RE: Biblical Model (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Faith] >> Ministry Leaders



Message

armydude -> RE: Biblical Model (4/15/2008 5:41:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doinkdom

I'm not talking about a democracy- I'm talking about lone ranger Pastors who enjoy the title and paycheck alone.

And while there might be none in your area (Praise God), there are many in ours. They might or might not be part of a denomination. And many of the elders around here attend a monthly meeting, but are no more involved in the lives of the local church than the squirrel on the fence.

In both of the examples cited here, the problem is not with the system, but the people that abuse the system. You don't change the system to accomodate the people. You get rid of the ones that are causing trouble. Lone Ranger Pastors that are in it for the money are part of the problem. Elders that aren't actively involved in the lives of those that they are leading are also part of the problem. What do we do about the problem? Changing the system isn't the answer because these same people will be there taking advantage of the new system.



BibleL7 -> RE: Biblical Model (4/16/2008 3:23:44 AM)

Some churches allow pastors to rule over the congregation this is partly the fault of the congregation which starts the organization for some tend to elevate the pastor to a position which is not biblical. I know many who simply believe that whatever the Pastor says is right even if the Pastor says check the Scriptures.

My experiences with congregations and leadership has always been in congregations which had a Pastor or Sr. Pastor who was as the word means a shepherd of the flock. It is the Pastors responsibility to be sure that the flock is fed the truth of Scriptures, and oversee the flock to make sure they were understanding teachings, being helped to be followers of Jesus, and for the ones having membership to be sure the membership was not still practicing sinful lives. As for accountability some had a board of elders some had a board of trustees and Deacons and one had just a board of directors to answer to. The ones with membership also were voted in by members and therefore accountable to members. Being most recently with a Baptist church the usual Baptist model is to have a Pastor that is in charge of Spiritual matters and officers or boards that are in charge of financial and property matters. But the one thing most important for Baptists is the membership votes as a democracy for any officers including the Pastor. The length of terms is different depending on By-Laws set up and all members and leaders need to follow the constitution and articles of faith of the church.

As to the one who asked the question of deacons feeding people as for our deacon he was in charge of distributing bread and dairy products to about 45 people this morning of course we average 30 to 50 two days a week. And our deacon is also in charge of preparing the Communion elements. So I know of some deacons who actually do serve food.

As to Overseer always being plural re-read, some times it is not plural. 1 Tim 3:5 is a good one to check to see that the Overseer or Bishop was to show good leadership over his family or how could he be a good leader of the congregation. I see nothing in scripture that says elders would be rich people that owned good sized houses. The only one I can recall of being mentioned of a specific house used was when Paul went to the house next door to the synagogue belonging to one who believed. And yes they met in various places so to say the elders were mostly heads of richer families does not agree with Scripture nor any of the letters of the Church fathers. Of course most of the histories of early church call the leaders Bishops not Pastors. All of the church councils in the first few centuries were attended by Bishops and they were the ones who decided doctrines and excommunicated false teaching Bishops. And there is no mention of a council or group of Bishops from the same town or area, just one.

As to any who might believe that leadership or anything which was followed in the OT has no bearing on NT I would say that it was the OT that all the Apostles and leaders of the early church had for an example. Recall if any may that many assemblies would have been modeled after synagogues for in the beginning and for many years only Jews were members of the Church so they would be very used to one person leading the assembly and responsible for seeing that doctrine was Scriptural.

As for the question of Jeremiah the verse I referenced was Jer. 3:15 of course some English versions do say shepherds instead of pastors but many of the earlier ones translate it pastors. Sorry I did not give the verse reference but I thought that those claiming to know Scriptural model of leadership would know the Scriptures well enough to know of which I was referring. Sorry bad habit of mine of expecting believers to read the Scriptures and know them so I would not have to use addresses which were never in the Scriptures of the early church in fact did not exist till the 16th century. I do use them to help the congregation find where I am reading from in my sermons but dont usually use them when not reading from the Bible.

Oh and crankius when I was referring to the thread I had posted you were not one that I was referring to as not showing scriptural reference as you never posted on the thread. Though it said that over a thousand visited the thread only 5 others posted and it went by the wayside. I know you always give Scripture references in your posts and I very much respect your knowledge and understanding of Scripture just believe you sometimes read plurals in a different perspective than I do.

Just the opinion of a small town preacher



doinkdom -> RE: Biblical Model (4/16/2008 11:07:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: armydude
quote:

ORIGINAL: doinkdom

I'm not talking about a democracy- I'm talking about lone ranger Pastors who enjoy the title and paycheck alone.

And while there might be none in your area (Praise God), there are many in ours. They might or might not be part of a denomination. And many of the elders around here attend a monthly meeting, but are no more involved in the lives of the local church than the squirrel on the fence.

In both of the examples cited here, the problem is not with the system, but the people that abuse the system. You don't change the system to accomodate the people. You get rid of the ones that are causing trouble. Lone Ranger Pastors that are in it for the money are part of the problem. Elders that aren't actively involved in the lives of those that they are leading are also part of the problem. What do we do about the problem? Changing the system isn't the answer because these same people will be there taking advantage of the new system.


