Biblical Model

Biblical Model (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Faith] >> Ministry Leaders

Message

armydude -> Biblical Model (4/10/2008 8:53:30 AM)
I have seen a lot of posts about the idea that having a pastor to lead a church is not a biblical model. This raises a question. What is the biblical model? This is just my opinion, but to have a board of elders without having one person in charge is nothing more than having chaos at a higher level. Is this what we want?

pbaribeault -> RE: Biblical Model (4/10/2008 10:05:56 AM)
A "board" of elders is also not a Biblical model... nor is any kind of democratic process. The Biblical model involved a different culture that had different ideas about leadership and authority. I don't think we have to mimic it. Not to say we ignore what the Bible has to say about leadership, just that we recognize that -practically- what worked in their time is not what's going to work for us, but that the call of the leader is the same in the spiritual sense. The early Church model involved a highly gifted evangelist entering an unchurched area, preaching the gospel publicly (and in Jewish places of worship when permitted) then helping to arrange a meeting place for the new Christians in the home of one of the more wealthy converts. The evangelist would then stay on as the leader of more than one of these congregations within a city for 6 months or more. When it was time for the evangelist to move on, he would help and encourage each congregation to identify (sometimes with his direction) the heads-of-families who are showing marks of spiritual maturity and submission to the Holy Spirit in their lives. (This was important because that society would have naturally arranged themselves under the authority of those of high class and the wealthy, particularly the person who owned the meeting place.) These were identified as elders. The reason this worked in that culture is because it was the way other systems of authority were run. It had a sense of representational governance, because whole households generally converted at the same time, and the leadership-level was available to the head of every household within the Church (if he showed spiritual maturity) so each household was able to have its representative in leadership. The council of elders would have seemed familar to them based on the Roman senate. It would not have been the kind of chaos you imagine, firstly because there was a lot of expectations on the way a head-of-household was expected to operate in society, secondly, because they had living apostles/evangelists to look to as a help and submit to if they were at an impasse, and thirdly because their households would have made up most of the Church at large, and submission to your head of household was an absolute societal expectation at the time - so they could implement anything quite easily and hold people accountable without much trouble. However, not nearly so much was governed or needing to be governed at that time. Churches had no buildings and no funds, gatherings were free-flowing and relationships were the ordinary relationships between individuals, not official relationships with departments and responsibilities. Also the groups were much smaller and much more organic - no more people cold be part of a congregation than the number that would physically fit in the courtyard of the largest home of one of them - which means 20 to 60 people. Very little administration would have been required. It was also common for the original evangelist to leave behind (or send back at a later time) an apprentice-evangelist as a leader for the congregations in a city or area. While not being an elder (an elder had to be the head of a key family, whereas an apprentice evangelist was generally young, single and not from that local area) This is the role that our understanding of a pastor grew out of. Oh, and "deacon" (meaning 'servant') was just a name for anybody who accepted a duty to or through the congregation, or as an action co-ordinated between congregations. They were chosen from 'among themselves' by the congregation at large or appointed by the elders, if, of course, they consented to accept the duty. The name emphasizes that they were constrained to take the duty seriously - but that culture would have taken the concept of 'duty' very seriously anyways. To me it is clear that following this with precision in our society makes little sense. Rather, a culturally appropriate but Biblically sound set up that works and is godly is completely acceptable to me. The only people who think they are following an early Church model are those who use the words but understand them primarily in light of our own culture.

crankius -> RE: Biblical Model (4/10/2008 11:37:38 AM)
Hi Armydude! [sm=wave.gif] I'm the crazy one who has been making posts lately about elders/deacons. [sm=raisedbrows.gif] I thought I'd just repost them here to save time. quote: ORIGINAL: crankius This post won't really help you in your current church situation, but it might help you on your scriptural study of church leadership. The structure of the church with a head pastor and deacons below him is not found in the NT. The more scriptural leadership structure is to have a plurality of elders leading the church together, with a board of deacons serving tables (as Acts 6 describes). There are numerous scriptures to study to understand this approach to church leadership. Consider the qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. Then, read Acts 6:1-7 to gain an understanding of the office of deacon--the elders appointed deacons to "serve tables", so that the elders could be devoted to "prayer and the ministry of the Word". Read the following passages on elders: Acts 14:23 James 5:14 1 Peter 5:1-4 Elders are meant to lead and serve the church as under-shepherds, with Christ as the Head Shepherd. The plurality of elders brings many excellent qualities to church leadership, one of them being accountability. There is no Biblical model of a head pastor ruling the church--Jesus warned against such ruling. quote: The Bible gives us a clear example of elders shepherding the church in the NT. I'm thankful that the Lord gave us a very specific list of qualifications (more than once) so that we would recognize elders when we see them, and be able to appoint them to shepherd the church under Christ as the Head Shepherd. Consider just some of what the elders do for the church: 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) So yes, while you will have a difficult time finding a model of one single pastor heading the church, you will definitely find a model of a plurality of elders serving the church in the New Testament. We can ignore this model if we desire to, however, I think we will be missing out on all the Biblical benefits of having a plurality of Biblically qualified elders. Among the elders, there will be a pastor (or more than one) who serve the church as the main teacher, and also receive pay. However, as far as authority goes, he is one among equals with the other elders. There are many benefits to serving among a plurality of elders rather than as a head pastor all alone. The men have accountability, fellowship, shared responsibility, shared duties, shared wisdom, shared study and application of the scriptures, shared prayers and teaching responsibilities, etc. When there is conflict among the elders, they pray, study, and discuss until they have unanimity. I actually don't always agree with the unanimity concept, but it is a common practice among churches who adopt the plurality of elders model.

