Really? Did I miss something here?
Before I begin let me make it clear that I realize I’m certainly no theologian, nor do I care to be. I may not have a “Dr.” decorating the front of my name plate, but amazingly…..I can read the bible for myself! God has given us His Holy Spirit to “bring us into all truth” and that’s good enough for me.
I realize that the following post is most likely riddled with gaping holes, but I do feel it is a good opening to what can be a very complex issue. So, if you dare, read on! Hopefully, you will find it of some benefit!
The following is an excerpt from an article written by Dr. John H. Gerstner entitled “Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only His Sin?”
“Repent or Perish” forces people to ponder seriously the popular slogan, “God hates the sin and loves the sinner.” Is a necessary repentance consistent with “God loves the sinner?” If God loves the sinner while he is alive, it is strange that God sends him to hell as soon as he dies. God loves the sinner to death? Loves him to everlasting torment?
There is something wrong here. Either God loves the sinner and will not send him into the furnace of His eternal wrath; or He sends him into His eternal wrath and does not love him. Either “you are going to hell unless” because God hates you, as you are. Or, God loves you and “you are going to hell unless” is false.
Dr. Gerstner goes on to say, “God has no complacent love for the sinner at all. He has a perfect hatred of him”.
If what the good doctor says is indeed true, it would seem we would need to blot John 3:16 from the scriptures.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”
The word clearly states that God “so loved the world”. Notice it does not say He “so loved the nice people”, or “the religious people”, or even “the God fearing people”. No, it says “the world”. A world chock full of mean, ugly, selfish, sin ridden people. A world that for the most part, didn’t give nor does it now give a rip about God or His son.
Yet even so, our gracious God sent His most precious gift to “the world” to save it. Why? Because He “so loved” it.
If God truly “hates” people, then why not just do away with us? Don’t send your son. Send a few angels down and torch the place! Why waste your time trying to save what you hate?
Yet, we know that is not the case. God loves people, all people. We also know that it doesn’t take a genius to see that the whole “God hates you and wants to smash your dirty sinner face” idea is just not biblical. All one needs to do is look to Jesus and his treatment of “the lost”.
Jesus said, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father”.
I’m going to offer an analogy that is far from perfect, but might possibly help to put this whole idea of God’s punishment of sin into perspective.
As I understand, American policy dictates that when planes are hijacked with the intent to use them as a weapon of destruction, the president will call upon fighter jets to take the planes down. Such was the case during the 911 tragedy. After coming to grips with the enormity of the situation, President Bush knew he had to act to ensure the safety of innocent civilians. This was certainly no easy decision to make. Yes, these hijacked planes had to be stopped, but what about the innocent people on board the planes? To destroy the plane was certainly a decision to end the lives of many passengers. Unfortunately, the people could not be separated from the plane. The destiny of the plane and the people where inseparably intertwined. Though the president was terribly grieved at having to make such a decision, he knew the plane could not be allowed to continue on possibly endangering even more innocent people. By the way, in the case of the 911 tragedy, the jets were spared their morbid duty due to some very heroic civilians on the plane.
As I said, it is a flawed analogy, but it does possibly provide a glimpse of the dilemma faced by God.in dealing with our sin problem. How? Let me explain.
As you already know, you and I are born sinners. No fun, but it’s reality. Unfortunately, this goes far beyond just our thoughts and actions. Sin is literally a part of the very fabric of our being even down to the very DNA that is the blueprint of who we are. Trying to separate us from sin would be like trying to separate light from the sun. Humanly, it is an impossible task. Again, sin isn’t just something we do or think, but rather it is an integral part of who and what we are. In short, it is a part of every part of our being, and it’s not easily dealt with. As a matter of fact, nothing short of a miracle could ever do the job.
Now we all know the bible teaches us that God hates sin. That is clearly seen throughout the scriptures. Yet, we also see how much He loves mankind. So much in fact, that He indeed sent His only son to free us from sin and its power over our lives.
Receiving pardon for one’s sin is a gift. The bible tells us to call on the name of the Lord that we might be saved. I’m not going to get into a huge discussion here on how that whole process takes place due to the various thoughts on the subject. Still, I think most would have to agree that if you want to be saved, you can be, but it is only through Jesus that sin can be forgiven and its power broken.