I guess what I'm saying - and not very well I might add [;)] - is the system, so to speak is easily taken advantage of because we are dealing with fallen people. And one stubborn, prideful pastor is a dangerous thing. And because people (in general) blindly follow because they don't know what they don't know.

I don't see the NT church as being a system, it was a community full of people interacting 7 days a week, not just on Sundays. I agree that in today's culture we have made it into a system to accomodate our lives because they are so full of work commutes and school and sports and such. But it doesn't have to be that way - we've made it that way.

The most important thing in our lives should be the community of believers. People re-locate to other cities for #1 job reason, #2 buying a new home, but the decision to stay or move to be a part of a local body of believers is not usually a consideration at all - it's an afterthought...we'll find a church when we get there - believe me, we've looked and it's not here. And yet, that is the most important part of our lives. I'm not saying that the #1 and #2 reasons are bad, it's that the priorities we have are so skued. I include myself in all of this.

I'm sure I am beyond making sense, so I think I'll just shaddup for a while.[8|]



armydude -> RE: Biblical Model (4/16/2008 11:20:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: doinkdom

The most important thing in our lives should be the community of believers. People re-locate to other cities for #1 job reason, #2 buying a new home, but the decision to stay or move to be a part of a local body of believers is not usually a consideration at all - it's an afterthought...we'll find a church when we get there - believe me, we've looked and it's not here. And yet, that is the most important part of our lives. I'm not saying that the #1 and #2 reasons are bad, it's that the priorities we have are so skued. I include myself in all of this.

I'm sure I am beyond making sense, so I think I'll just shaddup for a while.[8|]
You're making perfect sense. I happen to know of a good church in your area... My pastor works quite a bit in that area too. If you like you could PM me for the info.



crankius -> RE: Biblical Model (4/16/2008 12:33:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BibleL7

I see nothing in scripture that says elders would be rich people that owned good sized houses.



Did someone claim an elder should be rich? I know I haven't read every post in this thread, so maybe I missed it.

quote:

Oh and crankius when I was referring to the thread I had posted you were not one that I was referring to as not showing scriptural reference as you never posted on the thread.


Did you read the links I gave to Armydude in post 9? Many of those theologians give a very thorough presentation on the NT plurality of elders model. You might find them interesting.

There is a tremendous amount of scriptural evidence for a plurality of elders (for example, how is a sick person to seek anointing from the "elders" if there is only one elder?). I cannot find in scripture where a single pastor is to be appointed head of the church.

Another great aspect about a plurality of elders model: in a plurality of elders church, sound doctrine is being taught and the men are being matured by the Lord, and those qualified and willing are appointed to serve. Men are brought into leadership on a regular basis.

However, in a church with only one pastor, the men are matured only to service but not to co-leadership--I think you'll find that this harms the Body of Christ greatly.

It is a thrill to be in a church where men can be matured and Biblically qualified, and there isn't one man set above all the rest. It's pretty absurd to think that there will be only one qualified man in each church to serve as elder, don't you think?



crankius -> RE: Biblical Model (4/16/2008 2:53:19 PM)

quote:

Sorry I did not give the verse reference but I thought that those claiming to know Scriptural model of leadership would know the Scriptures well enough to know of which I was referring. Sorry bad habit of mine of expecting believers to read the Scriptures and know them so I would not have to use addresses which were never in the Scriptures of the early church in fact did not exist till the 16th century. I do use them to help the congregation find where I am reading from in my sermons but dont usually use them when not reading from the Bible.



[&:]

Earlier, you complained:

quote:

I only had a couple say that a group of elders was only biblical leadership and when I asked for Scriptures to back it up it went to no response. Praise the Lord



pbaribeault -> RE: Biblical Model (4/16/2008 5:18:47 PM)

quote:

I see nothing in scripture that says elders would be rich people that owned good sized houses... so to say the elders were mostly heads of richer families does not agree with Scripture nor any of the letters of the Church fathers.
You've misunderstood my post. I said that that culture would naturally tend to follow their own class system, which is why they were given specific instructions NOT to do that, and to acclaim eldership based on spiritual qualities.

I said they would be heads of key families - because their household: grown children, grandchildren and servants (if they had any) would be living Christian lives (under his leadership) so their whole family would be part of the congregation... Then, if he was indeed a spiritually mature leader, his family would be doing well as Christians, growing spiritually and acting in godly ways - perhaps more so that families that lacked a spiritually mature leader. That's what I meant by a 'key' family.

quote:

As to Overseer always being plural re-read, some times it is not plural. 1 Tim 3:5 is a good one to check to see that the Overseer or Bishop...
I understand an ordinary reading of "if a man..." to be referencing an example not an individual. If it had said "the" man, I'd have considered the opposite reading, but considering that the definite article ('the') is used carefully in greek, and also considering that the indefinite article ('a') is not a part of the greek language, I consider your reading of this verse to be linguistically unsubstantiated.