MrsDC -> RE: Biblical Model (4/10/2008 9:19:46 PM)
pbaribeault -- Thanks for that post! That was the best sum-up I've read on church leadership in AGES!!! I think I'll print it out! [;)] -- Rebecca

groovymovieman -> RE: Biblical Model (4/11/2008 3:43:48 AM)
quote: I have seen a lot of posts about the idea that having a pastor to lead a church is not a biblical model. This raises a question. What is the biblical model? This is just my opinion, but to have a board of elders without having one person in charge is nothing more than having chaos at a higher level. Is this what we want? Well, the way most churches are run today (much more like a business) you have to have a hierarchy in place. You can't keep the same form and structure operating without a chain of command. But the question is: is what we have today biblical? See, you never read in the NT of anything that looks like what we have today. Pastor is only mentioned one time in the entire NT. Jesus said not to wear titles or be called leaders. You never read of any church buildings. You never once read the words "Senior Pastor," "Associate Pastor," or "Youth Pastor." You don't even read of worship leaders or Sunday School teachers. You never once see the words "church service" nor do you see the phrase "time of worship" or "sermon" ever used. So this leads one to wonder, did the early believers have a very different idea of church than we do? In the NT leadership isn't even a big priority word. It's not there much. We read of elders, people who are older in the Lord. We read of apostles, we see five functions mentioned in Ephesians 5. (Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors - the only time they are mentioned in the entire NT - and teachers.) But Paul never once wrote a letter "To Pastor So-and So." He never once told any of the churches he wrote to pay attention to the sermon and discuss it in their home group. And when he wrote to the problematic church in Corinth, he never once addressed an elder, pastor or any leader! In fact there is not even one mention of any leaders in the Corinthian church! And he called that group the seal of his apostleship! Instead he wrote to the whole church. In fact, most churches Paul wrote to, he only stayed with them a short time before leaving. He would preach the gospel, ground them and then leave! Why? Because he believed in what God had deposited in the people. Church was a family, not a program that had to look sharp and impressive to gain numbers. It was simply people who loved Jesus and loved one another. It wasn't a service, it was relationships. Where there is genuine relationship, hierarchy just isn’t needed and doesn’t work. The church did have one leader and pastor; it was Jesus Christ who is the Head. But I don't mean, "Yeah, yeah we all know He's the head, but come on! Who was the boss?" I mean literally, Jesus was their pastor and head. There was no go-between or guy who called all the shots. To have that would be to usurp the authority of Christ and the priesthood of all the believers. They really embraced the truth that Jesus came to give everybody the goods and the point of His coming was to give everybody direct access to God. To set somebody up as “The Leader” would have usurped Christ as the Head and placed dependence upon a man for council and direction rather than each person listening to Christ for themselves as well as hearing Him speak through their brothers and sisters. (That also meant He could speak through you!) For one man to be viewed as being the spokesman truly would have usurped the reality of the Lordship of Christ in each person’s life. But then what about elders? Sure there were elders! But not the way we define them. They were simply people who were more mature in Christ. They weren't an official board or a group that spoke as the voice for all and did all the thinking and talking to God. It was about being an example. You have to remember, the early church in the Roman Empire was surrounded by pagan religions. The people had no idea what a strong Christian looked like. An elder was nothing more than a mature believer you could point to and say, "That's an example of what following Jesus looks like." And being they were more mature they had more sway in disputes and discussions. Just as an older brother in a family does. (That scripture in Hebrews about obeying elders is a very bad translation. It actually is better translated "Allow yourself to be persuaded by your elders." ) So really the leadership issue just boils down to what your idea of church is. If it's the stereo typical nonprofit Christian organization than the modern view of leadership (i.e. Pastor or board of elders) fits right into that. But if your view of church is along the lines of that which is shown in the NT then that leadership structure really doesn't fit or work there.

