Everybody must have a pastor?

[houston]

I am my pastor.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Heb 13:17 KJV 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.

It doesn't say anything about a 'covering'. It certainly says to respect and obey the eldership, but says nothing about 'you NEED a man to be your covering.' Believers should be in submission to those who have oversight of the assembly, indeed. And who are those who 'have the rule over you'?

I notice it says 'as they that must give account'. I think if more people understood the significance of that, fewer people would desire to 'have the rule'...

[Esaias]

If you are a pastor, who is YOUR pastor? And how does that pastoral relationship work?

What exactly do pastors DO? From my experience, most pastors preach and do adult Sunday School lessons on Wednesdays and Sundays. They manage the church service, basically, delegating the music to others, etc.

So then how does a pastor's pastor... pastor him? Do pastors call up their pastors for the upcoming weeks itinerary of events? Sermon texts? Etc? Obviously not, pastors' pastors do not manage any services except their own. So again, how does a pastor's pastor pastor him? (Say that real fast ten times...)

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by CC1

The part I bolded shows how you present a false conundrum. Having a pastor vs plural equal pastors does not mean the single pastor is a dictator.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because there are some bad apples out there who are dictatorial you want to replace them with a two headed monster than in most instances will not work.

As I said you are welcome to engage in whatever form of church government you like but don't act like it is some kind of biblical imperative that we all join your lunacy.

I have not thrown the baby out with the bath water. I have not said that a pastor is not necessary. YOU are the one getting all riled up, and saying some really wild stuff, like a two-headed monster, lol!

I plainly shared scriptures that show that pastor is not the ONLY governing ministerial gift given to the church. Absolutely there should be a pastor, but there also should be other governing bodies as well. The church was set up with plural leadership because the kingdom of God is under Jesus Christ, and the 5 gifts of governing ministry were meant to balance the church out, and keep it from becoming a one man show.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Two headed monster?

Seriously?

That like the young man who when asked "whose your pastor?'

He answered "Jesus"

The questioner then replied "Oh, your one of those?"

If Jesus isn't your shepard, then no one is your shepherd.

Two headed monster?

Good God from Zion.

Originally Posted by Esaias

If you are a pastor, who is YOUR pastor? And how does that pastoral relationship work?

What exactly do pastors DO? From my experience, most pastors preach and do adult Sunday School lessons on Wednesdays and Sundays. They manage the church service, basically, delegating the music to others, etc.

So then how does a pastor's pastor... pastor him? Do pastors call up their pastors for the upcoming weeks itinerary of events? Sermon texts? Etc? Obviously not, pastors' pastors do not manage any services except their own. So again, how does a pastor's pastor pastor him? (Say that real fast ten times...)

One thing that is not clear in the NT is whether the gifts of the governing ministry were to be for each individual house or gathering, or a city, or a state, or even a nation. This point needs to be discussed further, I think.

For example, we know that the church met from house to house. Did they all, at one time, ever come together? I do not find that anywhere in scripture.

I do know that the gifts of the governing ministry need to be active in the church, but... what comprises the church... a house, a home, a group of homes, a city, a state, a nation of believers?

We know that in Revelation the Lord Jesus spoke to the angel of the church. Was this "angel" the governing body of ministry over an entire city, or just over just one group of people meeting in a home?

[houston]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If you are a pastor, who is YOUR pastor? And how does that pastoral relationship work?

What exactly do pastors DO? From my experience, most pastors preach and do adult Sunday School lessons on Wednesdays and Sundays. They manage the church service, basically, delegating the music to others, etc.

So then how does a pastor's pastor... pastor him? Do pastors call up their pastors for the upcoming weeks itinerary of events? Sermon texts? Etc? Obviously not, pastors' pastors do not manage any services except their own. So again, how does a pastor's pastor pastor him? (Say that real fast ten times...)

You and I both know that it is a formality. That is all.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It was a principle Jesus condoned and approved of and means a whole lot. Jesus saw how he applied that principle to the Kingdom.



He knew Christ was under authority.


That and more.

Hi, Mike.

Thanks for responding and engaging, but I still think you missed, not only my point, but the point of the story. Nothing about the Roman soldier being under authority speaks to us as the church being under the authority of some man apart from the man Christ Jesus.

Jesus specifically denounced the way the world exercises authority over each other, the Romans being no exception to that rule. The only condoning of what the man said regarding authority had to do with him recognizing the absolute power and authority Jesus Christ had over the sickness afflicting his servant.