Your sentence should read, "... to check to see that an overseer or bishop..." which says plenty about qualifications, but nothing about whether or not there is to be more than one person in a congregation that needs to be checked.

quote:

Of course most of the histories of early church call the leaders Bishops not Pastors.
That's because bishops (overseers) were NOT pastors. They were a different kind of leader. Pastors came later, which is why most of us are telling you that the Church being lead by a pastor is not the model that was employed by the early Church.

quote:

As to any who might believe that leadership or anything which was followed in the OT has no bearing on NT I would say that it was the OT that all the Apostles and leaders of the early church had for an example. Recall if any may that many assemblies would have been modeled after synagogues for in the beginning and for many years only Jews were members of the Church so they would be very used to one person leading the assembly and responsible for seeing that doctrine was Scriptural.
Really... because I thought the Jews had a council of elders (Luke 22:66) that there were more than a few chief priests and "elders of the people" (Luke 21:23) plus, I suppose all the regular priests (Luke 1:5). I've read that they selected a high priest from among themselves each year (John 11:49) and that a variety of people participated in the assembly as preachers (Acts 9:20) and readers (Luke 4:16). Wait! That sounds a lot like the model of plural leadership that I see throughout the NT - I think you're probably right about the Jewish influence.[sm=aside.gif]

quote:

Jer. 3:15 of course some English versions do say shepherds instead of pastors but many of the earlier ones translate it pastors.
I fail to see that God promising to give His people shepherds meant that He would only give them one per gathering, or that one in each gathering would have to rule over the others. Considering that "pastor" and "shepherd" are identical in meaning, I don't think the translation matters.

As for this
quote:

It is the Pastors responsibility to be sure that the flock is fed the truth of Scriptures, and oversee the flock to make sure they were understanding teachings, being helped to be followers of Jesus, and for the ones having membership to be sure the membership was not still practicing sinful lives.
I can see how one person can do this well for maybe 4 to 8 families. I'm absolutely convinced that no one can do it for 300 to 500 people. To me it makes sense that various leaders should be attending to these deep needs within a congregation. If the congregation grows without a plurality of people to do this, their needs will go unmet... Would that leave the Jeremiah promise unfulfilled? I have faith that God has sent us enough leaders to do the job.

PS
quote:

I thought that those claiming to know Scriptural model of leadership would know the Scriptures well enough to know of which I was referring. Sorry bad habit of mine of expecting believers to read the Scriptures and know them so I would not have to use addresses
I found this insulting. If you make further similar comments, I will refrain from conversing with you.



BibleL7 -> RE: Biblical Model (4/17/2008 12:38:25 PM)

Actually I have seen many congregations with a leading pastor do very well in raising up other men as leaders. Many of these churches have licensed ministers who work under the guidance of the Pastor. In time they are ordained as assistant pastors. Many of the assistant pastors later become pastors a continuous cycle at times. Some have a good number of assistant pastors and ministers all working together and if there is a difference in need of settling the Sr Pastor has the decision. One senior leader does not mean there are not junior leaders in training. In Exodus Moses is told to appoint leaders over thousands and hundreds and tens giving leaders over small groups then leaders over the leaders in a hierarchie. Yes a group of elders or pastors is usually called to interview and test minsters before they are ordained to be sure he is correct in doctrine and has a good level of maturity. Some with a leading pastor do have elder boards to help in leadership and in many of these the Pastor is mainly the one who makes the decisions on Spiritual matters and sometimes is the one who chooses the elders. As for working with larger congregations that's why the Pastor raises up assistant Pastors many large churches have one Sr Pastor and a number of assistant pastors and the Sr Pastor ends up mostly the Pastor of the assistants when the congregation gets that large.

When I said I asked for scriptural references I do not mean addresses I meant examples of scripture if they wish to use addresses is no problem but I can also read a passage reference and be able to find exact wording easily. Also in many different paraphrasing as I know how many translations word passages differently and can do a search on my puter which i have over 20 translations in one program. The posters on the thread gave no examples from the Bible what so ever only said that a board of elders without a leading pastor was only proper biblical way to organize yet they gave no references of an example such as James saying go to the elders. With that I would know exactly where to look in Scripture. I learned with translations in paragraph form first with small numbers to show verses. Then started using KJV so I could use Strong's numbers to look up original words. So for someone to even misquote a passage or just refer to a parable or particular persons I would consider that also biblical reference. Not just addresses. Usually when you hang out with ministers and pastors they know the bible and never use addresses unless there is question on exact wording. Of course many Pastors I know have scriptures so well memorized that they can quote verse and address and when you check the Bible it is exact. Guess it is a matter of all the study done before preaching. Though they were raised with KJV in churches I was atheist till about 12 years ago. Sorry if it seemed a contradiction.

Just the opinion of a small town preacher



BibleL7 -> RE: Biblical Model (4/17/2008 1:06:33 PM)

BTW if a minister or pastor gets out of line the pastor that licensed or ordained that minister or pastor has right to suspend or revoke the license so there is accountability. Many pastors consider the pastor that licensed them or the pastor of the last church they were a member of as their pastor. Where is your accountability with a group of elders?