BibleL7 -> RE: Biblical Model (4/12/2008 9:22:11 AM)
Army dude I congratulate you on getting more response than I did on this question. 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 For those who say there was no leadership how do you account for Paul telling Titus to appoint overseers in every town in Crete? Why were there qualifications given for overseers? Why were the first deacons chosen to see to the apportioning to the widows? Also would like to know if you are using evangelist instead of Apostles for a particular reason as I do not recall Paul being called an evangelist when he planted the churches. Of course one did in another post give a list of addresses to point to a group of elders yet the Scriptures he pointed to mostly gave the qualifications of overseer and only the reference in James mentioned a number of elders in a church though it is not clear that there would be several elders in each congregation. Yes the first congregations met in houses mostly yet some did meet in other places following the example of the synagogues and many times large rooms are mentioned in book of acts and why did Paul ordain elders if there were no leaders? Of course I dont know just doing my best to remember things from the book of Acts where there seemed to be a definite call for leaders in congregations of course would also wonder if there were no leaders why John would say one leader needed correction in one of his epistles. And if there were no financial considerations why were the selling properties and laying the money at the Apostles' feet? If there were not certain teachers in congregations then why did James warn against there being many teachers as they would come under stricter judgement? Why would there be qualifications for overseer to be able to teach if they were just people older in the faith? Why was Timothy commanded to not let his youth hinder him in leadership? Why is it that there is mention of them gathering at one of the porches of the temple if they only met in homes? Did not the LORD say he would send Pastors to the congregations that were after His heart in the book of Jeremiah? And if you wish to bring up Moses appointing elders over the tribes then you might also recall that Moses was the ultimate leader that elders went to. Then Joshua was one leader over Israel and there were usually only one person listed when the Lord chose judges. So how and where do we find a model of a group of elders being leaders without one person being the main leader of a congregation in the Bible? No the Pastor or teacher or leader is not to lord it over but serve yet I still dont see where there was not clear leadership within congregations. And as for Paul not addressing a single leader but the entire congregations Paul would address to all the congregations in a town or city though there were not denominations there did seem to be several congregations especially when small groups would meet in homes. Sorry Armydude if I end up closing down this thread also Just the opinion of a small town preacher

