Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Or it could just be that there are not enough members in the church to have a board of church members. Which is most likely the case.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

No. That’s not the case. Not even close.

That’s really pretty ridiculous when you think about it. The board doesn’t have to have any certain number of members. If there aren’t seven members, have a board with three members. Surely there are three members in a church who can sit on the board.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Churches that I have been in that did not have a board conducted church business meetings. Either way the church was party to all major decisions, including choosing a new pastor.

Any way I for one cannot see brother Parker installing his son as pastor without church approval.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

"This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." - 1 Timothy 3:1 KJV

1. Want to be a bishop? meet this requirements first, go through this training, etc...
2. Ready? Let's meet with the presbytery for approval.
3. Let's present you to the congregation.
4. Let's assign some tasks to you, so you can demonstrate your service to the congregation for a time.
5. Let's see if there is any serious complain against you from the congregation after that time.
6. No?, OK, join our presbytery of elders of this congregation.

"Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." - 1 Timothy 3:6-7 KJV


Wait... I'm in the wrong model...

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Concerning the highlighted portions of the two aforementioned posts. I recently heard Bro. Terry Shock teach a lesson about how humanity, with no ill will or bad intention, will often put people in “the God zone” through the best of intentions. We honor and support men and ladies who we admire, but sometimes to a very bad degree, to where they are suddenly lifted up (in our eyes) much higher than they should be. There is nothing wrong with honoring your pastor/leadership. I believe that we should give honor where it is due. But I also acknowledge that their are indeed people who have no idea about anything that the scripture teaches and are 100% believing what their pastor says is indeed scriptural. That is, in my opinion, dangerous waters. You risk following a blind man into the ditch if you don’t study to show thyself approved. Trust is a wonderful thing...but it’s a very dangerous thing when done blindly

I could say so much about a circumstance happening at this time with a gentleman that I dearly love...but I’ll simply say that you are dead on with this assessment

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

This is a familiar situation. If you’ve been around Apostolic/Pentecostal churches very many years, you have likely experienced this first hand or know someone who has. Many times people “vote with their feet” to at least some extent. Some move along, sometimes the church recuperates and moves past it, sometimes not so much.

I have seen a thriving church slowly wither away to a shell of its former self. You mention TS. He has experienced being on the wrong side of nepotism himself. Often the assistant pastor gets looked over even after being promised to be the successor. I’ve seen it several times. When it comes to relinquishing money and power, and power over money plans are made and promises given that are often not honored.

Of course the proper way to handle the situation would be to try out maybe three prospects and let the membership vote. One option on the SECRET ballot should be none of the above. I have seen this option receive as many votes and in some cases more votes than the prospects did. If none of the prospects carry a simple majority at least, they probably shouldn’t be considered. Find three more prospects and rinse and repeat.

I’ve seen a church that I know well go for two years without a pastor in the sense that is commonly understood and they did just fine. The elders tended to business and either preached and taught themselves or scheduled someone to do so. It worked very well. And the church was a desirable church and a healthy one. In my opinion, if they had someone forced on them, they would have resented it, and rightfully so.

Every reasonable effort should be made in consideration of the church family imho.

Roberts Rules of Order is a valuable resource in these situations. Preachers and pastors often disagree with me on this.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Well said.
I don't know the whole TS situation but I can imagine seeing another blood related rookie being promoted would rub someone that talented the wrong way.

I stand by the suggestion of at least sending your son off to an accredited seminary/Bible school assuming they are ready to lead your church.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

It’s not about if they’ve been to seminary. At least it isn’t to me. I’ve been around so many that have been to seminary that have buyers remorse. I can’t tell you how many have told me that the most valuable thing they got at Bible college was their spouse. And many didn’t even get a spouse. That’s why IBC is known as Indiana Bridal College.

To pretend that young, dedicated, devout young apostolics have to have seminary to be qualified is perhaps not the best idea at all. I think it can be a good thing but it certainly isn’t a cure all. The Bible says that a bishop shouldn’t be a novice. He should rule his house well. Some of these young preachers don’t have a house or barely do. And they are novices. Therefore they are not qualified, regardless of whether they’ve been to seminary. But often these rules are thrown out the window when the pastors son is up for consideration.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Just some "generic" comments here.
I grew up in a church where most of the young people went to Bible School.
And almost all those that did are still heavily involved in the work of God, today.
However, my home church was also a very much Bible TEACHING church.
Which I feel we have somewhat lost today and have become more focused on the "emotional" side of Pentecost.
I would say that if someone who is a "novice" or very young is involved in ministry/preaching/pastoring, they need a good system of mentorship from some seasoned saints/pastors.

