How much authority should a pastor/bishop have?

[EdSutton]

Tom Butler,

For what it is worth my friend in answer to the orignal OP the pastor has no biblical right to insert himself as an authority above the father or mother in a home. How can we train our men to make spiritual decisions if we usurp their authority in the home?

As to your question I do not know of any pastors who hold the deeds to their church property. But many in times past when starting churches took it upon themselves to purchase property and buildings under their own good credit as an act of charity to the future congregation that they trusted the Lord would raise up in that place. I doubt that it was the intention at the time to keep the property most likely they simply wanted a home for their church.

Good post! As to the second paragraph, I've actually known of two 'pastors/individuals' who had 'church property' in their own name at one time. One actually, who incidentally happens to be one of my next door neighbors, has done this twice, and currently does this. He built basically with his own hands, buildings that were 'churches' with an attached living quarters, led in the organization of a church (not baptist) pastored the first, (but not the second) and lives there currently, with the church meeting on the first floor. And we are not talking about some garage type building, either, as it is a very nice and tasteful auditorium, with nice pews, a nice organ and piano he purchased, as well.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

The Bible says:

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 1 Peter 5:1-4

Therefore, the primary function of the Pastor is spiritual and doctrinal.

In the Philippines, some pastors require that female single members of courtship age must tell them who are courting them. And if the males are members of the same church, or the same "fellowship of churches", that these should first go to the pastor and tell them of their intent to court a female, before even going to the parents of the girl.

The pastors have a say on the kinds of jobs their members could take, and even how short a female member (even married ones) may have their hair cut, or how long a male member can have his hair grow.

Is this Biblical, is this doctrinal ?

They cite the fact that Hebrews 13:17 commands members to obey those that have the rule over them since these will give account for their souls. Do you think this is a correct interpretation to do the above ?

I think it is ridiculous.

A pastor of a church in which we were members of (in the Philippines) once went on his daily visitation rounds and came to our home. It was my wife's birthday (he did not know it, in fairness to him, so he wasn't there for the cake).
My wife often worked late into the night as a seamstress, and the previous night was no exception.
On that birthday, she decided she would go to the hairdresser and have her hair trimmed.
She fell asleep, and when she woke up, the hairdresser had cut her hair really short.
She came home really upset, on her birthday, and we all felt sorry for her because she is not one to have her hair cut that short.
Then this pastor comes in, and after the usual exchange, went to work on her, upbraiding her for her hair, upbraiding her for going to a hairdresser who was homo, right in front of me and our daughter, in our house, on my wife's birthday.
I told him to get out of the house right there and then, because if he doesn't I will bodily throw him out of the house, and I don't care if he teaches that pastors are like Moses to whom God said, touch not mine anointed. I will touch him. I don't enjoy watching my wife cry.

What do you think ?

I'll help you toss him out! Need my phone number? :thumbsup:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

An inquiry to those of you with an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist background:

In the area where I live, it was not uncommon for the IFB pastor to hold title to the church property and have great control over the finances of the church. The "strong pastor" model appeard to be widespread. Is this typical of IFB churches? Or should I say, is this still typical?

Did the "strong pastor" model lead to such situations as outlined in the OP?

This sort of abuse we've been seeing discussed :tear: would probably not occur if the Biblical model of a plurality of elders were observed, IMO. See my previous post on throwing one's weight around.


That's "In My not-so-humble Opinion", which is what most usually mean, but will not actually say! :smilewinkgrin: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[LeBuick]

Nothin' like a little free speculation! Uh- Chapter and verse, please??

Ed

I stand corrected and should have said, "agreed by some scholars to be 16". Either way we know he was young in relation to the people he pastored.

Ed, I will say you exibit the problem with the Church. How can a shepherd lead sheep that refuse to be lead? How can a shepherd lead a rebellious flock?