groovymovieman -> RE: Biblical Model (4/12/2008 1:43:10 PM)
quote: For those who say there was no leadership how do you account for Paul telling Titus to appoint overseers in every town in Crete? Why were there qualifications given for overseers? Who posted on this thread that said there is no leadership? It seems to me everybody supported leadership. It's just that I don't believe scripture supports hierarchies or clergy/laity distinctions. (In fact the word "clergy" used to be the word used to designate a pagan priest.) Paul telling Titus to appoint "overseers" or elders in every town was exactly what I wrote. He was saying, "Point out those who are a good examples of following Christ." And then the "qualifications" he wrote to Titus were simply Paul saying, "This is how you'll identify them." Now let's be practical. Who was the book of Titus written to? It seems to me it is was written to Titus. So none of the rest of the church ever saw that list of qualifications did they? And here Titus was going to appoint elders and nobody in the church had ever once read that list of qualifications. So how did these elders know what the qualifications were to be appointed as one? And how did they know to already be living that way without Paul's list? The point is, they didn't. They weren’t trying to measure up to any qualifications to be anything. They fit those "qualifications" because they had a very real and thriving relationship with Christ. Those "qualifications" are simply the fruit of a person's life who has maturity in Christ. So it goes back to the point that Paul was saying, "Look for this. These people are good examples of what it looks like to follow Jesus because they're already doing it. Their lives prove they know Jesus." So elders are simply mature people in Christ. So that being the case, here's an odd thought: if you have 12 people gathering together and every one of them is mature in the Lord, do they still need to "appoint an elder" over them? Or do they need to all wear the title "elder" since they are all mature? Or are we missing the point of why we even have elders? quote: Why were the first deacons chosen to see to the apportioning to the widows? Well, you answered the question in your question. Deacons were there to see to the apportioning of widows. They were the solution to a very practical problem, the dispersement of food to those in need. If you have people who are going hungry and there's so many the people can't handle it, than you may want to appoint some deacons. See, what we have done is we have institutionalized the New Testament. We approach it like a formula. We read of deacons, so we say, "Well then all churches are to have deacons to be legit." Then we see elders so we say, "Well then, we better go get some elders." But what we read in the NT wasn't laid down as law or formula, there were very practical reasons for the things they did. As church historian Brent Walters asked in an interview I had with him, "How many hungry people have your deacons fed lately?" quote: if there were no leaders why John would say one leader needed correction in one of his epistles. Again, there is leadership, but like in a family. It is organic and by maturity, not titles or positions. But the incident that John wrote about in 3 John 1 actually is a case against modern day leadership structures. John says, "I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church." There you see the beginnings of the "one man band" leadership so common in the church today. This guy, Diotrephes, loved to be first among the brethren. He wanted to be "the man." And the people were letting him have his way. He was even telling them who they could and could not listen to and putting people out of the church who didn't listen to him. This is a very strong statement, but there you have your first modern day pastor. Not that all pastors have that heart, but they are "first" among the people and wield that kind of authority over them. It's unbiblical. quote: If there were not certain teachers in congregations then why did James warn against there being many teachers as they would come under stricter judgment? Because they will come under stricter judgment. That doesn't mean we have official teachers over the church. Jesus even said not be called Teacher, for One is your Teacher. quote: Why would there be qualifications for overseer to be able to teach if they were just people older in the faith? Does teaching mean one has to stand in front of people and lecture them? Is that how a mother teaches her child? Is that how a friend teaches a friend or a brother teaches a brother? Teaching is a natural part of everyday life. quote: Why was Timothy commanded to not let his youth hinder him in leadership? He wasn't told not to let his youth hinder him in leadership. He was told not to let anybody look down on his youthfulness. In other words, Timothy was mature in Christ for His age. Paul didn't want Timothy to be seen as less valid because of his age. Paul also told Timothy to appeal to older men as fathers. So Paul wasn't saying, "Timothy, you're the boss! So get those people in line and don't put up with their guff!" He still was to come to them in all humility as a brother in Christ. quote: Why is it that there is mention of them gathering at one of the porches of the temple if they only met in homes? Church is not about where you gather, it's about who we know. And the One we know connects us with other people who know Him. You can meet in a doughnut shop for all I care. (In fact I know some who meet at a bagel place every week.) This isn’t about rules, formulas and structures. It’s about knowing Jesus. quote: Did not the LORD say he would send Pastors to the congregations that were after His heart in the book of Jeremiah? Actually, read Ezekiel 34 where God speaks against the bad shepherds. He says, "I will care for my sheep." God says that He Himself will pastor His people. That prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. He is our Shepherd. Not any man. quote: And if you wish to bring up Moses appointing elders over the tribes then you might also recall that Moses was the ultimate leader that elders went to. Then Joshua was one leader over Israel and there were usually only one person listed when the Lord chose judges. So how and where do we find a model of a group of elders being leaders without one person being the main leader of a congregation in the Bible? You have to rightly divide the scriptures. Who was Moses a type of? Who was Joshua a type of? We already have one person in charge that everybody is to go to. His name is Jesus Christ.

crankius -> RE: Biblical Model (4/12/2008 3:21:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BibleL7 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. Interesting. My posts about elders/deacons are always filled with scriptures. Which thread was this in?

crankius -> RE: Biblical Model (4/12/2008 3:39:44 PM)
Armydude, I thought I'd post a few links that might be interesting to you as you study this topic. Among the plurality of elders camp, there are minor disagreements. Some believe that there is a pastor among the elders who sets the vision. Some believe the elders should be very closed doors with an extreme High Tower mentality. Others believe the elders are appointed because they meet the Biblical qualifications to do the things elders are supposed to do according to scripture, but have a very open relationship with all the believers in their church (strong priesthood of believers perspective). Some believe in unanimity, others do not. There are more disagreements, but in general, there is agreement that scripture endorses a plurality of elders to fulfill the shepherding role. Here are a few articles: What an elder is and is not, 9marks.org The Role of an elder, by the Desiring God staff. quote: From the Desiring God link: According to the New Testament, elders are responsible for the primary leadership and oversight of a church. The function and role of an elder is well summarized by Alexander Strauch in his book Biblical Eldership: "Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1-2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28-31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13-17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 20:35], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:16]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church" (16). "Elder" and "pastor" are not two different offices. As John Piper argues in section five of the booklet "Biblical Eldership," they are simply two different words for the same office. He gives three reasons. First, in Acts 20:28, elders are encouraged in the "pastoral" duties of overseeing and shepherding. Second, in 1 Peter 5:1-2, elders are exhorted to "shepherd" the flock of God that is in their charge, which is the role of a pastor. Third, in Ephesians 4:11, the one time that the word pastor occurs in the NT, pastors are treated as one group with teachers. This suggests that the chief role of the pastor is to feed the flock through teaching, which is a primary role of elders (Titus 1:9). Hence, the NT seems to indicate that "pastor" is another name for "elder." An elder is a pastor, and a pastor is an elder. John Piper on Elders MacArthur on Elders And if you have Grudem's Systematic Theology, he also address the topic of a plurality of elders.

