Pastoral Authority Part 898,230

[Withdrawn]

All great posts, and I apologize for how long it has taken me to get back to this thread. It's been very hectic. A few responses to get the conversation started again...

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.

Again, you're making the leap (that I don't believe scripture necessarily supports) that assumes that Titus was a pastor. Indeed, he was some sort of leader, but to assume that he was a pastor as we know 21st century pastors is a risky one to make.

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).

Paul was NOT a pastor. He was NOT the pastor of the Corinthian church or any other church. He was an apostle. There were five separate and distinct ministerial gifts given to the church, pastor being only one of them. Also, the fact that "pastors" are only mentioned ONE TIME in the KJV New Testament, and that in the plural form, tells me that the NT writers put much less emphasis on this particular ministry than what we do.

The word translated into "pastors" in Ephesians 4.11, [poimen], literally translates into "shepherd." EVERY instance of poimen in the NT (17 in total) with the exception of the Ephesians instance is translated as Shepherd. The shepherd's job is to lead and protect the sheep. And the authority of this shepherd is what one would have over sheep that belonged to someone else. We (as sheep) don't belong to a pastor. Jesus Christ is our Shepherd and our Head. The role of the undershepherd, or pastor, would be to protect and lead the sheep to a place of nourishment where they can feed themselves.

The "man of God" statements that are so often made refer back to the Old Covenant where the people asked for a mediator/vicar. Notice that God didn't originally intend to have it this way, but the people were afraid of the thunderings and asked for someone to speak to God for them and speak to them for God. The New Covenant replaces that model by placing the law and the Spirit within each of us. We no longer have any mediator, other than the Man Jesus Christ. We have His word - in our hearts. He is the Word, and He is in US!! As such, the role of the ministries God gave to the church are for the "perfecting of the saints" until we all come into the unity of the Spirit. What you see "men of God/pastors" doing these days is really causing more division than unity.

The "Obey them that have rule over you..." scripture has been bludgeoned to death by pastors who use it as a whip to keep the sheep under their control. But the part that always seems to be ignored is that (1) the "THEM" is plural, and really tends to negate any assertion that the writer is talking about a lone, self-rule pastor; and (2) the "obey" wording in the KJV is misleading because the real context of the greek [peitho] is more closely saying "allow your faith to be persuaded by your leaders". It does not indicate dominance or pre-eminence.

I don't believe in anarchy, or that the role of any pastor is emasculated. I just see it much differently when I look in scripture. When you take off the lens of 21st century church hierarchial structure, and look at what the Word is actually saying, you can no longer make those bold leaps to assume that all of the leaders mentioned in the New Testament were pastors (in addition to their roles as apostles or evangelists).

What does Acts 6 say about how the church leadership was setup? The APOSTLES appointed SEVERAL men to do the daily ministration for the saints at Jerusalem. Note... they were appointed by the APOSTLES, and there were MANY. Only in the epistle to 3 John do we see any reference to any church being a one-man show. Sure, Paul wrote the epistles to Timothy and Titus, but I fail to see how the text of these letters indicate that they were supreme authority in their congregations as pastors. In fact, Paul tells Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist."

Just some more thoughts for consideration. GP, I appreciate the manner in which you are responding to posts. I truly sense that you have a heart for God and truth. And I also sense that your mind is not closed to opposing views. That is truly a breath of fresh air. God bless you! I look forward to continuing this discussion.

[Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

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.

... and blame it on centuries of tradition and cultural interpretation of how they really operated in Century 1!

There is no "leader-less leadership." All leaders are subject to the Good Shepherd. While it is certainly much simpler to depend on what we can see and hear (an actual person to be our "man of God"), we are commanded to walk by faith and not by sight. As long as we have our eyes on man instead of God, we will never have perfected saints in the unity of the faith, completely furnished unto good works.

[Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by 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...

What is your scripture reference to qualify your "according to the epistles" statement? Again, in the Jerusalem church (Acts 6), it was the counsel of apostles who collectively appointed, laid hands on and prayed for the elders (board of elders??).

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.

I agree on both points, but reducing this all down to one man (single-rule pastor) is both overwhelming for that one man and presents a dangerous situation where they could easily be led into apostasy. Putting the role of the pastor back into its biblical perspective does not strip the church of leadership. It does make it safer for the church and assures accountability and doctrinal integrity. What we see now is hundreds of churches, all subject to the whims of one man with pet doctrines or convictions, many talking badly about other pastors/churches and excluding them from the body of Christ over these extrabiblical pet convictions.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by jaamez

All great posts, and I apologize for how long it has taken me to get back to this thread. It's been very hectic. A few responses to get the conversation started again...