Just one more random thought.
I have seen church boards "ruin" as many churches as I have seen pastors.
Maybe more.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

There is a right way to take care of church decisions. It doesn’t mean that it’s perfect or that there will not be mistakes. I think there should always be a board. I think that board should make recommendations to the church body. I think that the membership should vote by secret ballot. It may not be a perfect system, but it is a good system.

And I would have to disagree with you on the question of whether church boards ruin as many churches as pastors. I’ve seen many churches protected by a good board of deacons.

And there’s this . . .

1Cor.6

[1] Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
[2] Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
[3] Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
[4] If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

Basically every decision is a judgement call. Paul says who should make the judgement. I don’t think anyone would believe that the pastor is the least esteemed in the church.

Generally the single pastor being in charge of a church is not biblical church government anyway. So there’s that.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

I’m referring to a real seminary or school of theological instruction. Not IBC or similar. Most instructors at UPCI sponsored Bible Schools did not have graduate degrees 20 years ago. That has started to change a little. A qualified seminary will teach you how to systematically teach the Bible. Your thoughts and viewpoints will evolve but the foundation is extremely important.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Please show me in scripture where anyone went to seminary.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

This is western culture brother, 2000 years removed. Apostolic churches practice many things not covered in scripture and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The ministry like any occupation didn't emphasize formal education as late as the mid 20th century. In fact, most early ministers of the oneness movement had no more than a 6 grade education. It's about where we are as a society and bettering ourselves to serve in as broad a manner as possible. When I went through a divorce just over 10 years ago the pastor, a church I had not been attending very long, made the statement more than once "I'm not a marriage counselor." Well, he probably should be or at least have the basic training to be you'd think.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

We've had seminaries available for over 150 years+. And just look at how solidly conservative stick-to-Bible they are! No wonder the nation has improved greatly in its general moral condition!

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Ima be honest, I don’t know if I have offended or not, I don’t even know what a nepotism is.
I’m guessing if I had done it “ I would know” , so safe to assume I haven’t nepotismed?

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Jesus chose disciples that were not precisely that educated in the Scriptures. There were fishermen and a tax collector among his disciples. However, Jesus did not leave them uneducated regarding the Word of God. Matthew, the tax collector, considered a traitor, and probably banned from synagogues, wrote a Gospel well structured for didactic teaching, and full of Old Testament references. Peter, a fisherman, preached his first Sermon in the Day of Pentecost with several Scriptures references and reasoning (wisdom) to prove his points, in a very anointed way. Luke recorded that the religious leaders at the time were very astonished at the wisdom of Peter. That wisdom came from dedication, preparation and anointing. They all spent three years under the direct training of Jesus.

They didn't call it Seminaries, instead, they had a different system, but at the end of the day, it is preparation.

The kind of preparation matters. Are you preparing people to think or to echo exactly what you tell them without questioning? When you prepare you are also teaching an attitude. Going through preparation doesn't mean you are going to discover the truth, otherwise all those trinitarians that are going to Seminaries would have discovered the truth. At the end of the day, it is still a human system.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

This is a very well balanced analysis. :thumbsup

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Nepotism can be avoided by having specific features in the church bylaws and constitution detailing how new pastors are installed. Combine that with a church board that functions at a high level, and the chance of nepotism is quote low.

So if two thirds of the voting members are required for a minister to become the new pastor, then the new pastor is determined by the congregation, not by the outgoing pastor.

Another quality feature would be if the bylaws had a feature where a pulpit committee vets the applications for the vacant pastorate. The committee sifts through the pile of applications and presents the best of the candidates to the congregation.

Just my two cents.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Just good old consideration of the members. And these bylaws need to be established when you DON’T need them. That way, when the time comes, you have the procedure in place and ready to deploy.

I totally agree Scott.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Most of the liberal universities (but I’m being redundant) that you’ve heard of, started out as Bible schools. Then they always seem to drift towards liberalism. I think this is established fact. I’d like to hear ideas about why that seems to be so consistently true. I have my theories, but I wouldn’t want to bias the data towards my view.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Great post.

In the Assemblies of God, every church is sovereign. But to be an AG affiliate church, local assemblies must conform to certain methods of choosing a pastor. The District does not get involved. Though it is not a denomination in the truest sense, churches and pastors must adhere to the AG Constitution. Every AG church is required to have a deacon board. If a pastor departs from AG teaching, the church must either boot him or be expelled as a constituent member congregation. Fat chance that the UPCI will ever adopt any such system.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

The more I think about what I've read in this thread, the more I realize none of this looks like the Church Jesus said He would build and indeed, began to build, in the Gospels, then in Acts.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

:thumbsup
What's being described in this thread is a couple business models, not an ekklesia.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

The funny thing is that we don't have a working example of what the home church was set up like in the NT. Especially what the local church was patterned after. The best we have is what the priesthood was set up like in the OT. But Regardless of what power they had over the people was, they had, one thing you cannot get away from was that they were from one family. They were not chosen by the people.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Wrong.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Initially, the Apostles appointed elders in every city where the gospel had just been received, either directly or through someone they appointed to do so, like Titus. But at that point, who else was going to do it? Later, we see the people being told to appoint deacons, and we also see people desiring the office of Bishop. While scripture is vague on the matter, it seems logical and reasonable to imagine that if local churches were appointing deacons, then they might also have had a hand in grooming and appointing those in their midst who wanted to become Bishops. If someone in a house church hundreds of miles from the Apostles was interested in becoming a member of the elder team in that city or region, who else was going to appoint them?

As for the elder-appointees being "from one family," where do you see that? Most churches had multiple elders, depending on the size. There is nothing that says they were from one family in each city. If a city had 10 elders, some of them certainly could have been related. But there is not a familial line of succession mentioned, either.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Everyone has a psalm, everyone has a proverb....

One says the ministry should be counseled to choose a replacement, one says the church members should choose.

Acts 5:38-39
[38] And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
[39] But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

I understand that this portion isn’t talking about choosing a Pastor for a local assembly. Yet, I believe the principle still applies. If it is the wisdom and council of men, then it will come to nothing. Yet, if it is of God, then you’re fighting against God.

Brother, the ministry could get together and cast lots, and some will disagree.

You’re never going to have a 100% approval for anything.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

What is really amazing is that we have 11 pages of commentary on something that is really none of our affair. No one here goes to that church, no one here has family or contact with that church, (so they say) seems to me we ought to take from Proverbs.

Pro 26:17 He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

The TOPIC is not about that one church, and it is a valid topic. The topic is about that practice or custom.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Google Congregationalist polity and Presbyterian polity. It has been around for centuries.
Google also “Churches of Christ” for a working example.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Years ago I got some insight into why the ministers that became the ACI left the UPC in the late 60's. From what I was told it had to do with being accountable to district officials where they felt they were over stepping authority. If you look at the typical church affiliated with that movement you'll find a very totalitarian form of church government simply put, the pastor is the decision maker top to bottom. The only input he would ever get regarding passing of his pastoral duties would be from his peers. Yielding that to the local church would be a sign of weakness and loss of control.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

And THAT, not doctrine, is why I left the UPCI.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

That sounds like the same reason that the AMF left the UPCI.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

ACI/AMF are the same organization... they had to change their name at one point and then changed back at least once.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

I do seem to remember that now that you mention it. No wonder it sounded familiar.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

What is ACI/AMF? Never heard of those acronyms.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

AMF:
Apostolic Ministerial Fellowship

This group came into play in the 1960’s, ministers that were tired of the politics of the UPC. Ministers like Verbal Bean, C.R. Free, Murray Burr, formed the fellowship. In one of Bro. Burrs books he states his disappointment how the fellowship is now just a political organization.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

All their links on FB are messed up. None of them work. It does not feel like a serious start.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

Look up the thread “Who was Harry Morse” and go to page 96. Scott P. and myself discussed the start up of the AMF.

Re: Sons Inheriting Churches from Fathers $$$
 

For many years and even into the 90's they where still bashing the UPC calling out specific names. I was part of a very conservative UPC church that fellow shipped with one of the ACI churches. No way would I have taken a visitor to one of their services to hear all that bashing.