Do you hafta go through the pastor?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

leaders/ pastores are to take care of the sheep is my point of veiw... I know places where it is to the extreme...but balanced people know what I am talking about. My husband is a pastor...so as his wife and helper a great responsibility rests on our shoulders. We will give account one day how we led God´s precious lambs.
I don´t like to hear so called pastors talking about how they skinned the sheep. We lead them not abuse them. We may correct them in love but we do not skin them.

Amen!

[Rico]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Okay, okay. I can't help but to ask, what is the purpose of a pastor?
IMO
(based upon what you are saying) You have no need for a pastor.
A pastors job is not to lead or guide the flock.
You do not go to church, because you do not believe in the conventional authority of a pastors office. Again, I realize that I may be drawing conclusions about you, but you have yet to explain why we do not need the authority of a pastor.

You realize he could turn the tables and say you haven't adequately explained why you need the authority of a pastor.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Rico

You realize he could turn the tables and say you haven't adequately explained why you need the authority of a pastor.

And then I could come back with yet another explanation, ad infinitum.

And at the end of the day, I doubt if any of us will have changed our minds.

It has been an interesting discussion however.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Rico

You realize he could turn the tables and say you haven't adequately explained why you need the authority of a pastor.

Rico, there is only one problem with his answer as compared to mine concerning this one particular topic. That is that we find pastors in the bible. I know that my answer was short and sweet, but all too often we make things more complicated than we have to.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Barb

Bro. Pew, I answered your questions, albeit ineptly. You need not feel the pressure to respond to my long response...just letting you know.

Barb,
thank you giving your response to the three thought-questions I posed to you. If you believe that the scriptures command us to acknowledge that we have RULERS who we must OBEY, I imagined my questions would demonstrate that they must not really be rulers because of the inherent latitudes we all exercise quite regularly in our lives "under" these so-called RULERS.

If a ruler is nice and benevolent and gives you all kinds of space to explore what you want to explore, he is still a RULER. He would have authority to take from you liberty if your conduct is deemed displeasing or gendering disunity in the Kingdom he rules.

Your response to question #3 was fully established around the idea of an unbelieving husband. While I understand that that condition gets talked about in discussions like these...my scenario was strictly intended for the marriage that was established in vows made by two born-again children of God.

[note please consider ignoring the following if my posts have been generally upsetting to you]
................
In our most common exposure within the classical delivery system of 'churchanity', I understand that most of us will affirm that the guy who started the thing (founding pastor) or the guy who is leading the thing (sr. pastor) is the final word. This inherent "actionable" position is why I have begun to test the phrase, a God-themed, man-club.

The church of the living God is God's own dwelling place, made by him without any man's hands. IMO, I submit that what we regularly call a 'CHURCH' is really an association of persons assembling within a construct established by some man to advance purposes he believes are the intentions
of God.

There are witnesses in these groups that support of this premise:
1. One man feels he is responsible for the spiritual well-being and maintenance of the thing.
2. One man is the 'buck-stops' here final authority
3. The resultant product, when viewed outside of the product, is routinely referred to as "brother ______'s church.
4. The one man believes he is the shepherd and the folks who assembly are HIS sheep.
5. The one man teaches that he is the ultimate authority for all matters pertaining to application of scripture within the group.
6. The one man will often witness the thoughts of his heart with words like, I am working to build a church for God.

Do I find any of these things fundamentally wrong. No. I just find them evidence of the fact that what is being conducted and overseen is fundamentally a temporal realm reality.

If a founder or primary responsible party for a God-themed man-club wants to use the secular wisdom demonstrated in corporate governance, I applaud them. This, IMO, is an appropriate application for modeling governance within a function established in the temporal realm.

The problem is when we get to God's own body, which already has a head that is connected to every member of the body by his spirit, individuals pronouncing that they are God's local head (occupying Moses' seat), is a confusion of faces within the witness of singular body. It introduces double-mindedness within the reality of the individual member of God's own body.

......................

[Felicity]

Bro. Pew.....

Could you sum up your view in regard to pastoral authority in a nutshell? Or perhaps a short paragraph?

[Barb]

Originally Posted by tbpew

Barb,
thank you giving your response to the three thought-questions I posed to you. If you believe that the scriptures command us to acknowledge that we have RULERS who we must OBEY, I imagined my questions would demonstrate that they must not really be rulers because of the inherent latitudes we all exercise quite regularly in our lives "under" these so-called RULERS.

If a ruler is nice and benevolent and gives you all kinds of space to explore what you want to explore, he is still a RULER. He would have authority to take from you liberty if your conduct is deemed displeasing or gendering disunity in the Kingdom he rules.

Your response to question #3 was fully established around the idea of an unbelieving husband. While I understand that that condition gets talked about in discussions like these...my scenario was strictly intended for the marriage that was established in vows made by two born-again children of God.