Again, you're making the leap (that I don't believe scripture necessarily supports) that assumes that Titus was a pastor. Indeed, he was some sort of leader, but to assume that he was a pastor as we know 21st century pastors is a risky one to make.

Paul was NOT a pastor. He was NOT the pastor of the Corinthian church or any other church. He was an apostle. There were five separate and distinct ministerial gifts given to the church, pastor being only one of them. Also, the fact that "pastors" are only mentioned ONE TIME in the KJV New Testament, and that in the plural form, tells me that the NT writers put much less emphasis on this particular ministry than what we do.

The word translated into "pastors" in Ephesians 4.11, [poimen], literally translates into "shepherd." EVERY instance of poimen in the NT (17 in total) with the exception of the Ephesians instance is translated as Shepherd. The shepherd's job is to lead and protect the sheep. And the authority of this shepherd is what one would have over sheep that belonged to someone else. We (as sheep) don't belong to a pastor. Jesus Christ is our Shepherd and our Head. The role of the undershepherd, or pastor, would be to protect and lead the sheep to a place of nourishment where they can feed themselves.

The "man of God" statements that are so often made refer back to the Old Covenant where the people asked for a mediator/vicar. Notice that God didn't originally intend to have it this way, but the people were afraid of the thunderings and asked for someone to speak to God for them and speak to them for God. The New Covenant replaces that model by placing the law and the Spirit within each of us. We no longer have any mediator, other than the Man Jesus Christ. We have His word - in our hearts. He is the Word, and He is in US!! As such, the role of the ministries God gave to the church are for the "perfecting of the saints" until we all come into the unity of the Spirit. What you see "men of God/pastors" doing these days is really causing more division than unity.

The "Obey them that have rule over you..." scripture has been bludgeoned to death by pastors who use it as a whip to keep the sheep under their control. But the part that always seems to be ignored is that (1) the "THEM" is plural, and really tends to negate any assertion that the writer is talking about a lone, self-rule pastor; and (2) the "obey" wording in the KJV is misleading because the real context of the greek [peitho] is more closely saying "allow your faith to be persuaded by your leaders". It does not indicate dominance or pre-eminence.

I don't believe in anarchy, or that the role of any pastor is emasculated. I just see it much differently when I look in scripture. When you take off the lens of 21st century church hierarchial structure, and look at what the Word is actually saying, you can no longer make those bold leaps to assume that all of the leaders mentioned in the New Testament were pastors (in addition to their roles as apostles or evangelists).

What does Acts 6 say about how the church leadership was setup? The APOSTLES appointed SEVERAL men to do the daily ministration for the saints at Jerusalem. Note... they were appointed by the APOSTLES, and there were MANY. Only in the epistle to 3 John do we see any reference to any church being a one-man show. Sure, Paul wrote the epistles to Timothy and Titus, but I fail to see how the text of these letters indicate that they were supreme authority in their congregations as pastors. In fact, Paul tells Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist."

Just some more thoughts for consideration. GP, I appreciate the manner in which you are responding to posts. I truly sense that you have a heart for God and truth. And I also sense that your mind is not closed to opposing views. That is truly a breath of fresh air. God bless you! I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Thanks for taking the time here.

The role of the undershepherd, or pastor, would be to protect and lead the sheep to a place of nourishment where they can feed themselves.

I was trying to get us to a common agreement, before there are any contentious beliefs. And that is, if God has appointed undershepherds who are to nourish, feed, shield off danger, did he also do that without authority?
Keep in mind, I'm excluding from the argument, cases of pastoral abuse.

I've also been looking at the plural leadership that seems to be prevalent in the Bible. How we create this in a 21st Century is beyond me. While neither of us believe in anarchy, that's what would happen. I've worked on enough boards and committees to see what happens when no one assumes the role of the leader. This doesn't take away from the others, but really serves as a help to us.

So you don't believe Titus or Timothy were pastors? Were they then just one of the elders who were privileged to get a note from Paul? Were they also apostles? If we choose to call them only apostles, then what would their role be?

I understand we have great frustration with the RCC. But could it be that they didn't get it all wrong -- could some things be correct? Who attended the General Council in Acts 15? Should all saints attend?