Just the opinion of a small town preacher



pbaribeault -> RE: Biblical Model (4/17/2008 8:08:04 PM)

A group of elders is accountable to the group they lead. If they lead in error, the group doesn't follow them - end of leadership. There is also accountability among equals in a high-integrity group like elders.

I really see no reason why multiple leaders must be junior to anybody. That implies they are still in training. If they are mature enough to be leaders, why should they need the oversight of someone with a similar level of maturity to themselves? Why should they not just fulfill their calling alongside of each other? If all are leaders, and all are shepherding, why does one need a different name from the others?

However, since I seem to be carrying this conversation, I should make clear again that I am not one of those people who think Churches should be run this way in our present day. I am only describing the way that the Bible narratives indicate that Churches of that day were operated. I think it's debatable whether such a model is practice-able or valuable for our day. The Bible never commands us to imitate the early Church for all time - it just tells us how they were doing things then.

THEN they ran by a plurality of elders, loosely tied up with an evangelist's authority. I'm willing to debate on that, BUT I'm not saying that we have operate that way too. I'm only saying that that's what they did - and since those evangelists were inspired enough to write Scripture, there is wisdom to be sought in their practices. We are under the authority of Biblical commands, not Biblical descriptions.

I happen to think that Pastor-as-key-leader Churches are very workable for the modern era - they're just not an implementation of the Biblical model.



crankius -> RE: Biblical Model (4/18/2008 4:26:32 PM)

quote:

Where is your accountability with a group of elders?


Scripture.

Matthew 18:15-17
"Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

1 Timothy5:19-20
Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.


Elders are fellow believers, and if they are in unrepentant sin the believers in the church are to follow the scriptures for correcting him.

If the elder continues to be unrepentant, and numerous witnesses have come forward, then scripture instructs the church to rebuke him before all.

In a plurality of elders though, generally, the men are accountable to each other and pray for each other, and correct each other when needed. Though, like in ANY structure, pride can take over and leadership can go astray. I don't think there is a Biblical structure that man in the flesh cannot misuse.



Dakotasunbeam -> RE: Biblical Model (4/18/2008 8:24:19 PM)

quote:

Action in the church (since so few are actually doing anything) will eventually put someone in leadership.
I hate to sound callous on this, but for those that are upset about a perceived seperation between leadership and laity, I have this. There's a seperation because 90% of the work is being done by well less than 10% of the people there. That's not scriptural either.
I as a leader am not going to go back to sitting in a pew doing nothing. I did that long enough.

This is a problem, so why are those who claim to be leaders NOT addressing this? Believers should be coming together to fellowship on Sunday, not listen to a lecture. There is no interaction. A handshake and casual conversation and a couple of "praise the lord's" is NOT ENOUGH.

Why aren't the "leaders" or those who care about the flock LISTENING to the problems of the flock? I hear time and time again people saying:

"I feel like I don't know anyone at church."
"Small groups are cliquish."
"The pastor has all of the authority."
"I need accountability."
"I don't feel comfortable?"
"I need to be discipled."
"I didn't know that was in the Bible."
"What do I do now that I'm saved?"

Pastors should be ON THEIR KNEES praying to God to get back to a place where they can help people. It's not that people aren't speaking, it's just that . . . it seems, nobody is listening.

Why not use the biblical model? Obviously what we've got now is yielding horrible fruit. Divorce, sex scandals, denominations, etc. etc. Wowza! Can't anybody see the woods for the trees anymore?



armydude -> RE: Biblical Model (4/18/2008 9:20:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dakotasunbeam

quote:

Action in the church (since so few are actually doing anything) will eventually put someone in leadership.
I hate to sound callous on this, but for those that are upset about a perceived seperation between leadership and laity, I have this. There's a seperation because 90% of the work is being done by well less than 10% of the people there. That's not scriptural either.
I as a leader am not going to go back to sitting in a pew doing nothing. I did that long enough.

This is a problem, so why are those who claim to be leaders NOT addressing this? Believers should be coming together to fellowship on Sunday, not listen to a lecture. There is no interaction. A handshake and casual conversation and a couple of "praise the lord's" is NOT ENOUGH.
Okay, here's where the rubber meets the road. What are you doing about this? Not globally, that's a tall order, but in your local body of believers, what are you doing to curb this problem? From the wording you used earlier, it seems to me that you're expecting the leadership to do something about this. Why should they if the laity isnt' interested in doing something about it? Complaining about the problem isn't doing something. Saying, "They ought to do something," isn't doing something. It's causing more problems.
It's not just the leadership getting on a high horse, although I'll admit that does happen. If the laity of the church were mature christians, active in the operation of the church, then the leadership would have peers in the congregation. That's not the case because very few people are doing anything. In many cases the same people that are saying, "The leadership thinks they're better than everyone else," are also leaving things undone that they can do because, "That's the preacher's (or deacon's, or elder's) job."
For example, my mother told me one time that my pastor was an "uppity preacher" because he saw her at the store (I won't name the store) and didn't speak to her. I said, "Did you say anything to him?" She acted as though she shouldn't have to. This preacher who had seen her twice (maybe three times) didn't recognize her, and she jumped to the conclusion that he ignored her because she wasn't a minster and was therefore "beneath" him. I told her that if she wanted to talk to him, she coulda said hello. She didn't talk to me about it again. I could tell I angered her a lot, but it was true.
quote:



Why aren't the "leaders" or those who care about the flock LISTENING to the problems of the flock? I hear time and time again people saying:

"I feel like I don't know anyone at church."
"Small groups are cliquish."
"The pastor has all of the authority."
"I need accountability."
"I don't feel comfortable?"
"I need to be discipled."
"I didn't know that was in the Bible."
"What do I do now that I'm saved?"

