Is my church overstepping or not?

Sorry to come in so late and this is just my two cents, but it sounds like a real test of faithfulness and commitment to the task.

We have too many half-hearted Christians taking positions in the church and the job just isn't getting done. Since I fully believe in the autonomy of the local, indigenous Baptist church, I would have to say if the pastor feels led to do this, then the buck stops there. I say this because of what Paul told Timothy :
1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

I was going to II Tim. for the latter verse, but I saw the first verse in my search related to the subject as well.

The whole idea of holding a position in the local assembly isn't for "bragging rights": I'm a deacon down yonder", or"I teach SS so that automatically makes my reputation a good one"

If a man be found faithful, he's met the first qualification for service.

I was in a church where none of the 6 deacons went on visitation, except occaisonally, (once or twice a year), at any given service, there was only one in the 10 years we were there that I can actually account for 5 of the 6 being there, 1 was excused because he worked second shift, and that was on Wed night. I'm not just throwing off on deacons, but they are next in line, you don't want to hear the rest of the "leaders" attendence report.

We've been at our church almost 2 years now, the pastor has some strict "codes of conduct" to hold a position. I have been teaching the "Pre-teens" class for a couple of months because the other teacher was "just having too many problems at home", which in his particualr case IS understandable because his four children seem to be in and out of the hospital, many times two and even three at a time. (blood disorder due to mis-matched blood types, take heed!).

I appreciate my opportunity and would "scoff" at any one who takes their position for granted.

I also get to open service before Sunday School, something that has NEVER been done in the 50 year history of the church. You reckon I ought to be commited? I think so, and I'm not even the pastor. But do I think these rigid standards ought to be enforced? No, because the list of expectations is either too long, (like my reply),or it's because there seems to be an immediate demand to satisfy the rules, not that they couldn't be met over a reasonable amount of time.

You might ask why I'm in the "Pastoral Ministries" section, well, because I have a pastor's heart and I'm waiting for the Lord to show me the right opportunity to be in the place where He would have me, that is right where I'm at now. Know of any church in need of a "real" pastor?

 

Those kind of REQUIREMENTS do make me wonder about the mission of the group.

Those requirements seem to exclude many.

Being "set up to fail" is a hard lesson to take.

Sometimes I am tempted to think: What works for me is what you should be doing. The liberties that I choose not to take for conscience or the ministry's sake are the ones that you will not take either.

Sometimes I can hear a voice inside me judging folks like this: If you are not like me then you are wrong.

I am often tempted to think too highly of myself.

I am continually moving away from that thinking.

Thanks be to God and his Word.

Dave.

 

Demanding all students at a school to not miss a class does not ensure they will learn. We cannot legislate faith and we cannot demand faithfulness in one's personal walk. We can preach the word, and that is, after all is said and done, our calling.

Sometimes it is better to praise the good points of a person than to point out his/her faults. What is the saying, A little praise goes a long way.

I fully understand the role of a pastor and the authority he is given by God, but the wise man leads and does not command.

I am afraid, far too many pastors usurp the Lord's work. I was always far too busy preparing messages and conducting the spiritual affairs of the church family, to care much about the physicality of the church. Delegate someone to do those things. Take care of your spiritual relationship and as they say, "Don't sweat the little things."

Cheers,

Jim

 

Compared to this line of thinking I'm a raving liberal!

But I understand the pressure to run a smooth ship. When you have a large ship you've got to have a large dependable crew.

 

I talked to the rest of the staff last night about this thread. We can find no example of the contract we should sign in the Bible.. In fact, our senior pastor, who has never been accused of being liberal (often the opposite extreme) does not even require his pastoral staff to sign anything of that nature. He does require us to have a plan of how we will meet the Biblical objectives of our job descriptions. And he will review our plan along with the effectiveness of our ministry in regards to our performance. He helps to adjust our plan and execution of the plan so we can better do the ministry God has called us to perform under his LEADERSHIP, not commands. In fact, he stresses that as a staff and (we are to stress to our lay leaders) that we are to LEAD IN SERVICE and edify those whom God has placed in our care. Jesus did not tell any of His followers to do anything He did not model for them. And I see nowhere that anyone had to sign a contract before they could minister in the NT church. Can anyone show me the contract Paul or Peter or any of the apostles signed in the scrpitures?