I truly hope you are only speaking out of emotion and really don't feel this way toward Church leadership.

blackbird = regarding the move to Montanna. How do you know the people didn't lack faith? How do you know it was not the fathers will? You sound like some of the Children if Israel when they got to the banks of the red sea, "we should of just stayed there..."

 

[rbell]

For what it is worth my friend in answer to the orignal OP the pastor has no biblical right to insert himself as an authority above the father or mother in a home. How can we train our men to make spiritual decisions if we usurp their authority in the home?

right. God has charged the family to raise the kids. We have a very important role as ministers, but we have no right to usurp parental authority.

I can think of a handful of times I have:

-When a parent "forbade" a teenager to accept Christ, I helped them with understanding it, and they did anyway.

-The few times that a child's welfare was at stake.

That's all I can think of.

 

[EdSutton]

I stand corrected and should have said, "agreed by some scholars to be 16". Either way we know he was young in relation to the people he pastored.

Ed, I will say you exibit the problem with the Church. How can a shepherd lead sheep that refuse to be lead? How can a shepherd lead a rebellious flock?

I truly hope you are only speaking out of emotion and really don't feel this way toward Church leadership.

blackbird = regarding the move to Montanna. How do you know the people didn't lack faith? How do you know it was not the fathers will? You sound like some of the Children if Israel when they got to the banks of the red sea, "we should of just stayed there..."

With all due respect, we do not know that Timothy "pastored", for Scripture, to my knowledge, never ascribes the term pastor or shepherd to him. While we often speak of "the Pastoral Epistles", I'd offer that this is a term or phrase of convenience, and not necessarily Biblical. Timothy WAS an apostle (Scripture given on request), was told to "do the work of an evangelist" (implying that he did not have that particular gift, but was to do the work even so, akin to one of the requirements for a bishop/elder to be "able to teach" while likewise not implying that all had the gift of teaching. Although Timothy probably did have the gift of either teacher or maybe even pastor/teacher, based on a couple of Scriptures, but did not have the '"office" of a pastor', for there is no such thing, Biblically, as far as I can tell. And on we could go.

Once again I'll say, as I've said before, that I believe we could avoid many problems if we would not confuse and confute the "spiritual gifts" and the "offices" in the church. Some of the very Scriptures that have been quoted in this very thread show there is a difference. And as I said before, there are no qualifications for the spiritual gifts, save the will of God, the Holy Spirit. They are not only without qualifications, they are irrevocable ("without repentance" in KJV terminology) contrasted with the offices which have all kinds of qualifications attached to them.

As to whether or not I am a person to "exhibit the problem with the Church...", I do wonder how you figure you have this knowledge, since as far as I know, we have never even met. Likewise on the 'refusing to be led', or rebellious bit.
I'm not particularly bothered by this, but would suggest that the condescension leaves somewhat to be desired, IMO.

FTR, I'll agree with blackbird on his post, given my limited knowledge.

Ed

 

[MorganT]

I have a question that has bothered me for some time. Just because you are a preacher how does that make you automatically a Elder/Bishop/Pastor. I dont really understand how just because you graduate from seminary and a church hires you or maybe not even goto seminary but you are hired by a church to preach that you become there Elder/Bishop/Pastor. Could someone please explain this to were I could understand it better.

 

[EdSutton]

I have a question that has bothered me for some time. Just because you are a preacher how does that make you automatically a Elder/Bishop/Pastor. I dont really understand how just because you graduate from seminary and a church hires you or maybe not even goto seminary but you are hired by a church to preach that you become there (sic) Elder/Bishop/Pastor. Could someone please explain this to were (sic) I could understand it better.

Probably not, Morgan. I've been waiting for this explanation for over 30 years. The best I cna come up with is that we think we can improve on t\he Biblical model! I figure , as I once said, the church never lacks for someone to fill the role of "Diotrophes, who loves to have the pre-eminence among them...". Contrast the apostle Peter who considered himself a co-elder or fellow elder in the church, or the Apostle Paul who called himself only a deacon or servant. If anyone could claim pre-eminence it would have surely been one of those two. And yet, we find just the opposite to be true.