Pastors should be ON THEIR KNEES praying to God to get back to a place where they can help people. It's not that people aren't speaking, it's just that . . . it seems, nobody is listening.

Why not use the biblical model? Obviously what we've got now is yielding horrible fruit. Divorce, sex scandals, denominations, etc. etc. Wowza! Can't anybody see the woods for the trees anymore?
Those last couple of quotes hit home with me. I have discussed this with my pastor quite a bit and we agree that discipleship must be the cornerstone of a church. Too many churches in America get people saved, and then they seemingly say, "NEXT!" The new convert is forgotten. That's sad. And that's a problem with the whole church, not just pastors. All leadership shares that blame. I will personally accept blame for this, and my pastor and I are working to disciple new believers in my church. I am also working on a ministry to provide bibles and devotionals to new believers with an email address to ask any questions they have.
What about those new believers that don't have access to email? I haven't figured that one out yet.



BibleL7 -> RE: Biblical Model (4/18/2008 10:02:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dakotasunbeam

quote:

Action in the church (since so few are actually doing anything) will eventually put someone in leadership.
I hate to sound callous on this, but for those that are upset about a perceived seperation between leadership and laity, I have this. There's a seperation because 90% of the work is being done by well less than 10% of the people there. That's not scriptural either.
I as a leader am not going to go back to sitting in a pew doing nothing. I did that long enough.

This is a problem, so why are those who claim to be leaders NOT addressing this? Believers should be coming together to fellowship on Sunday, not listen to a lecture. There is no interaction. A handshake and casual conversation and a couple of "praise the lord's" is NOT ENOUGH.

Why aren't the "leaders" or those who care about the flock LISTENING to the problems of the flock? I hear time and time again people saying:

"I feel like I don't know anyone at church."
"Small groups are cliquish."
"The pastor has all of the authority."
"I need accountability."
"I don't feel comfortable?"
"I need to be discipled."
"I didn't know that was in the Bible."
"What do I do now that I'm saved?"

Pastors should be ON THEIR KNEES praying to God to get back to a place where they can help people. It's not that people aren't speaking, it's just that . . . it seems, nobody is listening.

Why not use the biblical model? Obviously what we've got now is yielding horrible fruit. Divorce, sex scandals, denominations, etc. etc. Wowza! Can't anybody see the woods for the trees anymore?



Some Pastors do help the flock, they do converse with the members including listening to them. They do help the flock with their problems in many areas including food, rent, utilities, guidance with work and careers, biblical guidance in marages, regularly getting on their knees for the flock, and many other helps as well as helping the surrounding community. Of course these are all in small bible believing churches with a Pastor in main leadership and others assisting. And yes we also have sermons every Sunday that the congregation hear the Words of God. We also sing praises together and pray together. At least we have several of these in the state of Nevada the state most known for legalizing sin. Sorry I dont know of any board of elder churches that do such and I dont know of any churches outside Nevada so they may exist. But then it also takes the participation of the membership. That means members that arent just letting a select few do everyting, not counting on others to participate and let them pay tithes and lead sunday school. It takes caring for and loving your fellow brothers and sisters knowing that they need you as much as you need them and being willing to help and not just say the church can handle that. And it means that all not just leadership should be willing to sacrifice time and effert to help others as the Bible says believers will do.

Just the opinion of a small town preacher



crankius -> RE: Biblical Model (4/19/2008 12:01:11 AM)

I can explain a bit how ministry functions in an elder-led church. We have served in two elder-led churches, and they both had a lot of similarities.

The elders serve the people more directly, because there are more of them. There is no "it's the pastors job". Instead, there is an entire group of men serving as elders, all teaching classes and weekly Bible studies and getting to know the people. Elders have more time to devote to each of these things:

Prayer and Teaching (Acts 6:4)
Tending, Caring, Loving (John 21:15-19)
Shepherding (1 Peter 5:1-5)
Serving (Matthew 20:25-28)
Protecting the church/doctrine (Acts 20:28-31, Eph 4:11-15)

And, there is an entire group of deacons serving the physical needs of the church. They tend to the grounds, the building, the physical needs of the people (making sure firewood is delivered, rides to church are available, groceries are provided, etc.). And in both "plurality" churches I've been a part of, the deacons were also teaching classes when needed or when they had a desire to.