 

I am not a recovering Pharisee. I have never been one. But you haven't offered even one iota of evidence that this is legalism or psychological manipulation. When an employer sets out a list of things necessary for a job, is that manipulation or legalism?? When an employer says you have certain hours you have to keep to maintain your job, is that legalism?? Of course not. Are parents legalists because they give their children certain "chores" to do and then insist that they do them?? Is it manipulation when the parents says "You can't go to your baseball game because you didn't clearn your room as you were told?" I don't think we canmake that case.

In essence, we have redefined legalism in such a way that anyone who asks for biblical obedience is a legalist. We have redefined it to appeal to people's emotions without actually thinking about what is being said. And in so doing, we cheapen actual legalism. It is a shame that such a belief is propounded.

I have long known that I am in the minority for my high view of ecclesiology. And it does not go without noticing that no Scripture is ever offered in rebuttal of it.

But we should note some things here. Did the NT apostles have "contracts" or some such thing in place? Let's examine the Scriptures and I am just going off my head here so this won't be complete. My mind goes first to 1 Tim 2 where Hymanaus and Alexander made shipwrecks concerning the faith. These are listed in the context of Timothy exposting and protecting the flock from false teachers. It seems we must understand that there was a known standard that these men violated. We see Paul confronting Peter about behavior in Acts 2. So we see that there was a known standard. Paul confronts actual legalists (not the made up kind) in Galatians. The clear implication is that there was a known standard by which people should live and those who did not live it were not welcome in the assembly as ministers. You see John confronting Diotrophes who violated a known standard. But let's get even more specific. 1 Tim 3 gives a known standard for both pastors and deacons. Most of us here would agree that if a pastor or deacon violates that known standard, they are to be asked to step down and if they refuse they are to be fired. Other examples could be given. What becomes clear is that there was a known standard and there were ramifications for failing to follow that known standard. How come no one here is accusing Paul of legalism for setting up this standard and insisting that people follow it? Why is no one here accusing Paul of being a legalist for asking people to step down from ministry positions for which they were not qualified??

You might not call these signed contracts but that doesn't matter. What is at issue here is this: Should we have a known standard for people involved in ministry so that they know what is expected from them? We have them for pastors. Why not others?? Are we really saying that the pastor is the really important one and everyone else is less??? I don't want to make that case. I think all ministers in the church are important.

Which seems to point to the truth of my earlier post. We all claim to think these are good things, but we don't want the accountability for actually doing them. To me, that reeks not of legalism but of hypocrisy, with respect to my friend Bob, who I hope won't take my comments personally.

But why object ot putting your money where your mouth is? Simply because there is accountability?? We all have accountability in every area of life. Why not have it in the church?

And on what basis can we ask a teacher or a minister to step down from a ministry??? If there is no known standard to which they agreed, we have no valid basis for asking them to step aside. At this point, accusations of "You just don't like me" come into play. And the pastor has no defense for it, unless there is a written standard for ministry that is upheld.

I think we need to get past the emotional charges of legalism and "someone's trying to run my life" and "we don't see contracts in teh Bible" and look at the substance of this issue.

From a purely philosophical standpoint: Is it good to have known standards for responsibilities so that you have a standard to judge effectiveness and so that you have recourse for those who don't measure up. One of the mistakes I made very early and very often was failing to let people know what was expected. When it didn't happen, I was frustrated becasue it didn't happen. They were frustrated because they didn't know what was supposed to happen. And it didn't happen. Which meant, there was unnecessary personal conflict and frustration combined with failure. That didn't help anything. It is always better to be upfront. With differing levels of responsibility and differing levels of maturity come differing needs of standards.

Let's take a look at this list.

do a daily quiet time, -- Necessary because it deepens one's relationship with God. Shallow teachers turn out shallow students. If you are not doing this regularly, you should be. If you are too busy for this, then you are too busy.

attend all meetings pertaining to their ministry, -- Necessary so that everyone is on the same page about what is going on. Necessary also so that people in the same minsitry can develop the same heart, a deep friendship, and pray together often. Nothing legalistic about that.

pray and read the bible daily,I think this is a part of number one.

join the evangelical program (witnessing door to door),Every believer should be evangelizing. Door to door is usually not effective. I personally would not make this a requirement. But evangelism needs to be a strong component of any church.

tithe, -- Tithing is not for the NT church. It lets people off too easy. Giving certainly is. I am mixed about this one. I don't know who gives or what people give. I leave that up to them. However, I can see the benefit of this. I simply wouldn't do it.

attend all morning and night services unless circumstances out of their control prevents them from being there (if they have to miss a worship service, they have to notify the church staff), -- This is a necessary part of body life. When the Bible is being taught, it is of utmost priority. There is no reason I can think of why a believer should regularly and willingly miss the meetings of the body of Christ. Most ministry functions take place during these meetings, so for instance, teaching in SS does not require you to be someplace that you aren't anyway.

and they also need to commit to taking a set amount of discipleship training classes (usually 6-16 weeks for each class). -- This is what the NT calls "equipping" in Ephesians 4. Should we not have ministers who are equipped?? I can't hardly argue with this.

