Pastoral Authority Part 898,230

[Raven]

"Pastoral authority" is a phrase found nowhere in Scripture! Let's correct our "terminology" and then discuss the truth of the Word. John's message was "Repent!"
That is ... change the way you think! That message could very well be preached again today and for good cause. Much of our thinking has been corrupted by ignorance and the traditions of men.

Raven

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Is it abusive for them to ask their leaders not to wear tank tops? Is that decent under the admonishment of being modest? We make it sound as if they are to be an example only, but to be silent on what they are an example of...

I didn't say that they were abusive to admonish people to good works. In 1 Tim 2:10, 1 Tim 5:10, 1 Tim 6:18, Paul does this.

2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Raven

"Pastoral authority" is a phrase found nowhere in Scripture! Let's correct our "terminology" and then discuss the truth of the Word. John's message was "Repent!"
That is ... change the way you think! That message could very well be preached again today and for good cause. Much of our thinking has been corrupted by ignorance and the traditions of men.

Raven

Raven -- because the word I'm using to describe a concept is not in Scripture is not a logical reason to invalidate it. In all due respect, the ideas that pastors and authority are not joined together is indeed ignorant to say the least.

[GrowingPains]

Titus 2:15 says to "rebuke with all authority."

That implies pastoral authority. So let's at least continue the discussion understanding there is SOME authority here.

Let me also point out that there is some challenges in our society. First, the culture the Early Christians lived under was very "anti-Christ" and pagan. Who knew thousands of years later a nation would be built by Christians, whose laws and cultures are still very much Christian-oriented? It's amazing. This changes things up a bit when we interpret things like "in the world, not of it", and referring to PTA's and Little League in the same sentence.

In fairness, Paul set an example for pastors to use. He suggested behavior concerning veils, slaves and servants, and owing debts. This means he applies Christian living to his cultural context -- and so, shouldn't the Pastor also make that application? Or should it be left as an unspoken ideal? He told the church to wear veils because of the way it would otherwise make the Christian church appear. We can take that principle and apply it in the 21st Century (which in some ways, I see a point of advocating wedding bands, because of the nobility of the symbol in our modern-day context).

Please, if you're just going to fire nonsense back, don't post here. There's plenty of posts elsewhere. If you want to sincerely discuss this, please continue to do so -- no matter your opinion.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Titus 2:15 says to "rebuke with all authority."

That implies pastoral authority. So let's at least continue the discussion understanding there is SOME authority here.

Let me also point out that there is some challenges in our society. First, the culture the Early Christians lived under was very "anti-Christ" and pagan. Who knew thousands of years later a nation would be built by Christians, whose laws and cultures are still very much Christian-oriented? It's amazing. This changes things up a bit when we interpret things like "in the world, not of it", and referring to PTA's and Little League in the same sentence.

In fairness, Paul set an example for pastors to use. He suggested behavior concerning veils, slaves and servants, and owing debts. This means he applies Christian living to his cultural context -- and so, shouldn't the Pastor also make that application? Or should it be left as an unspoken ideal? He told the church to wear veils because of the way it would otherwise make the Christian church appear. We can take that principle and apply it in the 21st Century (which in some ways, I see a point of advocating wedding bands, because of the nobility of the symbol in our modern-day context).

Please, if you're just going to fire nonsense back, don't post here. There's plenty of posts elsewhere. If you want to sincerely discuss this, please continue to do so -- no matter your opinion.

Since your joining date is June 2009 and my joining date is June 2007 I will acquiesce to your "sudden seniority" and not post any of my "nonsense" on any of your posts. Continue on my friend.

Raven

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Titus 2:15 says to "rebuke with all authority."

That implies pastoral authority. So let's at least continue the discussion understanding there is SOME authority here.

Let me also point out that there is some challenges in our society. First, the culture the Early Christians lived under was very "anti-Christ" and pagan. Who knew thousands of years later a nation would be built by Christians, whose laws and cultures are still very much Christian-oriented? It's amazing. This changes things up a bit when we interpret things like "in the world, not of it", and referring to PTA's and Little League in the same sentence.