To make this work, men must be brought up and discipled in the Word. Our pastor (who is one among the elders, but is paid [;)]) studies systematic theology with a group of men every week. Every Thursday morning any man from the church is invited to pray together at the church. There are lots of other studies going on at various times--without overkill [8D]. The elders take turns teaching real Bible studies every Sunday morning. All the classes are changed every 10 to 12 weeks, to keep things fresh and let everyone fellowship and not just be in the same class year after year.

I know that some elder/deacon churches actually take the list of people and split it among them, so that they can make sure each family is tended to. This sounds a bit calculating--in a larger church though it can really help.

As the church grows, so do the number of elders and deacons.

And then consider that each one of these men are the heads of their households, so there are many families directly involved in serving the church in all areas.


There is just a much more hands on community in these churches, and much more opportunity for everyone to get involved and grow through knowing the Word of God. And seriously--if you want to waken up your church, equip the men for leadership through the Word of God. Many people complain about the "feminization of church" today and how men are not involved--a plurality of elders church with deacons goes a long way towards correcting this.

It's not perfect, and other models can work well also, but there are lots of advantages to a plurality of elders model of leadership. There are some negatives we have seen as well, but that's another post, if you are interested.



Dakotasunbeam -> RE: Biblical Model (4/19/2008 8:53:03 PM)

armydude,

quote:

Okay, here's where the rubber meets the road. What are you doing about this? Not globally, that's a tall order, but in your local body of believers, what are you doing to curb this problem?

I do have plans in the works. [;)]

quote:

From the wording you used earlier, it seems to me that you're expecting the leadership to do something about this. Why should they if the laity isnt' interested in doing something about it?

Becaue the clergy created this heiarchy, and I can tell you right now, there are A LOT of people who believe heartily in this system or who do not know anything else. Individuals who are in considered "leadership" need to come before their congregation and have a sincere heart to heart.

"Brothers and sisters, we need to change. We've been reading and studying the Bible and praying, and God has shown us that what we've been doing so far is not a biblical model. There are going to be some changes around here. Next sunday, we're all going to figure out how we can all become a family instead of an organization. There will be NO sermon on Sunday. Just bring a pen and a pad, and your Bible. We're going to pray together, share ideas, read scriptures and get back to what our God intended. If you can, bring snacks and drinks. If everyone brings a snack, we should have everyone well fed. For those that cannot, don't worry about it, we've got you covered. We want everyone to come, so we're willing to pick up anybody that doesn't have transportation or arrange a carpool."

That's a pretty good start.

quote:

For example, my mother told me one time that my pastor was an "uppity preacher" because he saw her at the store (I won't name the store) and didn't speak to her. I said, "Did you say anything to him?" She acted as though she shouldn't have to. This preacher who had seen her twice (maybe three times) didn't recognize her, and she jumped to the conclusion that he ignored her because she wasn't a minster and was therefore "beneath" him. I told her that if she wanted to talk to him, she coulda said hello. She didn't talk to me about it again. I could tell I angered her a lot, but it was true.
I understand pastors are human. But, when you are called by God to be a pastor, your SEEK PEOPLE OUT and find out how they are doing. I can always tell someone who has the gift of being a pastor (whether they wear a collar or not), because of how they interact with me and others. They are always encouraging, admonishing, correcting, finding out how you are doing, listening, praying with you. This is a pastor. I studied the word pastor/shepard. Shepards are always "tending" someone. I read that Sheep get a certain parasite that can only be spotted if you're vigilantly watching the health of the animal. A pastor can spot that parasite.
Sure, he didn't have to say "Hi," but a pastor would have known that he should because he cares about the health of that sheep.

quote:

Too many churches in America get people saved, and then they seemingly say, "NEXT!"

Kind of like in an assembly line. Like a business or a corporation. Next, customer please!

quote:

What about those new believers that don't have access to email?
Email is not exactly the most personal form of communication. Although, most people have telephones and addresses. And we have feet, cars, bicycles, skateboards, scooters, and mopeds. We can visit them. Take them out for lunch. Invite them to supper.

Ughh, real family is so messy! So personal! That's what Jesus wanted.

We see the problem. We also see the answer.



Dakotasunbeam -> RE: Biblical Model (4/19/2008 8:59:15 PM)

BibleL7,
quote:

. That means members that arent just letting a select few do everyting, not counting on others to participate and let them pay tithes and lead sunday school.

Absolutely. That is why the "leadership," must unseat themselves among their brothers. A Sunday service should be converted to a meeting to express this.

"Dear brothers and sisters, we've made a mistake. We're now going to follow Jesus' model of the servant leader."

People are very accustomed to the old, this needs to be done consistently incorporating the body of believers. Every sunday until it's ironed out.

With God all things are possible.



armydude -> RE: Biblical Model (4/19/2008 9:21:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dakotasunbeam

armydude,

quote:

Okay, here's where the rubber meets the road. What are you doing about this? Not globally, that's a tall order, but in your local body of believers, what are you doing to curb this problem?

I do have plans in the works. [;)]
Excellent.
quote:



quote:

From the wording you used earlier, it seems to me that you're expecting the leadership to do something about this. Why should they if the laity isnt' interested in doing something about it?