[q]Also, anyone who feels called to take on a ministry would not be able to do so without approval by church council.[/b] -- This is SOP. Here, I approve it because we are small enough for me to have my hand in it.

Most people think this is strange stuff. Did you realize that Rick Warren, according to his book, has a higher standard than this for his members -- not his ministers and workers but his members!!! All of you complaining about this couldn't even join his church.

My point is that we need to step back from the emotions of "someone telling me what to do" and ask about the NT principle of accountability and purpose behind it. As an article I read this morning said, there is a fine line between manipulation and motivation. And we need to be careful about that. But let's not so easily respond from our glands. Let's respond from Scripture. Let's raise the bar back to where it was in the NT.

 

But did you not know up front what was expected of you? Did you not know what would "cost you your job?" Most pastors make that clear when they hire someone.

But I think this list being discussed here is of a different sort. Like it or not, there are certain that we as believers must "do" as a minimum. And that is what he is addressing. How many Sunday evening services (assuming you have them) can you miss before your pastor will be stepping in to ask for your resignation from your ministry position?

Will you not admit that there were known standards of accountability to which apostles were held? Will you not admit that in the NT certain people are rebuked and removed from ministry because they failed to meet certain known standards? I think the evidence is pretty clear on that.

__________________________

In all of this, I am not tryign to be a dead horse. This could actually be one of the more profitable discussions on this board, if we could separate the emotions and buzzwords from it. I see the dangers of such a signed list. I don't have one for workers here. But I can also see the benefits of it. I have had to ask someone to step down from a ministry position. And it was a judgment call because I didn't have a written standard to point to. And it created some hard feelings. IF we had a written standard that was well known, I would have been able to point to it and say, "This is what you agreed to." Bill Hull in The Disciple Making Pastor addresses this topic. This is a must read, IMO, for this discussion. Thinkgin about this this morning has caused me to pull it off the shelf. I am going to have to reread it. I just notice his "Growth Group Covenant" for members of their small groups (pp. 226-27 in the 2000 printing). The last two sentences of this covenant say: "Therefore, I/we agree to channel our efforts to comply with these expectations for the next two years as God lead me/us. We give you permission to confront us whenever we fall short of this covenant as a friend and loving guide for our spiritual well-being."

He says, (p. 116): Spiritual maturity without accountability is a canard. Those who refuse spiritual authority when they need it but don't want it are doomed to spiritual mediocrity. Too often the church encourages people to disobey by teaching certain actions and morality as right, but ignoring clear violations of it. Regardless of church dogma, what the church practices wins hands down. The message to the congregation couldn't come across more clearly: "We don't really mean it." This is teaching people to disobey.

On p. 208 he says, "Too often someone claims to practice accountability, but in reality practices selective accountability. He submits to authority and changes when he wants, but ignores authority when he doesn't want it. In those cases, accountability is a farce, it means nothing. People cannot develop into what God desires until they submit to God's authority through leaders when they don't want to. Until they have to swallow their egos and submit in a moment of crisis, their independence will retard their development. Those selected for "come and be with Me," step five, "let them do it" must demonstrate that they are willing to be corrected and able to correct others."

As I say, this book is an excellent book worthy of serious reflection. It sets out a good model for discipleship, and in reality that is what this is about. I think we need to focus on that, rather than on the "He's trying to run my life" thought process.

 

I would have to say the incentive of the pastor should only be to bring an awareness of the commitment expected of them to hold a position by them making a conscious decision by signing an agreement like this. I would like to think the motive was to prevent backlash in the future when it was preached on accountability. When the "But"'s begin, they can be reminded, legalism would dare to hold the contract over their heads and saying, "Looky here! Remember when you signed this?" That would definitely be leagalistic and evident of the motive.

If I felt led of the Lord top do such a thing as ask for signatures, I can say I would take the signatures and file them away in good ol'File 13, the only intention would ahve to be is whether they would be willing to make that commitment. Isn't that what the Christian walk is all about? Liberty to be able to make the commitment without it becoming legalistic because you're NOT a Christian? IOW only a Christian has this liberty, an un converted in the case of the unconverted it would be legalism. (Uh, oh! I know somebody's gonna hate me now)

By reading the other posts I can see where some believe this would be legalism. This would only be according to their definition of the term, but each might consider their definition might hinge on illegalism as well.

I talked with a missionary friend of mine about a similar subject. His remark was to ask if I am considered a legalist, what does that make them, illegal?

I'm afraid too many rebels throw off on the church and it's realm of authority and cast the term, "legalist", too readily. I do believe it is the liberty of the believer to attend the church of "God's choice", being the Lord knows better what we need than we ourselves, thus a clear conscience with Him who knows best is highly recommended to avoid making a tremendous mistake.

When we choose the church of our choice, it's like desiring sugar when salt is required to cleanse a wound.

I'm afraid when a person "dictates" to a church, "I won't attend here, because I don't like being told what to do", (reminds me of the story of the son who decided to join the Marines because he was tired of his parents telling him what to do), well, that's exactly it, dictating to the church, saying," The church is dictating to me".

In the case of the 12 spies sent into the "promised land", 10 came back crying, "legalism", while 2 came back shouting, "Liberty!" Consider.

The purpose of membership is relationship, that under leadership, not dictatorship. The liberty given us in Christ is never selfwilled, but according to the will of Him Who saved us. There's a fine line there and it needs defining, I hope I have helped.

 

(2 Cor 3:6 NIV) He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

(2 Cor 3:6 KJV) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

 

And I wouldn't want to join HIS church. I prefer to join the church my Lord and Savior established, not some man.

I am perfectly willing to be under the Biblical authority of my Pastor. My "contract" is the Bible. He preaches from it, and often I find myself lacking and convicted to change things in my life. I think it is a lack of faith on the part of a Pastor who would make someone sign a statement like that. Our commitment is already made with Christ, and doesn't that cover everything any disciple is supposed to do??

 

I still want to ask, which of these things could you not fulfill??? That is what this keeps coming back to. I understand an unsaved spouse. I had a SS teacher here for a number of years whose husband was unsaved. As a result, she rarely attended PM servics. I understood that. It was not my preference, but I understood the situation. But these "requirements," virtually all have admitted, are what every believer ought to be doing. So if someone says, "I can't fulfill all of these," are they admitting to willfully living in disobedience? What are we to conclude from that?

I agree it's a heart issue that is not resolved by a piece of paper. But we all know the principle of accountability. All issues are heart issues. Accountability relationships help those heart issues to grow.

I still encourage you to talk to your pastor and see if there is something here you might have read too much into.

 

Your church was started by a man ... This is a distinction without a difference. While I would not be a part of Warren's church for other reasons, my point is that this is niether an uncommon nor unwise practice.

[qutoe]I am perfectly willing to be under the Biblical authority of my Pastor. [/quote]So if your pastor encourages you to sign a worker's agreement, are you still perfectly willing to be under his authority?? Or are you under his authority only as long as you like it??

Was it is a lack of faith on God's part to establish the Mosaic covenant with Israel (which was essentially the same thing as this, except with higher requirements and a higher price to pay for failure?)

Was it a lack of faith for God to set forth requirements for the office of pastor in 1 Tim 3? Isn't a pastor's "commitment to Christ" enough? Why did he need to set forth more specific standards? And what about the standards for deacons? Was that a lack of faith on God's part??

You see, your own argument condemns God who very clearly set forth standards of conduct and established accountability with them.

Yes, so why object to publicly stating you are following Christ??

 

And???? How is this relevant??

 

My argument in no way condemns God, God sets his own standards.

My argument condemns men who feel it necessary to add to God's standards.

 

So, just to clarify my thinking about where you are coming from, two questions:

1) Which of the above things is "adding to God's standards"?

2) Why is following the pattern of God in these matters wrong?

Don't complain about legalism or man made rules. Actually make a case for your position, using arguments, Scripture, etc. Give us some solid reasoning.

 

So which of the above standards that started this discussion do you consider something God did not tell us to do?

[qutoe]We have an ifb church here in town that says (and brethren, I've seen their constitution and covenant). I will paraphrase but not exaggerate:[/quote]With the exception of faithfulness to the services of the church, I see nothing actually supported by Scripture. So, I think we are back to the above. I agree that is God does not teach it, then we should not expect it.

But are these things mentioned in this thread really added works?? I think virtually all have admitted that they are things every believer should be doing. So I don't see that this really ties together with what you are using as examples here, Bob.

 

Who is "all" that admits this?