armydude -> RE: Biblical Model (4/12/2008 3:47:36 PM)
Thank you Cranky! You've definitely given me something to study, that's for sure!

crankius -> RE: Biblical Model (4/12/2008 4:02:05 PM)
I like this topic, so I'm glad to discuss it. However, I'll like you just the same even if you decide that a plurality of elders is ridiculous. [:D] Another point-- Clearly, not every church can have a plurality of elders at the beginning, because a missionary will start a church and then it takes time for qualified men to emerge. There is elbow room in the topic. The goal, though, should be for men to be trained and equipped in the word, and for those who meet the qualifications to be able to serve as elders.

pbaribeault -> RE: Biblical Model (4/12/2008 5:49:33 PM)
quote: For those who say there was no leadership... I read in the Bible a clear model of more-than-one leader, not a lack of leadership. quote: how do you account for Paul telling Titus to appoint overseers in every town in Crete? I believe I mentioned "When it was time for the evangelist to move on, he would help and encourage each congregation to identify (sometimes with his direction) the heads-of-families who are showing marks of spiritual maturity and submission to the Holy Spirit in their lives." Paul was instructing Titus, as an apprentice evangelist to do this, using his own direction in this case, for the congregations of Crete. quote: Why were there qualifications given for overseers? So that apprentice evangelists would know what to look for, and what to encourage congregations to continue to look for, in order to prevent what I mentioned, "That society would have naturally arranged themselves under the authority of those of high class and the wealthy, particularly the person who owned the meeting place." quote: Why were the first deacons chosen to see to the apportioning to the widows? Because the widows needed to be fed, and some specific someones had to be identified as having the duty and obligation to attend to that function that the congregations in that area chose to take on. quote: Also would like to know if you are using evangelist instead of Apostles for a particular reason as I do not recall Paul being called an evangelist when he planted the churches. I used that word because it is an accurate word that describes what Paul and others were doing. Apostle is a greek word, and very few people speak greek, so it's not really a public-friendly term. Missionary or Church planter would have been equally accurate terms, as would the translation of Apostle - which might be closest rendered 'envoy' - but people don't tend to know what that means either... maybe messenger? quote: the Scriptures he pointed to mostly gave the qualifications of overseer and only the reference in James mentioned a number of elders in a church though it is not clear that there would be several elders in each congregation. Correction, the Scriptures gave the qualifications of overseers - every mention of Church leadership (by a variety of wording) in the entire NT refers to more than one of them. It's not clear why anyone would write about how leaders were to be identified if the writer really meant that only one should be selected. You'd think he would have made that clear. quote: yet some did meet in other places following the example of the synagogues and many times large rooms are mentioned in book of acts quote: Why is it that there is mention of them gathering at one of the porches of the temple if they only met in homes? Yes, the met in other places, including synagogues when permitted, as I mentioned... but even 'large rooms' would have been part of ordinary residences or possibly businesses. They would have gathered wherever possible, even outdoors. Nonetheless, the size of the spaces would have kept the sizes of most congregations much more manageable by this model than our current congregations are. quote: why did Paul ordain elders if there were no leaders? ... there seemed to be a definite call for leaders in congregations Already covered this... he helped identify elders to lead the congregations while he moved on with his evangelistic travels. quote: also wonder if there were no leaders why John would say one leader needed correction in one of his epistles. Well answered by "groovy" quote: if there were no financial considerations why were the selling properties and laying the money at the Apostles' feet? Because at that time in that location the believers were living by holding their property in common and sharing freely. They trusted the Apostle to attend to that business, but there were still no bank accounts, salaries, or tax-exempt status forms. quote: If there were not certain teachers in congregations then why did James warn against there being many teachers as they would come under stricter judgement? Of course there were to be teachers - all elders were supposed to be 'apt to teach'. I expect there was plenty of teaching going on. quote: Why would there be qualifications for overseer to be able to teach if they were just people older in the faith? Because anybody who is mature in faith is gifted and called by the Holy Spirit to fulfill the great commission - anybody who can't or won't is certainly not 'mature in the faith'. Being ready to teach is one of the easiest ways to tell if someone is mature enough to be elder material. quote: Why was Timothy commanded to not let his youth hinder him in leadership? Because, as I mentioned, "an elder had to be the head of a key family, whereas an apprentice evangelist was generally young, single and not from that local area" and "that society would have naturally arranged themselves under the authority of those of high class and the wealthy, particularly the person who owned the meeting place." Somebody like Timothy would not naturally be assumed to be a leader in that culture, so he needed to be encouraged not to let the ordinary culture of his day overrule what God wanted to do through him as a leader. quote: Did not the LORD say he would send Pastors to the congregations that were after His heart in the book of Jeremiah? You're going to have to provide a Scripture reference if we want to discuss that. quote: And if you wish to bring up Moses appointing elders over the tribes then you might also recall that Moses was the ultimate leader that elders went to. Then Joshua was one leader over Israel and there were usually only one person listed when the Lord chose judges. I don't think anyone is trying to implement an OT model, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. quote: So how and where do we find a model of a group of elders being leaders without one person being the main leader of a congregation in the Bible?... I still dont see where there was not clear leadership within congregations. The entire early Church is described this way with great clarity throughout Acts and the entire rest of the NT. Where do you see evidence of any situation in the NT where there was one main leader? quote: And as for Paul not addressing a single leader but the entire congregations Paul would address to all the congregations in a town or city though there were not denominations there did seem to be several congregations especially when small groups would meet in homes. This doesn't seem to explain why he wouldn't have written to those supposed individual leaders of each congregation by name, or say "To the leaders of each congregation in wherever". Why does Paul want everybody to hear what he has to say about how a Church should behave? Shouldn't he just advise the leaders what to do?

