When deacons cross the line?

When I was talking about a short attention span, I was referring specifically to listening to a monologue.

If there are things added into a presentation, such as flashing lights, pictures, sounds, etc., then the human attention span is increased dramatically. (In some cases almost indefinitely.)

A friend of mine has a pretty good formula for preaching: He preaches about 35 minutes, the first 15 minutes is a review of the new material from the preceding week. This both reinforces the material and brings it to mind again. It has worked well for him for the 35 years that I've known him.

 

RevMitchell writes:
"Church constitutions, church bylaws, and tradition have taken the place of scripture in many churches in America.

There is no scriptual reference to congregational rule. And there is no scriptual reference to deacon rule. In fact scriptually the deacons have no authtority. They are simply servants being sent out.

It is important to remember that you have a calling that no one else in that church has. And it is a calling from God. Your authority is a result of his providence. Acts 20:28"


The above is not the whole story. In the N.T. church, there were a numbers of elders in each church; not just one (senior pastor) as we have today. The church constitution and bylaws provide the agreed upon procedures on which the church is to be governed and operate.
The scriptures assume a church with many elders of equal influence. Since we have a single senior pastor system, the church constitution and bylaws are necessary to provide a good balance within the church. If we want the scriptures to be blindly applied, then we should change back to a system of multiple elders and not have a senior pastor.

A good paper discussing this can be found on: http:www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=414

 

You will have to pull up the scripture that assumes this and break it down for me. I've studied this issue in great detail and it cannot be found.

While a passage refers to multiple elders does not indicate that God requires this in a church.

The church constitution and bylaws are created without consideration of scripture. I have never seen one set of these that were based on scripture.

The churches constitution and bylaws were not created as an equalizer against rogue pastors. The history of these comes from churches incorporating for tax purposes under 503c. Any corporation is required to have a constitution and bylaws.

They lack any godly influence, or scriptual consideration. The secular influence they have had has shifted the churches trust away from God and on man made bylaws.

The church needs to get back to prayer, fasting and the word of God as its sole source of determining Gods will.

Today churches fear the pastor. Pastors fear the churches. No one is honest because of fear of tipping ones hand to early. There is no unity in the church today because the church has stopped fearing God and in its place has begun to fear man more.

When the church returns to godly fear then division over doctrine, ministry methods, music, and how long the preacher preaches for will be no more.

Prayer fasting and scripture, and nothing else.:thumbs:

 

RevMitchsll writes:
"You will have to pull up the scripture that assumes this and break it down for me. I've studied this issue in great detail and it cannot be found."

Suggest you read Dr. Wallace's paper which you can click on in my posts. Dr Wallace lists over 10 scriptures and considers the evidence for multiple elders is overwhelming.

Dr. Wallace is at Dallas Theological Seminary; he is not a pastor and therefore has no axe to grind in his scripture interpretations on this issue.

 

No axe to grind. Of course not. He is just a church member with no concern for this issue at all. And pastors are busy grinding their axes.

 

I read the article before and have reread it again. He doesnt make the case. He uses examples of presidence which does not indicate that it is a command of God.

I have no problem with a plurality of elders but I do have a problem when one pastor is presented as unscriptual.

The author also uses certain passages to indicate a plurality of elders when it is not clear that is the case. for example:

Acts 14:23 talks about appointing elders in every church. Multiple elders being appointed to multiple churches. No specific number is give to each church. Leaves room for single elders in single churches.

Philippians 1:1 discusses bishops and deacons. Apples and oranges there.

Titus 1:5 appointing elders in multiple towns. No clear evidence here.

His examples do not make clear implications as he asserts.

If we look at presidence for single leadership scenarios then we can find them.

Moses lead the Israelites and was the sole person for delivering Gods message to his people. No one could go to the top of the mount to get Gods message but him.

Noah, Abraham, Joseph, David, Solomon are all examples single leadership.

 

As a matter of fact, even during the days of the apostles, there never was unity in "the church," and there isn't today, because it's an impossibility. Saying the church this and the church that is meaningless. Basically because "the church" is also meaningless and useless as an entity..

Individual congregations may stop fearing God. Mine hasn't. My congregation is unified. My congregation loves the word and not the world.

 

Bro. Butler---doesn't your two statements sound a bit "polar" dear brother?? I mean---your first sentence says the church isn't unified---then your next statement is---My congregation is unified.

Which one is it????

 

Great your is unified and it fears God. What does that have to do with what I said. I clearly was speaking in general terms and did not intend to include every church member in the country. And I put in a context not as an individual statement.