This story isn't about telling the church how to submit to some human tradition called "covering". It's about teaching the church that her Messiah is so powerful that even diseases respond to Him simply speaking "the Word".

It's about the type of dominion that the Body of Christ should have over sickness and disease. Not because we submit to a man apart from Jesus so he, whoever "he" is, can cover us (what does that mean, any way?), but that, in submission to the Messiah, we have access to all the power He had access to, even to the curing of diseased and afflicted people, simply by speaking "the Word" (as opposed to having to go directly and bodily to a home and performing a ceremony in order to make someone whole).

I mean, have you never prayed in your room and the power of the Most High came upon you, and you spoke "the Word" in faith, and God answered your prayer, even though what you prayed for was for someone else in another location?

That's what this is all about. And ONLY THIS, I might add.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It doesn't say 'Paul lacked wisdom'. It just says he disputed with unbelieving Jews, and they went about to kill him. The brethren, desiring to save his life, sent him to Tarsus (which apparently was his home town?) and the churches had 'rest' in Jewry, because one of the main persecutors of the church was now an apostolic preacher.

If you are suggesting that people getting stirred up (becoming opposed to the gospel preaching) is a sign of lacking wisdom, then Paul never did wise up, cause his preaching eventually got him killed. Just like it got Jesus killed.

Also, it doesn't say 'the apostles' sent him away, it says 'the brethren' did that.

I think you are reading quite a bit into the text that isn't there?

I see it the same way, Esaias. Thank you for elucidating an alternative view of Acts 9:29-31.

[Nitehawk013]

I think I will take the middle road in this. I feel that we both need a Pastor, and yet also feel you would be hard pressed to prove scripturally that all men must submit to an appointed "pastor".

We all, no matter how spiritual we think we are, will find ourselves at some point NEEDING a leader or Pastor in our lives who we are submitted to that can correct us, rebuke us, etc. A man who can put his finger in our faces and flat out tell us we are wrong when we are wrong.

No matter how spiritual you may convine yourself that you think you are, sometimes you need a MAN to do this because you are not hearing clearly from God. God doesn't always speak as palinly and audibly as a godly Pastor or leader will.

On the other hand, I often wonder who exactly all these Pastor's pastors are? I knwo they talk with other Pastor buddies, but how much correction and pastoring are you getting when most of these groups seem to do nothing but puff up one another and talk about "their" saints.

Paul seemed to have no real Pastor or authority to rebuke him except Christ. While he clearly worked with the Apostles in the mission, he seemed to rebuke them and call them out more than they ever did him.

And how would it work iin modern church anyways? Bro Blume, as a Pastor who is YOUR pastor? What woudl you do if your Pastor called you and told you in no uncertain terms that Preterism was a damnable heresy? Do you submit to our Pastor after telling all here how we ought to obey them who rule over us?

I suppose my point is that of course Pastors LOVE the idea that all men need a Pastor. It affords them the ability to rant from the pulpit that all saints must in turn submit to them and their vision. To submit to them and whatever decision they make. You get no say in most things. Just show up, shut up and turn in your money to fund his "vision". How terribly convenient!

And yet again though, I believe each of us do need someone over us who can correct and sometimes direct us.

Unlike the business world, I guess I tink a Pastor should not actually want men to just submit to him as if he is the "boss". Rather, I think they should be servant leaders who just do their job and if people willingly submit to them, then great. Otherwise...a true Pastor wouldn't be interested in hoarding power over people's lives in the first place.

A friend of mine was absent from his current church this past Sunday. He and his family went to be in attendance at another Apostolic church, the church he had been saved in years ago before joining the church he is in now. His former church that he visited lost their Pastor to cancer a few weeks ago. Anyways, his current Pastor hear he had gone to his former church and texted him telling him how disappointed he was that they had skippped church to be in attandance at this other church on a Sunday instead of a Wednesday night.

That is the business world mentality. The "boss" not wanting his employees anywhere but at work. The man interested in his own little castle instead of the KINGDOM. And that is why so many are sick of hearing about how much we all need to submit to a Pastor.

If Pastors are that petty, and lets not pretend that THOUSANDS aren't that way, then who wants to be in submission to them? I don't. I want my Pastor to be above such petty, childish, territorial nonsense. But I DO still want and need a Pastor or man in my life because I KNOW myself enough to know that at times I will NEED a man to rein me in and set me straight.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

I think I will take the middle road in this. I feel that we both need a Pastor, and yet also feel you would be hard pressed to prove scripturally that all men must submit to an appointed "pastor".