doinkdom -> RE: Biblical Model (4/12/2008 6:43:55 PM)
IMO, if you can't find the "job description" in the bible...then it shouldn't be in the church leadership in any form. After extensive study into biblical eldership to include all of the ones crankius posted and a few others, we (as in my husband and myself) found that a biblical community living the bible was far more important than who was pastor. The hiarchy that exists in many (but not all) churches is a clear seperation of church leadership and laity - of which there is no bibilcal grounds for. I think I might have spelled a couple of words wrong...oops[sm=aside.gif]

rcjames -> RE: Biblical Model (4/12/2008 6:47:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: doinkdom The hiarchy that exists in many (but not all) churches is a clear seperation of church leadership and laity - of which there is no bibilcal grounds for. And your definition of separation of leadership and laity is what? Thanks RC

doinkdom -> RE: Biblical Model (4/12/2008 7:01:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rcjames quote: ORIGINAL: doinkdom The hiarchy that exists in many (but not all) churches is a clear seperation of church leadership and laity - of which there is no bibilcal grounds for. And your definition of separation of leadership and laity is what? Thanks RC Leadership is not accountable - some might be, but not at a biblical level of understanding. Leadership is not in community because they have a fear of man. Leadership does not pursue reconciliation and restoration because then they would have to come down from their mountaintop and deal with the messiness of God's people. However, leadership wants all of the above for the rest of the membership, as long as it doesn't apply to them - because they're untouchable. Because they have a sense of "earning" something that God never intended for them to have - absolute authority without accountability. Like I said...this is not all churches. For example, I would never presume to think that your church was like this because I've read your posts throughout the boards here.

Dakotasunbeam -> RE: Biblical Model (4/14/2008 7:02:32 PM)
Pearls of wisdom! quote: ORIGINAL: doinkdom IMO, if you can't find the "job description" in the bible...then it shouldn't be in the church leadership in any form. After extensive study into biblical eldership to include all of the ones crankius posted and a few others, we (as in my husband and myself) found that a biblical community living the bible was far more important than who was pastor. The hiarchy that exists in many (but not all) churches is a clear seperation of church leadership and laity - of which there is no bibilcal grounds for. I think I might have spelled a couple of words wrong...oops[sm=aside.gif]