BTW, the thumbs down is not at either your post or question, but the situation you and I describe. The post and question each get three thumbs up!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Ed

 

[LeBuick]

Probably not, Morgan. I've been waiting for this explanation for over 30 years. The best I cna come up with is that we think we can improve on t\he Biblical model! I figure , as I once said, the church never lacks for someone to fill the role of "Diotrophes, who loves to have the pre-eminence among them...". Contrast the apostle Peter who considered himself a co-elder or fellow elder in the church, or the Apostle Paul who called himself only a deacon or servant. If anyone could claim pre-eminence it would have surely been one of those two. And yet, we find just the opposite to be true.

Ed

Unfortunately the title comes with the job. Sure, the person must earn it if he is to keep the title or members but it really just comes with the job.

You do agree Ed that David was young when God annointed him as King. David was made King like any other King, not young king or little king or something like that. It is God who leads his people through the person he put in the position. I'm not sure why either of you have such a problem with the model God gave us to go by.

 

[Grasshopper]

The answer is---no, no, no--to all three!!

:thumbs:

Who is my Shepard, a pastor or Jesus? Who should guide my life, a pastor or Jesus? Who should I listen to regarding decisions in my life, the pastor or Jesus through the Holy Spirit? Who is liable to be wrong?

Too many churches have made the pastor their Pope.

 

[MorganT]

OK I will reville my problem with it. Years ago I worked with a man who had a piece of paper that said he was an ordained minister and had been ordain by his peers, Ministers and Elders and that man smoked more dope and drank more alcohol than any sinner I knew and he spoke of two others that did it with him that, guess what, both of them held those papers also. Here is my problem they had been ordained as ministers by Gods people to be Pastors however it was just a joke to them that they had fooled Gods people. This my friends is why I question the man and I say again I am not questioning GOD. I question evil people that can fool even the best of the best that are called by GOD. Do you see a reason I question it now. I hope so. I question Pastors because they are the first person in a church that Satan will go after to corrupt and I pray for my pastor and encourage him every chance I get.

 

[LeBuick]

OK I will reville my problem with it. Years ago I worked with a man who had a piece of paper that said he was an ordained minister and had been ordain by his peers, Ministers and Elders and that man smoked more dope and drank more alcohol than any sinner I knew and he spoke of two others that did it with him that, guess what, both of them held those papers also..

Yes, I do see and perfectly understand.

Keep this in mind, the joke was really on them. They may have fooled the people but we are gullible. They didn't fool God. He knows all about them and has allowed them to occupy those offices. We don't know why God does the things he does but I have learned not to question him.

Just as Jesus made a theif the treasurer or took a Cheif Jew who persecuted his Church and made him an Apostle, we don't know why. When God get's ready he will either have them repent and go strait or they will be brought to the light. I don't worry about people like that because all of our lives are in God's hands. He will not allow you to be harmed if you continue to put all your trust in God.

 

[EdSutton]

Unfortunately the title comes with the job. Sure, the person must earn it if he is to keep the title or members but it really just comes with the job.

You do agree Ed that David was young when God annointed him as King. David was made King like any other King, not young king or little king or something like that. It is God who leads his people through the person he put in the position. I'm not sure why either of you have such a problem with the model God gave us to go by.

Yes David was young when God annointed him to become king, (although probably older than at least one who later became king at the age of eight, if I recall) but the very office of elder in the NT church has little or nothing to do with David's being king of Israel, as far as I can tell. But since you brought up "the model God gave us to go by", some of the explicit qualifications for a "bishop" are - Note the text says "MUST BE..." in verse 2 -

4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. (I Tim. 3:4-6 - KJV)

Also note that the very ofice of "elder" refers to someone with more maturity than some fairly new or fairly young convert.