Becaue the clergy created this heiarchy, and I can tell you right now, there are A LOT of people who believe heartily in this system or who do not know anything else. Individuals who are in considered "leadership" need to come before their congregation and have a sincere heart to heart.
Before I address the heart to heart you quoted, I'd like to address something. The leadership did not create this system. The lack of action of churchgoers had a great deal to do with it. Like I said before, if you have a very small amount of the people doing a vast majority of the work, naturally there will be a "clique"ish tendency. After all, people want to be around those they work with, not those that simply tell them what their job is. In other words, this kind of change must be started at both ends. The leadership AND the laity.
quote:



"Brothers and sisters, we need to change. We've been reading and studying the Bible and praying, and God has shown us that what we've been doing so far is not a biblical model. There are going to be some changes around here. Next sunday, we're all going to figure out how we can all become a family instead of an organization. There will be NO sermon on Sunday. Just bring a pen and a pad, and your Bible. We're going to pray together, share ideas, read scriptures and get back to what our God intended. If you can, bring snacks and drinks. If everyone brings a snack, we should have everyone well fed. For those that cannot, don't worry about it, we've got you covered. We want everyone to come, so we're willing to pick up anybody that doesn't have transportation or arrange a carpool."
I've been in churches that had functions where people were encouraged to bring a snack. Nearly everyone that came didn't bring anything. What does this prove? It proves that people want to be able to just sit back and do nothing, then complain that their needs aren't being met. Again, this is not scriptural. You have a great idea. But as long as you're dealing with sinful people (and no church has 100% saved people on the rolls or they are failing miserably) you're going to have to deal with disappointment.
quote:




quote:

For example, my mother told me one time that my pastor was an "uppity preacher" because he saw her at the store (I won't name the store) and didn't speak to her. I said, "Did you say anything to him?" She acted as though she shouldn't have to. This preacher who had seen her twice (maybe three times) didn't recognize her, and she jumped to the conclusion that he ignored her because she wasn't a minster and was therefore "beneath" him. I told her that if she wanted to talk to him, she coulda said hello. She didn't talk to me about it again. I could tell I angered her a lot, but it was true.
I understand pastors are human. But, when you are called by God to be a pastor, your SEEK PEOPLE OUT and find out how they are doing.
Wait. You missed my point. First, my mother does not attend his church. He had seen her maybe three times. I brought that up in my post and to her. She didn't care. She seemed to believe that no matter what he should have recognized this person he'd seen only a few times that didn't even attend his church.
quote:

I can always tell someone who has the gift of being a pastor (whether they wear a collar or not), because of how they interact with me and others. They are always encouraging, admonishing, correcting, finding out how you are doing, listening, praying with you. This is a pastor. I studied the word pastor/shepard. Shepards are always "tending" someone. I read that Sheep get a certain parasite that can only be spotted if you're vigilantly watching the health of the animal. A pastor can spot that parasite.
Sure, he didn't have to say "Hi," but a pastor would have known that he should because he cares about the health of that sheep.
Once again if he were her pastor, this would carry some weight.



Dakotasunbeam -> RE: Biblical Model (4/19/2008 9:35:40 PM)

Armydude,
quote:

Wait. You missed my point. First, my mother does not attend his church. He had seen her maybe three times. I brought that up in my post and to her. She didn't care. She seemed to believe that no matter what he should have recognized this person he'd seen only a few times that didn't even attend his church.

Thanks for the additional info. No way for me to climb into your brain and know this.

quote:

I've been in churches that had functions where people were encouraged to bring a snack. Nearly everyone that came didn't bring anything. What does this prove? It proves that people want to be able to just sit back and do nothing, then complain that their needs aren't being met. Again, this is not scriptural. You have a great idea. But as long as you're dealing with sinful people (and no church has 100% saved people on the rolls or they are failing miserably) you're going to have to deal with disappointment.

The snack is irrelavent. Bring a snack, don't bring a snack.

quote:

efore I address the heart to heart you quoted, I'd like to address something. The leadership did not create this system. The lack of action of churchgoers had a great deal to do with it. Like I said before, if you have a very small amount of the people doing a vast majority of the work, naturally there will be a "clique"ish tendency. After all, people want to be around those they work with, not those that simply tell them what their job is. In other words, this kind of change must be started at both ends. The leadership AND the laity.


But they are a part of it, they promote it. They as the "current" leaders must help to dismantle the machine. for too long the "leadership" has led the boat, whether they were suppose to or not. Now its time for them to change it (with the help of everyone). But the change will begin at leadership, because these individuals have protected, promoted, and participated in this form of unbiblical leadership. They have to dismantle their own unbiblical system and speak with the congregation about this.



armydude -> RE: Biblical Model (4/20/2008 8:17:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dakotasunbeam

Armydude,
quote:

Wait. You missed my point. First, my mother does not attend his church. He had seen her maybe three times. I brought that up in my post and to her. She didn't care. She seemed to believe that no matter what he should have recognized this person he'd seen only a few times that didn't even attend his church.