The flip side of that is the fact that you are free to refuse God’s free gift of forgiveness and salvation. I know you’ve probably seen or heard the saying “Know Jesus. Know peace. No Jesus. No peace”. This is true, but may I add to that line of thinking, “No Jesus. No forgiveness, salvation, or separation from sin. “Know Jesus. Know forgiveness, salvation, and separation from sin!”
As I stated earlier, the problem of sin can only be rectified through a miracle. The good news is that God has provided that miracle through the great sacrifice of His only begotten son.
A decision to refuse that gift is a decision to keep one’s sin and experience the full wrath of God against sin.
You see, God has made it clear “No sin shall enter in to Heaven”. Yet, if a person refuses God’s cure for sin (Jesus), that person’s fate is intertwined with that of sin. Sin will be done away with and unfortunately we are one with sin. Are you starting to see the problem?
Just like the president could do nothing to separate those passengers from the hijacked plane, so also God can do nothing to separate a person from sin if he or she does not desire to be seperated. The result: death, judgment, and eternal damnation. Why? Is it that God hates these people? Of course not! We know he loves people. The bible says He himself knit us together in our mother’s womb. But, sin must be dealt with and as long as a person is inseparably intertwined with sin, he or she will face the same fate as the sin that clings to their being. God wants “all” to be saved, but he has given us a freedom to choose or refuse His love, grace, and provision.
Bottom line: God hates sin and must deal with it, but unfortunately that same fate will include the souls of all that refuse to be separated from their sins.
With that said, there is one thought that has always troubled me. It is the idea that a person is doomed to an eternity in Hell. Not just 10, 100, or even 1,000 years, but eternity. For years I have considered the punishment to far exceed the crime. I mean can’t God just at some point say “okay, they get it!” It just seems that “eternal” punishment seems a bit much for 100 years or less of sin. Why would a loving God deem it necessary to leave these souls in such a place “forever”?
Again, we have to understand the nature of sin in mankind. Remember, sin isn’t just an act, thought, or a series of bad decisions. It is a part of every part of our being. Once a person enters eternity, the window of opportunity to receive pardon from God through Jesus is shut forever. Is it that God gives up and washes His hands of these “dirty sinners”? No! Unfortunately, these souls have moved beyond their ability to receive pardon.
I will offer a very inadequate illustration, but it may help.
If a person is diagnosed with a disease, it is important to act quickly and seek out treatment for the disease as soon as possible. Most doctors would agree that in most cases “catching” a disease early in its progression is usually very beneficial in terms of experiencing a full recovery. Such is the case with many types of cancer. To ignore the disease and pretend it’s not there is to doom oneself to a sure death. At some point in the disease process, you will pass the point of no return. It is at this point that no amount of medicine can help. The disease has taken over and the cure is without benefit to the patient.
When a person enters eternity, they pass the point of no return. They have entered a realm where sin cannot be “cured”. If “no sin” can enter into Heaven, a person is left with only one destination to spend eternity. That of course being Hell. Sin is of this world and its cure must also be received in this world. That’s why Jesus entered this life as a man and was sacrificed in this life as a man. Sin had to be dealt with in “this life” because it is “this life” in which sin came into being due to man’s rebellion. It is a product of those who dwell in this world and can only be “cured” while in this world.
So, does God have a mean streak and seek revenge against those who refuse Him? Not at all, rather He mourns the loss of even one soul to Hell. He has done all He can possibly do to separate the human soul from sin. It is left to us to receive or refuse His cure for sin through His son Jesus.
So, you may be wondering why I would go to such lengths to explain something that most folks most likely already “get”. Well, actually I really believe many folks do not “get” it at all. They may have part of the story, but chances are they avoid the rest. Why? Many times it seems to be unresolvable. It is far easier to just go with what the preacher says and stay in the safety of our little religious boxes. The problem is how do you answer the questions of a lost and dying world when you have never bothered to resolve your own questions?
I also believe that many struggle to fully commit to a God that claims to love us as a Father, but seems more than willing to send some folks to Hell. There’s always that nagging feeling that somehow our good God suffers from a little touch of “bipolarism”. God loves you, but watch out! If we don’t understand the truth about God’s nature, how can we ever really trust Him or praise him, or love Him?