The context was the the church has let in to it to many secular methods and ideologies. Anything other than prayer, fasting or scripture is extra biblical standards.

 

Blackbird,

My point was that to talk about the "church" as this or that is, as you said, a generalization. And all generalizations are not false, including this one.

I'm distinguishing between "the church" and "a church." Only individual churches can be divided or unified. Only individual congregations can fear God, or stop fearing Him.

RevMitchell,
If you had said, "many churches are divided because they have stopped fearing God," then I can completely agree.

If you had said "Churches need to get back to prayer, fasting and the word of God as its sole source of determining Gods will," I will give a hearty Amen.

You said: "The context was the the church has let in to it too many secular methods and ideologies." Sorry, but it hasn't. Individual churches have.

To speak of the church as needing this and that is to be imprecise, and precision advances the discussion much better. Otherwise, you will find nit-pickers like me lurking about ready to pick that imprecise nit.

As a matter of fact, I agree with your strong plea for believers to turn away from secular methods and ideologies. I am on your side. My plea is not to weaken your argument with a generalization when specifics will strengthen it.

Sorry to chase this rabbit, now back those rogue deacons.

 

The "examples (of) single leadership" you cite here are, as far as I can tell, related to Israel and not specifically the NT church, in any manifestation. Outta' curiosity, do you have a Scriptural example on the church?

True, but ya' gotta' admit, it sure was rude for Paul to ignore the most important member of that church, the Senior Pastor.:laugh: :applause: :laugh:

Ed

 

The same can be said for a disruptive Elder or the Pastor for that matter. What's so special about the term Elder if everyone recognizes that the Deacons are Elders?

 

RevMitchess writes:
"I have no problem with a plurality of elders but I do have a problem when one pastor is presented as unscriptual."

Unscriptural? Who said it was unscriptural? The scripture does not specifically say if we should have one elder or many elders. The point is the N.T. church had a plurality of elders, so we should interpret scripture about elders and deacons with this in mind.

 

Well said. I'd say that the biblical norm is a plurality of elders, according to what we read. The language must be stretched to come up with something otherwise.

Ed

 

Why not address them as a church? Sit there with your congregation and talk. Ask what they think of your messages. Ask if they're too deep and not helpful. If you're gonna be up there a whole hour (wow) maybe keeping their attention by having some participation would help. You know, ask them questions and ask them for ideas, ask if they can give you examples of stuff. You might find yourself getting new ideas or maybe things you haven't thought of will come up. It's kinda how I taught my kids when we homeschooled. I was the guide, but we learned stuff together, delved into topics together. In general they could ask me questions and I'd know them, but sometimes we'd have to look it up together, and sometimes they pointed out things I hadn't noticed or asked me questions that made me want to learn more too.

It sounds like there's already some distancing happening between you and some of the members. Don't let that happen, stay close to them. They need to know not that you're the boss, but that you're there for them and that their minds are important too and that you're in this together, not them facing this way and you facing that way.

I think it would be horrifying to go to a pastor with a concern and them have him preach a message the next week about what my position is and isn't. I would see it as him trying to put me in my place, show that he is on this rung and I'm a few rungs lower and I should always remember that. I'd never feel safe with him again. Even if they didn't present it in a gracious manner, perhaps responding in a gracious manner will encourage them to do that next time. Perhaps it wasn't presented right because they felt they had to be on the defensive with you, and judging from your reaction, could there be a bit of truth to that? :flower:

 

I remembered today why the length of my message was discussed. It was not about the sermon itself, it has to do with the length of our service. When my Dad pastored the Church, we would get out of service around 1pm at the latest. That was usually first Sunday with is communion Sunday. He preached around 20 or 30 minutes. Now we get out about 2:30 sometimes 3pm...

I get invited to preach 2 or 3 Sundays a month to services that usually begin at 4. This happened today where we didn't get out of 11AM service until about 2:15 then had a 4PM service. This does not give a lot of time to eat, relax etc... I canceled our 7pm service because I felt we all needed a break.

I don't know why, but the more I cut from service the longer service get's? The chior went from 8 songs to 4, we have one break or downtime in service where we acknowledge the visitors, pastors emphasis, announcements and offering. I see this is something I better get under control. Maybe I will discuss the order of service at our next quarterly business meeting.

 

RevMitchell and Blackbird,

In reviewing my posts, I find that there was a tone to them that I normally avoid. They were a little sharp I stand by the content but not the tone,and I apologize.

Tom