Thanks for the additional info. No way for me to climb into your brain and know this.

My sincere apologies. I thought I put that in there. I really did. When I went back up to look (after seeing this post) I realized otherwise.
quote:



quote:

efore I address the heart to heart you quoted, I'd like to address something. The leadership did not create this system. The lack of action of churchgoers had a great deal to do with it. Like I said before, if you have a very small amount of the people doing a vast majority of the work, naturally there will be a "clique"ish tendency. After all, people want to be around those they work with, not those that simply tell them what their job is. In other words, this kind of change must be started at both ends. The leadership AND the laity.


But they are a part of it, they promote it. They as the "current" leaders must help to dismantle the machine. for too long the "leadership" has led the boat, whether they were suppose to or not. Now its time for them to change it (with the help of everyone). But the change will begin at leadership, because these individuals have protected, promoted, and participated in this form of unbiblical leadership. They have to dismantle their own unbiblical system and speak with the congregation about this.
I bolded the part of this that stood out to me. Do you think that help will be there? I'm not so sure.



crankius -> RE: Biblical Model (4/20/2008 11:50:11 AM)

From my understanding, limited as it is, leadership sets the entire tone and direction for the church. They make the most important distinctive difference between a healthy church and an unhealthy church. Leadership has the most impact.

I do believe change has to come from the leadership down. If you've ever tried to change a church from the people to the leadership, it just doesn't work. Leadership resists change from the people, in general. I've never known of leadership to change the way they do things because the people wanted it and were convinced it was the Biblical thing to do.

I've only seen people have to leave a church in order to either A, seek out Biblical leadership that they could submit to and be on board with, or B, start a new Biblical fellowship from the ground up.

If leadership wants to change a church structure, they must persuade the people through scriptural teaching. This means the leaders must study the scriptures, be moved by the Holy Spirit to make the changes, and then desire to teach the Body through the scriptures why the changes will be good, worthy, necessary, and Biblical, to make for a healthier church.

Post on Piper coming up...



crankius -> RE: Biblical Model (4/20/2008 11:51:11 AM)

John Piper helped his church change from the model of a pastor with deacon board to a plurality of elders with deacons.

He taught on the topic so that the congregation would understand, and have the Biblical knowledge of why Piper thought this change would be good. He persuaded the congregation through Biblical teaching.


Here is an excerpt from some of the teaching he gave (he did a lot of Biblical teaching prior to this quote):

quote:

On the basis of what we have seen, I suggest that we seriously reexamine our governance structure at Bethlehem which includes a Council of Deacons as the ruling board but defines no role in the church as that of elder.

The reasons for concern and for reexamination are at least these five:

1. We could be structured in a way more closely conforming to the normal New Testament pattern ("Paul appointed elders in all the churches," Acts 14:23).
2. We need to clarify the role of our deacons. Are they elders in the NT sense, or are they deacons? Right now they seem to be a hybrid as the "governing" board and yet with the name "deacons." And who are the "staff" in the NT understanding of things? Are we the "elders"? If so, how do we fit into the governing structure of the church? There is much confusion that keeps deacons, committees, boards, and staff from finding ourselves and our roles in the NT.
3. We need to clarify the role women in relation to the diaconate. Why are there deaconesses? How do they relate to the deacons? Could it be that by investing the deacons with "elder" roles at Bethlehem, we have isolated women from the very role (deacon) where they should flourish?
4. We need to provide more thorough care for hurting members and more consistent discipline for delinquent members. That this is not done as well as it should be is owing partly to the confusion of roles. Who is responsible, biblically, for this church-wide care of 1,000 people and for following through on disciplinary procedures?
5. We need to develop an ongoing leadership team (elders) where the theological distinctives, the philosophy of ministry, and the vision of the future can be rooted more durably than in the paid "staff." The church should not be dependent on a few paid staff as the guardians of the vision.


So he spoke with honesty, sincerity, and openness to the people, exposing the areas of weakness so that they might explore Biblical correctives. If there is a pastor today who thinks to himself, "I'd like to have my church structured that way, but it would never fly", consider the example Piper set when he helped Bethlehem change.

(Notice here the varieties between elder-led churches--some have deaconesses, some don't, and some still set a pastor in the visionary role as an equal among elders, and some don't have a paid pastor at all. Just interesting to note.)



Dakotasunbeam -> RE: Biblical Model (4/22/2008 12:31:52 AM)

armydude,
quote:

I bolded the part of this that stood out to me. Do you think that help will be there? I'm not so sure.


Php 4:13 -
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.


Mr 10:27 - Show Context
But Jesus looked at them and said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible."

Our faith is in God, not man. The prophets came with words from God to turn the hearts of the people back toward the proper worship of God. They who call themselves pastors can do the same.

One thing is certain. Many who like stagnation and who really are not seeking after God will resist and possibly leave. But as a pastor, his real heart is obeying God and equipping those who call on His name in truth.

We say we want to do greater works . . . but when faced with the opportunity, often doubt, or take a step back.

Be encouraged, Oh, Might man of God! [:D]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI