Pastors move to withhold/lessen SFC offerings in protest of NAYC

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by LadyRev

I guess this is why you are "independent". At best, you want only ONE person to have spiritual authority over you, as you have made quite clear above. However, according to SCRIPTURE, those that "rule over us", watching for our souls are plural, meaning more than ONE.

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.

As a licensed UPCI minister, my pastor is not the only one that has spiritual authority over me. There are other leaders within the organization that have spiritual authority as well. They don't function in the same capacity as my pastor and may never exercise their authority but they are still spiritual authorities nonetheless.

An example of this is my district board. Sure they have administrative authority. But if the need arises, they also have spiritual authority.

According to scripture, we are to be subject to the "higher powers" for there is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God. If you don't believe this includes church leadership beyond the pastor, you have serious issues.

Enjoy your so-called "independence". Even if I wasn't part of an organization, I have no desire to be so-called "independent".

Can you please show me how you interpret Heb 13:17 as defining a district board, or prespytery system, or some other form of heirarchical organizational system? Can you give an example in the bible where a district board has authority over another pastor? The "them" in Heb 13:17 is referring to the many pastors over the several congregations that have been established throughout the world. Paul (or the writer of Hebrews), is instructing the constituents of the various local churches, to be subject to their (plural) own pastors (plural) of said various local congregations (plural), NOT the district board. The use of the "them" (plural) is simply in keeping the proper grammatical consistency in number.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Can you please show me how you interpret Heb 13:17 as defining a district board, or prespytery system, or some other form of heirarchical organizational system? Can you give an example in the bible where a district board has authority over another pastor? The "them" in Heb 13:17 is referring to the many pastors over the several congregations that have been established throughout the world. Paul (or the writer of Hebrews), is instructing the constituents of the various local churches, to be subject to their (plural) own pastors (plural) of said various local congregations (plural), NOT the district board. The use of the "them" (plural) is simply in keeping the proper grammatical consistency in number.

Again a hearty AMEN!!!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Can you please show me how you interpret Heb 13:17 as defining a district board, or prespytery system, or some other form of heirarchical organizational system? Can you give an example in the bible where a district board has authority over another pastor? The "them" in Heb 13:17 is referring to the many pastors over the several congregations that have been established throughout the world. Paul (or the writer of Hebrews), is instructing the constituents of the various local churches, to be subject to their (plural) own pastors (plural) of said various local congregations (plural), NOT the district board. The use of the "them" (plural) is simply in keeping the proper grammatical consistency in number.

The struggle that you run into a lot of times, is how to implement the NT into the 21 century society. Obviously in North America, any preacher is pretty much free to choose who, what or if he/she is to have any "rule" over them. As StMatt pointed out, in the case of the UPC, a particular preacher is free to sign on or bail out at any point in their ministry. If you sign on then you are making the choice to participate under the governance of the UPC. If that gets old, bail out.

Where I personally have had problems with the UPC's approach to things, is when the agreement is changed (as with the AS) without an open and free flow of information. Another point is when local districts or even local presbyters are not in line with the national governance.

Given those two concerns, I would have to say that, the burden and yoke of the UPC is otherwise "easy" and "light" in most places. The point being, that if any one has a problem with the UPC (or any other org for that matter) try and work things out- if you don't get anywhere then bail out. This is not Sadaam's Iraq that we're dealing with here.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The struggle that you run into a lot of times, is how to implement the NT into the 21 century society. Obviously in North America, any preacher is pretty much free to choose who, what or if he/she is to have any "rule" over them. As StMatt pointed out, in the case of the UPC, a particular preacher is free to sign on or bail out at any point in their ministry. If you sign on then you are making the choice to participate under the governance of the UPC. If that gets old, bail out.

Where I personally have had problems with the UPC's approach to things, is when the agreement is changed (as with the AS) without an open and free flow of information. Another point is when local districts or even local presbyters are not in line with the national governance.

Given those two concerns, I would have to say that, the burden and yoke of the UPC is otherwise "easy" and "light" in most places. The point being, that if any one has a problem with the UPC (or any other org for that matter) try and work things out- if you don't get anywhere then bail out. This is not Sadaam's Iraq that we're dealing with here.

Good post. And I agree... my initial response is to the outrage that some have expressed with regards to pastors holding funds from the WEC out of protest for "goings-on" at the national level. It seems the protest of the pastorates has far exceeded any level experienced heretofor. Someone suggested that WEC had authority over pastors, and that the pastors are "wrong" for objecting to national level decisions. I wholeheartedly disagreed. I suggest that it is not the local pastors who disagree with the decisions of national leadership who we should implicate in their protest, it is the national leaders who have made decisions and set a course for the organization that is not sympathetic to the concerns of the pastoral constituency of the organization who should be implicated.

[LadyRev]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Good post. And I agree... my initial response is to the outrage that some have expressed with regards to pastors holding funds from the WEC out of protest for "goings-on" at the national level. It seems the protest of the pastorates has far exceeded any level experienced heretofor. Someone suggested that WEC had authority over pastors, and that the pastors are "wrong" for objecting to national level decisions. I wholeheartedly disagreed. I suggest that it is not the local pastors who disagree with the decisions of national leadership who we should implicate in their protest, it is the national leaders who have made decisions and set a course for the organization that is not sympathetic to the concerns of the pastoral constituency of the organization who should be implicated.

There is still a right way and a wrong way to deal with issues. Two wrongs (by the perception of some) don't make a right.

Its wrong for pastors to take money that has been raised, given and designated for a particular cause and use it for another cause without FIRST obtaining the permission of those that gave and raised the money.

If I give $100 for SFC, I expect it to be submitted as a SFC offering to the powers that be. I don't expect my pastor to take my $100 and use it as mad money. He does not have this authority. Its not his money.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by LadyRev

There is still a right way and a wrong way to deal with issues. Two wrongs (by the perception of some) don't make a right.

Its wrong for pastors to take money that has been raised, given and designated for a particular cause and use it for another cause without FIRST obtaining the permission of those that gave and raised the money.

If I give $100 for SFC, I expect it to be submitted as a SFC offering to the powers that be. I don't expect my pastor to take my $100 and use it as mad money. He does not have this authority. Its not his money.

I agree with your post. It is a matter of integrity and honesty, not one of saints meddling.

A saint should never have to meddle into something like this as a pastor with integrity and honesty would do what you suggested.

I think that is also why it is a good idea for a church to have books that are open to the board for review and if the church is of any size that a CPA also signs off on the accounting every year. That protects the pastor from false accusations and also protects the church against unscupulous men posing as pastors who might borrow money against the church for personal use, etc.

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by LadyRev

There is still a right way and a wrong way to deal with issues. Two wrongs (by the perception of some) don't make a right.

Its wrong for pastors to take money that has been raised, given and designated for a particular cause and use it for another cause without FIRST obtaining the permission of those that gave and raised the money.

If I give $100 for SFC, I expect it to be submitted as a SFC offering to the powers that be. I don't expect my pastor to take my $100 and use it as mad money. He does not have this authority. Its not his money.

You are spot on! I would be upset if I gave in a special offering or fundraiser for a certain cause, and then later find out it was used for some other purpose!

This happened to me about 25 years ago. We had a popular young man in our church that was killed in a motorcycle accident. The youth raised money to build a memorial flag pole in his honor. I know that several people in the church donated including myself raising at least a couple thousand dollars.

To make a long story short, the flagpole memorial was never built and the money was deposited into the general church account. If they didn't raise enough $$, the church body should have been informed, and maybe something else purchased or built within the raised budget in memory of the young man.

[LadyRev]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Can you please show me how you interpret Heb 13:17 as defining a district board, or prespytery system, or some other form of heirarchical organizational system? Can you give an example in the bible where a district board has authority over another pastor? The "them" in Heb 13:17 is referring to the many pastors over the several congregations that have been established throughout the world. Paul (or the writer of Hebrews), is instructing the constituents of the various local churches, to be subject to their (plural) own pastors (plural) of said various local congregations (plural), NOT the district board. The use of the "them" (plural) is simply in keeping the proper grammatical consistency in number.

Does Heb. 13:17 apply to pastors as well? If so, who has the rule over the pastor? Who watches for his soul? Who gives an account for him? Another pastor? (Your own form of "heirarchical organizational system" ) Or do you believe he suddenly becomes a spiritual authority unto himself, submitting only to God, once he becomes a pastor?

Who elevated the position of "pastor" to one of ultimate rule? This is dictatorship at its best and its not scriptural. As Deacon said, its a nice set up for someone who wants very little (if any) accountability.

You want scriptural support for district boards, presbyter systems, and heirarchical organization but have no scriptural support of your own for this "lone ranger" dictator pastor you speak of.

I guess the poor evangelist is just out of luck. If he ever wants to have "spiritual authority" he just needs to settle down and pastor somewhere. (TIC) Sadly, this does indeed happen. All the time! We have alot of "evangelists" that are pastoring. Not because GOD called them to pastor but because of the unscriptural elevation of the position of pastor!

The "them" and "they" in Heb. 13:17 refers to ALL those in positions of church leadership, by whatever name you choose to call them, in whatever organizational set up that you have agreed to be a part of. We are all subject one to another, as needed, if needed, and/or as appropriate.

Theres only one ultimate "dictator" and his title is NOT pastor.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I understand a biblical presbytery was a group of Elders in a local church.
No offense but alot of modern day church govt,doesn't resemble the structure of the first century assemblies.

[ChTatum]

People are dying and going to hell, and THIS occupies our time?

Forgive me, Lord.