[note please consider ignoring the following if my posts have been generally upsetting to you]
................
In our most common exposure within the classical delivery system of 'churchanity', I understand that most of us will affirm that the guy who started the thing (founding pastor) or the guy who is leading the thing (sr. pastor) is the final word. This inherent "actionable" position is why I have begun to test the phrase, a God-themed, man-club.

The church of the living God is God's own dwelling place, made by him without any man's hands. IMO, I submit that what we regularly call a 'CHURCH' is really an association of persons assembling within a construct established by some man to advance purposes he believes are the intentions
of God.

There are witnesses in these groups that support of this premise:
1. One man feels he is responsible for the spiritual well-being and maintenance of the thing.
2. One man is the 'buck-stops' here final authority
3. The resultant product, when viewed outside of the product, is routinely referred to as "brother ______'s church.
4. The one man believes he is the shepherd and the folks who assembly are HIS sheep.
5. The one man teaches that he is the ultimate authority for all matters pertaining to application of scripture within the group.
6. The one man will often witness the thoughts of his heart with words like, I am working to build a church for God.

Do I find any of these things fundamentally wrong. No. I just find them evidence of the fact that what is being conducted and overseen is fundamentally a temporal realm reality.

If a founder or primary responsible party for a God-themed man-club wants to use the secular wisdom demonstrated in corporate governance, I applaud them. This, IMO, is an appropriate application for modeling governance within a function established in the temporal realm.

The problem is when we get to God's own body, which already has a head that is connected to every member of the body by his spirit, individuals pronouncing that they are God's local head (occupying Moses' seat), is a confusion of faces within the witness of singular body. It introduces double-mindedness within the reality of the individual member of God's own body.

......................

Originally Posted by Felicity

Bro. Pew.....

Could you sum up your view in regard to pastoral authority in a nutshell? Or perhaps a short paragraph?

Thank you, Felicity...whew!! And folks thing I am longwinded!!

Bro. Pew, you would not answer the question I made a few days ago of whether you were a pastor or not, and I understand you not doing so. But let me ask this...

If you WERE a pastor, would you allow that you had no real authority as such and were just receiving a paycheck or whatever as one bearing the name without the responsibility?!

Do you have a problem with those in leadership positions "taking liberty" as you describe it, or sitting people down as it were, or placing them on some kind of punishment for sinful infractions?!

Or are the powers that be just suppossed to ignore such things?!

[Felicity]

I agree with a lot of the points tbpew is making. And in fact have made some of them myself in the past in regard to this discussion.

I'd just like to read a concise wrap-up ..... perhaps in 10 point form or something like that.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Felicity

I agree with a lot of the points tbpew is making. And in fact have made some of them myself in the past in regard to this discussion.

I'd just like to read a concise wrap-up ..... perhaps in 10 point form or something like that.

my schedule for the balance of the afternoon will not provide access online.

I am sorry, but concise statements just set me up for silly comments like "you don't believe pastors have any authority!?!".

sorry its not a simple, easily shared position.

When contrasting against the well-established, highly familiar, construct of the main delivery system used by apostolics, it just isn't a simple thing.

The engagement I have had so far from GL, CS, and Easty are evidence that the specificity I have tried to bring into the discussion is strictly met with..."what part of Heb 13:17 don't you understand?" If that is the primary basis of rebuttal from those who preceive they sit in Moses' seat, I would be introducing countless little side branches if I were to attempt, high level surmising. This, IMO, is the inherent 'death-song' on discussion boards. Such efforts more often spawn silly posting exchanges like ...."well not all pastors are like dictatorial rulers!". Great, now what did that view provide to support or deny the PRINCIPLE being discussed? Sorry, I would rather trust more words for those who care to read them then to make high level summaries that just open up a feeding frenzy for little foxes.

The readers who are hearing what I am saying from within their confidence that their RULERship is God-ordained, have little capacity to consider the cause/effect of such an assertion made within the body of Christ. To even insinuate that a discussion of authority can be conducted without a specific delineation of applicable boundaries and realms, is a position the is being purposely evasive.

How does one begin to establish any kind of beach-head for consideration when the words being presented are viewed as having their motivation in causing division between a ruler and his subjects? That is DOA proposition in the ears of the occupants of Moses' seat.

Sorry, Barb. That is the way things are from my view. I will respond to your question to me in your last post and then respectfully depart from my direct exchange with you to avoid any space where a unintended wound may be inflicted.

sincerely,
tbpew

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by tbpew

I am sorry, but concise statements just set me up for silly comments like "you don't believe pastors have any authority!?!".

sorry its not a simple, easily shared position.

Understood. I know it's not an easy position to articulate concisely because there are many things to consider.

I agree with many of the points you made and have made some of the some points myself in discussing this issue in the past.

I also agree with many of the points made by Coonskinner.

Thank you for the time and effort you've put into presenting your views. I still think it could be done in a 10 point bullet form but I understand the reluctance.