In fairness, Paul set an example for pastors to use. He suggested behavior concerning veils, slaves and servants, and owing debts. This means he applies Christian living to his cultural context -- and so, shouldn't the Pastor also make that application? Or should it be left as an unspoken ideal? He told the church to wear veils because of the way it would otherwise make the Christian church appear. We can take that principle and apply it in the 21st Century (which in some ways, I see a point of advocating wedding bands, because of the nobility of the symbol in our modern-day context).

Please, if you're just going to fire nonsense back, don't post here. There's plenty of posts elsewhere. If you want to sincerely discuss this, please continue to do so -- no matter your opinion.

It seems to me you are trying to justify your own agenda. If anyone is pulling scripture out of context it is you. Just because you think authority gives one the right to expect those in your relm to do what you preach or obey you because "you are the pastor" is not what is ment by this scripture. The Pastor has the authority to preach he does not have the authority to cause saints to obey him. The Pastor will give account to God for whether he preached the word or not, not whether the saints obey him or not.

Here is a thought for every one to ponder, pastor has been likened to a shephard, saints to sheep. A good shephard leads his sheep, he is out in front of them. The job of the shephard is to lead the sheep to good food, good water, and to nurture the sheep to keep them in good health. The shephard has this authority. The question is how does the shepherd use the authority he has been given. There is where he is going to be held in account, as to did he lead his sheep to good food, and water etc. The Pastor should not let his little bit of authority go to his head because the sheep that are driven and not allowed to graze on their own become sickly and week. They die. So as you look at the definition of authority look at the way our forefathers handled things and learn from their mistakes.

A stong church is one where the leadership works in tandem with one another, all the ministry. The saints are lead and shown good feed, not driven and kept in a corral and only given dried straw and hay to eat. Are you getting a picture hear I don't know any other way to discribe it.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

It seems to me you are trying to justify your own agenda. If anyone is pulling scripture out of context it is you.
The shephard has this authority. The question is how does the shepherd use the authority he has been given. There is where he is going to be held in account, as to did he lead his sheep to good food, and water etc.

A stong church is one where the leadership works in tandem with one another, all the ministry. The saints are lead and shown good feed, not driven and kept in a corral and only given dried straw and hay to eat. Are you getting a picture hear I don't know any other way to discribe it.

Thanks for your comments on this. I have no agenda. That's the honest truth. Look at my user name -- I'm growing. I may ask questions from every possible angle, but that's not some secretive agenda. If there is any agenda, it's to be certain about church government, structure and doctrine.

What scriptures have I pulled out of context?

I agree with your second statement. I am telling you that there are some conservative churches (quite an exception) where the pastor is not driving them like cattle, but leading them like sheep -- yet, they have some of these standards. I started this post specifically for pastoral authority, because there are some that feel he has none, or he should be silent, etc... I am trying to bring balance that not everything is either/or, and you or I can't be guilty of building the same straw man arguments of them. Some have come out of horrid situations, but not all are in that boat. I'm challenging myself and other posters --- no agenda or set outcome. I'm looking to sharpen iron with iron -- sometimes it gets a little hot though

[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.

[missourimary]

GP, there are several perspectives on what you actually may be discussing, and we are all coming from different angles. I have been to churches where everything was "my way or the highway", and you were considered backslid if you disagreed. Problem: a saint can do everything the pastor says and yet if in his/her heart she is rebelling, if the attitude is "ok, if I have to," is this really pleasing to God? Especially if they could be directed or led to do right but in being forced they become rebellious? Perhaps people should be taught to seek personal convictions more than just "doing what the pastor says" and blindly following.

As far as pastoral authority, in most churches, the pastor only has as much authority as the saints give him by respecting and honoring him because he pastors in love.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by missourimary

GP, there are several perspectives on what you actually may be discussing, and we are all coming from different angles. I have been to churches where everything was "my way or the highway", and you were considered backslid if you disagreed. Problem: a saint can do everything the pastor says and yet if in his/her heart she is rebelling, if the attitude is "ok, if I have to," is this really pleasing to God? Especially if they could be directed or led to do right but in being forced they become rebellious? Perhaps people should be taught to seek personal convictions more than just "doing what the pastor says" and blindly following.

As far as pastoral authority, in most churches, the pastor only has as much authority as the saints give him by respecting and honoring him because he pastors in love.

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.