Dakotasunbeam -> RE: Biblical Model (4/14/2008 7:04:11 PM)
[sm=thumbsup.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: groovymovieman quote: I have seen a lot of posts about the idea that having a pastor to lead a church is not a biblical model. This raises a question. What is the biblical model? This is just my opinion, but to have a board of elders without having one person in charge is nothing more than having chaos at a higher level. Is this what we want? Well, the way most churches are run today (much more like a business) you have to have a hierarchy in place. You can't keep the same form and structure operating without a chain of command. But the question is: is what we have today biblical? See, you never read in the NT of anything that looks like what we have today. Pastor is only mentioned one time in the entire NT. Jesus said not to wear titles or be called leaders. You never read of any church buildings. You never once read the words "Senior Pastor," "Associate Pastor," or "Youth Pastor." You don't even read of worship leaders or Sunday School teachers. You never once see the words "church service" nor do you see the phrase "time of worship" or "sermon" ever used. So this leads one to wonder, did the early believers have a very different idea of church than we do? In the NT leadership isn't even a big priority word. It's not there much. We read of elders, people who are older in the Lord. We read of apostles, we see five functions mentioned in Ephesians 5. (Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors - the only time they are mentioned in the entire NT - and teachers.) But Paul never once wrote a letter "To Pastor So-and So." He never once told any of the churches he wrote to pay attention to the sermon and discuss it in their home group. And when he wrote to the problematic church in Corinth, he never once addressed an elder, pastor or any leader! In fact there is not even one mention of any leaders in the Corinthian church! And he called that group the seal of his apostleship! Instead he wrote to the whole church. In fact, most churches Paul wrote to, he only stayed with them a short time before leaving. He would preach the gospel, ground them and then leave! Why? Because he believed in what God had deposited in the people. Church was a family, not a program that had to look sharp and impressive to gain numbers. It was simply people who loved Jesus and loved one another. It wasn't a service, it was relationships. Where there is genuine relationship, hierarchy just isn’t needed and doesn’t work. The church did have one leader and pastor; it was Jesus Christ who is the Head. But I don't mean, "Yeah, yeah we all know He's the head, but come on! Who was the boss?" I mean literally, Jesus was their pastor and head. There was no go-between or guy who called all the shots. To have that would be to usurp the authority of Christ and the priesthood of all the believers. They really embraced the truth that Jesus came to give everybody the goods and the point of His coming was to give everybody direct access to God. To set somebody up as “The Leader” would have usurped Christ as the Head and placed dependence upon a man for council and direction rather than each person listening to Christ for themselves as well as hearing Him speak through their brothers and sisters. (That also meant He could speak through you!) For one man to be viewed as being the spokesman truly would have usurped the reality of the Lordship of Christ in each person’s life. But then what about elders? Sure there were elders! But not the way we define them. They were simply people who were more mature in Christ. They weren't an official board or a group that spoke as the voice for all and did all the thinking and talking to God. It was about being an example. You have to remember, the early church in the Roman Empire was surrounded by pagan religions. The people had no idea what a strong Christian looked like. An elder was nothing more than a mature believer you could point to and say, "That's an example of what following Jesus looks like." And being they were more mature they had more sway in disputes and discussions. Just as an older brother in a family does. (That scripture in Hebrews about obeying elders is a very bad translation. It actually is better translated "Allow yourself to be persuaded by your elders." ) So really the leadership issue just boils down to what your idea of church is. If it's the stereo typical nonprofit Christian organization than the modern view of leadership (i.e. Pastor or board of elders) fits right into that. But if your view of church is along the lines of that which is shown in the NT then that leadership structure really doesn't fit or work there.

armydude -> RE: Biblical Model (4/14/2008 7:18:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: doinkdom Leadership is not accountable - some might be, but not at a biblical level of understanding. Leadership is not in community because they have a fear of man. Leadership does not pursue reconciliation and restoration because then they would have to come down from their mountaintop and deal with the messiness of God's people. However, leadership wants all of the above for the rest of the membership, as long as it doesn't apply to them - because they're untouchable. Because they have a sense of "earning" something that God never intended for them to have - absolute authority without accountability. Absolute authority without accountability... interesting. In any organization, to give absolute authority to anyone is a mistake. This includes the church giving absolute authority to the pastor. I have never been in a church where the pastor had absolute authority. I'm sure they exist, but in my experience authority has to have accountability. In my church, the pastor is accountable to the board of trustees (elders). The elders (and the pastor) are accountable directly to God and to each other. I've never seen an instance in my church where the pastor or the elders had any issues with that accountability. But I'm still lost on this statement. quote: The hiarchy that exists in many (but not all) churches is a clear seperation of church leadership and laity - of which there is no bibilcal grounds for. It's the "seperation of church leadership and laity" that confuses me. I am a leader in my church, and (once again in my home church) there is no seperation. Church membership is encouraged to take part in church business. It isn't a "Leadership AND Laity" issue. It's a church issue. We're all members of the same body working toward the same goal. It was seeing this in the leadership before I joined them that made me want to join them in the first place. IMHO, leadership is taking responsibility for someone other than yourself. It's putting others first. That was instilled in me in the military, and it's still true today.