Heb 13 -- Obey them... we both know the rebuttal to this is because the letter was a circular letter, and also because there is more than one person in the church "over us" (covering). Some deduce that we don't have any, when in reality, this is saying there's more than one. It could mean more than one each person, or a plural form to apply to all the leaders and saints in the churches.

Thank you for your kind words. I truly do want truth. There are so that are so flippant on here without any thought, not realizing decisions people make with some of our words could cost them their families, their loved ones, etc... these are enormous questions... but I'm thankful for a forum where we can question (although I'd hate for it to be so set on the questioning than what the actual questions are).

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by jaamez

... and blame it on centuries of tradition and cultural interpretation of how they really operated in Century 1!

There is no "leader-less leadership." All leaders are subject to the Good Shepherd. While it is certainly much simpler to depend on what we can see and hear (an actual person to be our "man of God"), we are commanded to walk by faith and not by sight. As long as we have our eyes on man instead of God, we will never have perfected saints in the unity of the faith, completely furnished unto good works.

Could you explain the way you interpret and see the NT church operating, in terms of leadership?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by jaamez

What is your scripture reference to qualify your "according to the epistles" statement? Again, in the Jerusalem church (Acts 6), it was the counsel of apostles who collectively appointed, laid hands on and prayed for the elders (board of elders??).

I agree on both points, but reducing this all down to one man (single-rule pastor) is both overwhelming for that one man and presents a dangerous situation where they could easily be led into apostasy. Putting the role of the pastor back into its biblical perspective does not strip the church of leadership. It does make it safer for the church and assures accountability and doctrinal integrity. What we see now is hundreds of churches, all subject to the whims of one man with pet doctrines or convictions, many talking badly about other pastors/churches and excluding them from the body of Christ over these extrabiblical pet convictions.

Would it truly be one-man, if there are elders, and each pastor has accountability? Does this other method not allow an independence for the local church to do things differently than the church on the opposite coast? Is that problematic? Did the NT church ever have cases where the leaders differed slightly on issues, yet didn't demand unity on these non-essential issues?

[GrowingPains]

Any good books on this topic that are balanced? There must be historical and scholastic writings/evidence to show some of the structure of the 1st Century churches.

[Raven]

Jaamez
Good thoughts! We're in much agreement.

Raven

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Would it truly be one-man, if there are elders, and each pastor has accountability? Does this other method not allow an independence for the local church to do things differently than the church on the opposite coast? Is that problematic? Did the NT church ever have cases where the leaders differed slightly on issues, yet didn't demand unity on these non-essential issues?

GP

Jaamez could not have said some things better, in agreement with you Jaamez. Wish I had more time to help you out but let me say as long as your salvation is sure then take as long as you need to search these things out. Have a foundation from which to grow from that you can also stand on if things get shaky. Then study as you are doing with your heart open to God and remember truth will prevail. I went through some things over the last 20 years which have changed my life in the last 5 years. My whole family, my wife and chidren and all theirs have gone from a performance based religion to freedom in Christ. I can happily say that all my children are serving God where they were weak while we were part of the conservitive denomination. I don't think this is for everybody but what I do say is that you first must find a personal relationship with your savior I don't mean lip service I mean you must know the voice of God and be on speaking turms with him every answer to every question can be found in the word of God.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

GP

Jaamez could not have said some things better, in agreement with you Jaamez. Wish I had more time to help you out but let me say as long as your salvation is sure then take as long as you need to search these things out. Have a foundation from which to grow from that you can also stand on if things get shaky. Then study as you are doing with your heart open to God and remember truth will prevail. I went through some things over the last 20 years which have changed my life in the last 5 years. My whole family, my wife and chidren and all theirs have gone from a performance based religion to freedom in Christ. I can happily say that all my children are serving God where they were weak while we were part of the conservitive denomination. I don't think this is for everybody but what I do say is that you first must find a personal relationship with your savior I don't mean lip service I mean you must know the voice of God and be on speaking turms with him every answer to every question can be found in the word of God.

I'm not a young man, but I wrestle with youthful zeal with these questions and issues. I'm not satisfied by any position's fancy rhetoric, but it should be tested with scripture, history, and practical application. So far I find many folks on the left with more ideals than practical application, and more on the right with too much application, and not enough room for ideals/liberty.
This particular issue (pastoral authority) is often the foundation behind it all.