Pastoral Authority Part 898,230

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

The man of God should sometimes confront us, as Priscilla and Aquilla were, as David was, etc... .

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".

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

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.

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.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

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.

Good thoughts Godsdrummer. Now we are getting somewhere. Nearer to the original "intent" at least.

Raven

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

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.

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.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

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.

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.

[GrowingPains]

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.

[*AQuietPlace*]

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.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

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.

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

[GrowingPains]

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

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

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

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