We all, no matter how spiritual we think we are, will find ourselves at some point NEEDING a leader or Pastor in our lives who we are submitted to that can correct us, rebuke us, etc. A man who can put his finger in our faces and flat out tell us we are wrong when we are wrong.

No matter how spiritual you may convine yourself that you think you are, sometimes you need a MAN to do this because you are not hearing clearly from God. God doesn't always speak as palinly and audibly as a godly Pastor or leader will.

On the other hand, I often wonder who exactly all these Pastor's pastors are? I knwo they talk with other Pastor buddies, but how much correction and pastoring are you getting when most of these groups seem to do nothing but puff up one another and talk about "their" saints.

Paul seemed to have no real Pastor or authority to rebuke him except Christ. While he clearly worked with the Apostles in the mission, he seemed to rebuke them and call them out more than they ever did him.

And how would it work iin modern church anyways? Bro Blume, as a Pastor who is YOUR pastor? What woudl you do if your Pastor called you and told you in no uncertain terms that Preterism was a damnable heresy? Do you submit to our Pastor after telling all here how we ought to obey them who rule over us?

I suppose my point is that of course Pastors LOVE the idea that all men need a Pastor. It affords them the ability to rant from the pulpit that all saints must in turn submit to them and their vision. To submit to them and whatever decision they make. You get no say in most things. Just show up, shut up and turn in your money to fund his "vision". How terribly convenient!

And yet again though, I believe each of us do need someone over us who can correct and sometimes direct us.

Unlike the business world, I guess I tink a Pastor should not actually want men to just submit to him as if he is the "boss". Rather, I think they should be servant leaders who just do their job and if people willingly submit to them, then great. Otherwise...a true Pastor wouldn't be interested in hoarding power over people's lives in the first place.

A friend of mine was absent from his current church this past Sunday. He and his family went to be in attendance at another Apostolic church, the church he had been saved in years ago before joining the church he is in now. His former church that he visited lost their Pastor to cancer a few weeks ago. Anyways, his current Pastor hear he had gone to his former church and texted him telling him how disappointed he was that they had skippped church to be in attandance at this other church on a Sunday instead of a Wednesday night.

That is the business world mentality. The "boss" not wanting his employees anywhere but at work. The man interested in his own little castle instead of the KINGDOM. And that is why so many are sick of hearing about how much we all need to submit to a Pastor.

If Pastors are that petty, and lets not pretend that THOUSANDS aren't that way, then who wants to be in submission to them? I don't. I want my Pastor to be above such petty, childish, territorial nonsense. But I DO still want and need a Pastor or man in my life because I KNOW myself enough to know that at times I will NEED a man to rein me in and set me straight.

There is a lot of good stuff in there. And I can tell it came from a loving, impassioned heart. Thanks for sharing.

And yet, one thing stands out to me. More than once you used the word "over", as in, to have a man over you, in the Lord. How about instead of "over" you and me, and everyone else began using the words "in front of", as in someone who has gone before us, has a deeper walk with the Lord, has gained more wisdom through experience, and so, from that vantage point, like a soldier who scouts out ahead, such a brother or sister in the Lord can speak into our lives?

When we use the word "over" (which is NOT in the Greek text!) we begin to suggest something neither God or Christ intended: a second mediator who we have to approach, who then approaches Christ on our behalf, as if there was such a "chain of command" structure in the church, when there isn't.

[Godsdrummer]

Just and added thought on the subject. Placing Ephesians 4:11 in context. The beginning of the chapter Paul makes a call to all to walk after the vocation they are called to. Saints is not a vocation. Saints is used on reference to the church as a whole, and Paul does not separate between saints and leaders when he directs his letter.

Secondly where do we read into this passage that these gifts are positions of authority?

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the equipping of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
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 man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

The passage says "for the equipping of the saints to minister" to edify the body of Christ.

Finally Paul is writing to a single church group, and uses the plural use of the word pastors, which by the way is shepherd. A shepherd did not corral the sheep, did not drive sheep, did not feed the sheep dried hay or straw. But rather led the sheep to forage for themselves, fresh green grass.
Because of the hierarchy we find in many churches today we have anemic saints that only know what they are told by their individual pastor, or organization. They are feed canned sermons and not taught to forage for themselves, they are fenced in by standards and not allowed to think for them selves.
I don't believe this is the way God intended his ecclesia to function.