doinkdom -> RE: Biblical Model (4/15/2008 11:02:01 AM)
I tried to explain that this is not what happens in all churches and many are set up to avoid this, but then we come up against our sin nature and all that and many times we fail. NOT always, but it is there. However...walking this out in real life is not an easy thing. We, as a body, should be caring for, ministering to and loving one another. The dependency upon one man in a church for total spiritual growth might not be a good thing. I don't want or need a "pastor" on a pedestal, I need someone living the Gospel by example - someone showing me how to's rather than just a list of Thou Shalt Not's - helping me to live out the Gospel in my own life from the moment the alarm clock goes off to the time my eyes shut for the night. quote: armydude IMHO, leadership is taking responsibility for someone other than yourself. It's putting others first. That was instilled in me in the military, and it's still true today. Well stated.

groovymovieman -> RE: Biblical Model (4/15/2008 11:18:47 AM)
quote: It's the "seperation of church leadership and laity" that confuses me. I am a leader in my church, and (once again in my home church) there is no seperation. Church membership is encouraged to take part in church business. It isn't a "Leadership AND Laity" issue. It's a church issue. We're all members of the same body working toward the same goal. It was seeing this in the leadership before I joined them that made me want to join them in the first place. Yes, but do you wear a title or have a "rank" that sets you apart from the rest of the saints? Jesus said that's a no-no. That's the root of the clergy/laity seperation problem. It takes Christians out of the context of being family and places them in different catagories and causes some to be viewed as more valuable or more important than others.

rcjames -> RE: Biblical Model (4/15/2008 2:17:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: doinkdom Leadership is not accountable - some might be, but not at a biblical level of understanding. Leadership is not in community because they have a fear of man. Leadership does not pursue reconciliation and restoration because then they would have to come down from their mountaintop and deal with the messiness of God's people. However, leadership wants all of the above for the rest of the membership, as long as it doesn't apply to them - because they're untouchable. Because they have a sense of "earning" something that God never intended for them to have - absolute authority without accountability. Like I said...this is not all churches. For example, I would never presume to think that your church was like this because I've read your posts throughout the boards here. If this were the case I might agree with; you, but if the Church is set up Biblically; there is plenty of real accountablility. The problem i have with many interpretations of a Biblical Model of a local Church is not accountability; not in house or out of house. And this according to my understanding is a no-no. The first century Churches were accountaable to those who rule over them, Elders etc. those who founded them (Paul for example) and to the Council in Jerusalem. The modern Churches that have no accountability are the "Lone Ranger" Churches with no accountability and no oversight. The Church was never set out to be a Democracy. The only input the laity had was in slecting Deacons. Thanks RC

doinkdom -> RE: Biblical Model (4/15/2008 2:56:09 PM)
The church also did not meet on just Sundays for a couple of hours.[;)] They lived together - ate together, shared their life with one another. So many of the things we schluff off onto leaders was done within the community. Very few churches do that today.

doinkdom -> RE: Biblical Model (4/15/2008 2:59:46 PM)
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.

rcjames -> RE: Biblical Model (4/15/2008 4:13:56 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. WEll the only Church I am sure about is mine, and others in our district that I have fellowship. What I am hearing is that maybe it not a misunderstanding of the instructions and example of Scripture, but a misapplication of such. When it comes time for us to have another or a replacement Elder; many are interested, until they they are taught on the responsibilities and duties of such. Then the prospective pool becomes smaller and smaller. Thanks RC

armydude -> RE: Biblical Model (4/15/2008 5:37:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: groovymovieman quote: It's the "seperation of church leadership and laity" that confuses me. I am a leader in my church, and (once again in my home church) there is no seperation. Church membership is encouraged to take part in church business. It isn't a "Leadership AND Laity" issue. It's a church issue. We're all members of the same body working toward the same goal. It was seeing this in the leadership before I joined them that made me want to join them in the first place. Yes, but do you wear a title or have a "rank" that sets you apart from the rest of the saints? Jesus said that's a no-no. That's the root of the clergy/laity seperation problem. It takes Christians out of the context of being family and places them in different catagories and causes some to be viewed as more valuable or more important than others. Do I wear a title? The pastor refers to me as "Reverend ______" (a practice I've never really liked), and those in pastoral positions are referred to as "Pastor _______". I'm not sure if that sets anyone apart. The pastor refers to the men that have been attending a short while as "man of God" and women as "woman of God". In other words, the pastor uses these words to uplift everyone in the church, not just those in leadership. Everyone is treated this way. He also believes (as do I) that everyone that is called of God, is called to action. 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.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI