Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgerBoysMom
It is my understanding that a number of things in the OT are a foreshadow of the things to come.
We are often taught (at my church) that the pastor is considered the modern day Moses. I am not certain that I see this or understand this. In fact I have been reprimanded by some in my church for even questioning him b/c God could cause me to be struck with leprosy (like Miriam) in the OT.
In the OT I understand that God spoke to specific people and that when He addressed the people it was through that specific person / prophet.
But in the NT it is my understanding that when the veil was torn and the barrier was broken thus the normal joes could talk to and hear from God.
We no longer needed the "high preist" to speak. Would you say this is correct?
I actually have different views on this so I am wondering what others have to say about this? Would this comparison be accurate in your assessment?
Thanks
BBM
|
The Church is described as a body with interactive parts (see
1 Corinthians 12:12-26). For a person to have a healthy, functioning body, it is critical that all parts of his body are interactive and interdependent.
Look at the types of relationship, which is the problem with contained within your question, that often exists between a pastor and his or her leadership staff. Oftentimes, the battles that develop in churches are not over a church’s structure or style of government. Rather, conflicts are usually the result of the spirit the churches operate in. In other words, in an atmosphere in which staff members don’t honor the leader and the leader doesn’t honor his team, there is a constant struggle — even if it’s a subtle one — between the pastor and his staff members, and it needs to be dealt with. This goes beyond the issue of whether the Pastor is Moses or not.
The lack of honor that is rampant in our churches today is unbiblical, regardless of the specific structure that has been established for that ministry or local church body. The most important factor concerning unity in a church is not the specific type of government under which it operates — rather, it is the spirit or attitude in which the governing occurs.
An analogy to illustrate this could be illustrated in the shape of a container. It isn’t nearly as important as the content of the container. In other words, if a container contains poison, it can do harm to you, no matter how much you like the shape of the glass! In the same way, it is the spirit or attitude within a particular ministry — more than the specific operational structure — that determines whether or not the ministry is toxic.
In
First Corinthians 10:11, Paul states that the
Old Testament was written as an example for us. Throughout the Old Testament, we see examples that warn us to avoid complaining against leadership. Consider what happened when different people complained against the example of your question, a God-appointed leader — Moses. At different times, Aaron, Miriam, and Korah each rose up to object that Moses was too much of a one-man show. However, in each instance, God weighed in on the side of Moses. Not even once did God side with those who opposed Moses. It is important that in
Jude 11, we are warned not to follow the error of Korah (who rebelled against Moses and was swallowed by the earth).
After Moses, another "one man" led Israel. His name was Joshua. Then in the book of judges, we read that only one judge at a time led the nation of Isreal. Later in the books of First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings, we find out that Israel also had only one king at a time.
Hmmm, is there a pattern? Never under any of the various forms of government throughout the history of the the nation of Israel, were God's covenant people without a clearly appointed, singular leader.
In the NT, the details aren't as clear, but we do have two examples of singular leadership within local groups or bodies. First, there was the time that James spoke up in the Jerusalem council, and afterward, the debating stopped (
Acts 15:13-22). This indicates that he possessed a strong ability to lead - and that he was acknowledged and respected as someone having tremendous authority and influence. Peter, who was the leader of the 12 Apostles, feared men whom he thought were sent by James (
Acts 11:1-18).
In Revelation, when Jesus dictates seven letters to seven churches, the letters are addressed to the angels of the churches. The Greek word "angel" means messenger. So were these "angels" some of the ministering spirits sent for to the heirs of salvation (
Heb 2:14) - or were they human messengers? Since ministering spirits, called angelss, come daily before the throne of God, there would be no cause for Jesus to use a mortal being to write these angels a physical letter.
I could go on, but don't see the point. People today have a big problem with any form of leadership, thus the strong emergence of the house church in America. As long as your pastor is not abusing his position, but leads people into the promises of God why get concerned over what example is used. If he is abusive in his position, why stick around?