would keep a check and balance in the leadership of the local ass.. Just as we find in the early church. And the goal is the work together giving the saint the tools to do their ministry that we can all come together in the unity of faith. Which the end result being that we all come to the knowledge of the son of God, unto a complete person, having the measure and stature of the fulness of Christ.

Am I making sence? I know I tend to ramble abit. And brother keep asking and praying and studying you are on the right track. Question question question.

Your bother in Christ.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Yes, we should be obedient if we don't understand and are taught a certain way. But if we don't seek the truth and convictions for ourselves, and we have an attitude of rebellion, then none of it is beneficial.

Yet, I also think there should be checks and balances. More than just a lose assembly of pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets... Pastors need to submit to someone too. They need humans to answer to, and there should be someone that saints can go to if there are real problems and question marks in an assembly. (I know, no scripture for that second part, but I still think it ought to be in today's world!) The apostles in Jerusalem and those that traveled amongst the churches filled this role in the Bible. It wasn't announced, but it worked. Paul wasn't pastor of Corinth. He came and saw problems and fixed them, but someone else filled the roles of leadership on a daily basis. However, when Paul wrote to Corinth, the leadership respected him and submitted to his authority, allowing him to "meddle" in "their" ministry and church-because the church and minsistry weren't "theirs"-it was God's.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Well said. I understand your point.

You think "obey them that have the rule over you, for they give account for your soul" is speaking a plural leadership? I've done only a cursory study of that and can see how you see it that way. This begs the question of Titus and Timothy -- were they pastors? What role did the play? Blame it on too man John Maxwell books, but it's hard for me to fathom a leader-less leadership. I think the hierarchal structure we have now needs more checks/balances and accountability, but there seems to be a need for a more emphasized leader of leaders (who is accountable). Many agree pastors were elders -- but not all elders were pastors. This tells me, there were more pronounced roles among the elders. Also, the instruction to "rebuke with all authority" was to one man, and was not about just gross sin, but rather doctrine and misconduct as well.

Enjoying the conversation... I have deep reservations about most models currently, but I fear the pendulum is swinging too dramatically, and babies are being thrown out with their bath water. Thanks, brother.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

Godsrummer, and your point changes the thread just a hair. There is still recognized authority to "those" who give account for your soul -- but instead of one person, it's multiple.

As we've been on this thread, I have refined and clarified in my mind about where I am on this issue. I'm not into the polemics against pastoral authority, nor am I for pastors over-stepping their bounds into areas of false doctrine, using Scripture to mean something it never intended. I am curious about the role of elders in the NT church, and if that meant there was plural leadership, or that they helped the church government stay prudent and blameless through accountability. One man chooses these men (according to the epistles)-- who is that man?
Nevertheless, a pastor (or elders) should help make decisions given the context of our present culture, just as the NT church did with veils, women's role in worship, etc... That tells me those things mattered for Paul to address the churches on these matters and not just "depend on the HG to lead them and convict them of their error." There was still leadership. There is most definitely no place, however, where the Epistles indicate putting burdens on the people for things that weren't based on scriptural precedent though... and that's many of our points.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

The problem I have with "a" pastor leading a church is that too often it becomes a one-man show. And that can be very, very dangerous. I do see a biblical role of pastor, but I think we need much more accountability. I think the board of elders should be there for more than just financial decisions.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

I agree. I think the Promiseland in Austin as a council of elders -- curious how that operates/functions.

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

What is you're just planting the church -- you and your wife? There is no such council :)

Re: Pastoral Authority Part 898,230
 

True, but you should have someone you are accountable to. Then, as your church grows, you should be growing men into leadership roles. :)