I'm just listing a few, but check out the very first qualification given - "...must be blameless", and then look down at verse 10 which speaks of deacons and which says -

10And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

I suggest that the idea is that one first is to be a deacon, before one is to become an elder, although granted, it does not carry the glamour of announcing that "I've 'surrendered' to preach, because God has 'called me to preach', so I can become a pastor, and present my humility publicly to all.

I'd offer that "the model God gave us to go by" is not what you are here advocating.

By the same token, I have no problem with someone 'preaching' at a relatively young age, or using that (or any spiritual gift for that matter), at about any age. But once again, confusing the gifts and the offices has put us where we often have unnecessary problems. In fact, I'd offer that a main reason we do not have even more, is often that the deacons function more the Biblical role of Elders, keeping a local church on an even keel. And I'd offer that often a ready made recipe for an impending disaster is a "strong" 'pastor', who is very inexperienced, with a weak diaconate, as well.

We attempt to imitate the world's organizations in the church at our peril. The predominate Biblical concept of the church is not so much that of an organization, but an organism, specifically, the body of Christ. And as the Lord Jesus Christ himself said, (from memory, not a quote) 'who would be great among you, let him be your servant'. :thumbsup: Works for me.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

:thumbs:

Who is my Shepard, a pastor or Jesus? Who should guide my life, a pastor or Jesus? Who should I listen to regarding decisions in my life, the pastor or Jesus through the Holy Spirit? Who is liable to be wrong?

Too many churches have made the pastor their Pope.

Couldn't have said it better, myself! :thumbs:

Let me also reference Phillipians 1:1-11 which says:

1 Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ,

To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops[a] and deacons:

2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, 5 for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ; 7 just as it is right for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart, inasmuch as both in my chains and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers with me of grace. 8 For God is my witness, how greatly I long for you all with the affection of Jesus Christ.
9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, 10 that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, 11 being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Philippians 1:1-11 - NKJV)

Is it just me, or was Paul not being extremely rude and insensitive to not even be bothered with even mentioning the most important member of the local church, namely the Senior Pastor?

Ed

 

[LeBuick]

Yes David was young when God annointed him to become king, (although probably older than at least one who later became king at the age of eight, if I recall) but the very office of elder in the NT church has little or nothing to do with David's being king of Israel, as far as I can tell. But since you brought up "the model God gave us to go by", some of the explicit qualifications for a "bishop" are - Note the text says "MUST BE..." in verse 2 -

My reason for bringing up David was to say if God will entrust an entire kingdom or nation to a young person, he certianly will use a young person over a Church. There were also Prophets that started young also. Mentioning the attributes of the man (weak or strong) is limiting God's ability to utilize us beyond our inabilities. Yes, the man in the office may be young but he is controlled by one who has been here through the ages. Trust God, he will work it out.

I agree the Body of Christ is a living organism and know that Christ is the head. If all you can see is the person occupying the office of pastor/elder etc... then you have a wrong view of Church leadership. I have no problem with the pastor being a servant, I am a servant just as Jesus was a servant but I believe Paul defines it better than I ever could.

Ro 1:1*Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Tit 1:1*Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

I serve the Church by serving Christ and being obedient to his will.

Lastly, the early Churches were still under Apolstolic Authority. So no, Paul was not rude for not addressing the Sr. Pastor or that would be like me making a big deal over one of my associates. During the time of the early Church, the highest earthly title one could have was that of Apostle. I believe Paul repeatedly and rightfully refers to himself as an Apostle as does Peter and John.

Probably not, Morgan. I've been waiting for this explanation for over 30 years. The best I cna come up with is that we think we can improve on t\he Biblical model! I figure , as I once said, the church never lacks for someone to fill the role of "Diotrophes, who loves to have the pre-eminence among them...". Contrast the apostle Peter who considered himself a co-elder or fellow elder in the church, or the Apostle Paul who called himself only a deacon or servant. If anyone could claim pre-eminence it would have surely been one of those two. And yet, we find just the opposite to be true.