The good news is that God has given us His word and is more than willing to “bring us into all truth” if we are willing to seek him with ‘all our heart”.
And with that, I shall end this lengthy post!
If you disagree, have another point of view, or just a thought regarding my little blog post, please leave a comment either here or on FB. We all benefit when we are open to other folks insights.
I have not arrived, but neither have you……so speak up!
Friday, February 18, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
God's Money???
Did you know that a dollar can do a lot of good?
Did you know that the total yearly revenue of the “DOC-UP” program utilized by many local churches is $189,862?
Did you know that this program is the sole vehicle by which many of our local churches assist the needy?
Did you know that there are over 200 churches (according to the yahoo directory) in Whitfield County?
Did you know that the bulk of most church budgets are used to pay for buildings and staff salaries?
Did you know that the typical church has an average of 75 members (although many have more)?
Did you know that 75 multiplied by 200 equals 15,000?
Did you know it would be possible to raise $15,000 dollars a week if every person mentioned above gave only $1?
Did you know that this amount would increase to $780,000 in a year’s time?
Did you know that $780,000 is $590,138 more than $189,862?
Did you know that it is possible to help a lot more people with $780,000 than $189,862?
Did you know that according to Matthew 25, Jesus expects us to use His resources to provide food, clothing, and shelter to those in need?
Did you know that paying salaries and building buildings just aren’t mentioned in Matthew 25……or anywhere else in the New Testament?
Did you know that many people who read this will certainly try to justify using God’s money for these purposes even though Jesus never mentions them?
Do I know that writing this was probably a waste of my time? Yeah, but it beats playing video games!
Think about it the next time you drop His money in “the plate”.
Did you know that the total yearly revenue of the “DOC-UP” program utilized by many local churches is $189,862?
Did you know that this program is the sole vehicle by which many of our local churches assist the needy?
Did you know that there are over 200 churches (according to the yahoo directory) in Whitfield County?
Did you know that the bulk of most church budgets are used to pay for buildings and staff salaries?
Did you know that the typical church has an average of 75 members (although many have more)?
Did you know that 75 multiplied by 200 equals 15,000?
Did you know it would be possible to raise $15,000 dollars a week if every person mentioned above gave only $1?
Did you know that this amount would increase to $780,000 in a year’s time?
Did you know that $780,000 is $590,138 more than $189,862?
Did you know that it is possible to help a lot more people with $780,000 than $189,862?
Did you know that according to Matthew 25, Jesus expects us to use His resources to provide food, clothing, and shelter to those in need?
Did you know that paying salaries and building buildings just aren’t mentioned in Matthew 25……or anywhere else in the New Testament?
Did you know that many people who read this will certainly try to justify using God’s money for these purposes even though Jesus never mentions them?
Do I know that writing this was probably a waste of my time? Yeah, but it beats playing video games!
Think about it the next time you drop His money in “the plate”.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Fried Chicken "Ain't" Evil, But........
I like chicken. As a matter of fact, it could be said that I love chicken. It is by far my “meat of choice”. Growing up in the Richmond household, my mom fried everything. She fried squash. She fried okra. She fried potatoes. And…..she fried chicken. Nothing better tasting than a fresh batch dripping with oil and the Richmond family ate its fair share.
Now that I’m married and away from momma, my family tends to steer away from fried fodder. With my increase in age and wisdom (don’t laugh), I’ve come to realize that although fried chicken “ain’t” evil, it also “ain’t” that great for you. This is especially true if you decide to make it a regular part of your diet. Yes, it does provide life sustaining nourishment (sort of), but unfortunately there are about a million other foods out there that do a far better job of keeping you alive. Yes, you can eat all the fried chicken you want, but sooner or later you will begin reaping some of the negative aspects of eating that delicious oil soaked bird. These “blessings” include getting fat and probably increasing your chance for clogged arteries which leads to heart attacks and stroke. In other words too much of a “good thing”, might not be so good! Now your probably wondering where I’m going with this. Well. I can assure you I’m no health nut and although I deem what I’ve written to be good advice, this blog “ain’t” just about chicken!
Over the last few months, I have posted many thoughts on the glorious social experiment known as Facebook. With these posts have come a variety of replies questioning everything from my sanity to my devotion to the Lord Himself. Well, despite others best attempts to paint me as being a bitter, cynical, and terribly wounded Christian in need of intervention, I must refute these musings and their validity. Believe it or not folks, I still love Jesus and I’m still doing my best to find His heart for my life.
Regardless of that fact, I do understand why so many folks would believe these things to be true. Like I shared with a gentleman the other day. Facebook is great, but it only presents a snippet of the totality of any given situation. So, with that, I have decided to share my thoughts in a little more detail.
Brace yourself, because I’m not going to sugar coat it. The following statement may not be to your liking, but it represents my heart. I truly believe that the modern day, institutionalized church is a killer of biblical Christianity and does far more harm to the body of Christ than people realize. There I said it! Please note that I did not say, "being a part of the church is a killer". The two are very different!
Now, does making such a statement make me a negative person? Does having a different take on what the word says make me less committed to God or biblical truth? I think not. To have a different opinion based on experience (lots of it), prayer (lots of it), and the study of Gods word (yes….lots of that too), shouldn’t be a cause for labeling me a hypocrite, confused, or “back slidden”. Yet, I’ve found that the moment you dare to question tradition, or step outside of the bible belt’s box of comfort, you immediately become.....questionable.
Now, back to the chicken. What does fried chicken have to do with all this? You see, fried chicken is is not evil. It tastes great and is enjoyed by many. But, is it really good for you? Is it the best thing you can put in your mouth? No. Ask any doctor and they’ll tell you that fried chicken should not be a consistent part of your diet. Baked chicken? Yes. Grilled or steamed? Fine. But not fried! Why, because your body wasn’t designed to function well on the stuff. Yes, it will for a while. You can even eat it with friends celebrating wonderful times of joy, but sooner or later eating such things will cost you. The crash in your health will come and all those “great meals” will seem so foolish.
For me, the modern church is much the same way. For twenty years, I’ve pulled up to the table and eaten every thing our religious system had to offer. I was certainly part of the famed “twenty percent” that does all the work in the church and proud of it. I did everything I was told a good Christian man should do and listened carefully to the “spiritual leaders” God had put over me. I went to visitation, volunteered for projects and committees, taught, preached, and sang. Yet, in the end I realized that what I had was a lap full of religion and an anemic faith that was built on the shoulders of some good guys trying to be far more than God ever intended. Was I saved? Absolutely! But, for some reason after years of doing everything I could, I was not growing much at all. My fault? Maybe, but I can assure you no one especially the “shepherds” of the church ever took the time to investigate if the poor little sheep were actually growing up. They were more than content to feed us our weekly dose of milk and remind us that we could get more next week. On the outside we all looked good, and unfortunately for our leaders that seemed to be good enough. The church was growing, people were being saved, people shouted amen and put their money in the plate, but no one was growing up!
Just like that plate of chicken that tasted so good for so long, I eventually had to come to terms with the fact that maybe this “stuff” was actually doing more harm than good. You see that’s really it for me. It’s not that it’s all bad, because it isn’t. There are lots of good things going on in some "churches", but what about the “stuff” that is so often ignored. You know, the “stuff”. Stuff like “services”, “sermons”, professional “clergy”, dress codes, denominations, unbiblical leadership (boards, committees, etc.), fancy buildings that are only used a few times a week, church covenants, and an endless list of other man contrived religious practices that aren’t even found in the book. None of those things really help you grow up spiritually or foster a true relationship with God, yet realistically these are the very “things” we esteem to be vital to church life. The truth is these “necessities” are not only not necessary or very biblical, but also tend to keep the body of Christ in an apathetic state. Adherence to such practices has caused Christ’s body to become dependant upon a system and its leaders to spoon feed us because we lack the strength or maturity to eat the solid food God offers. No one ever "grows" up because the system is set up to keep everyone in a perpetual state of infancy. Is it done intentionally? No, at least not in most situations, but that is the end result none the less. Say what you like, but many of today’s “churches” look more like a corporation than a living body of family members sharing life.
Again, let me make it clear, I KNOW THERE ARE GOOD THINGS GOING ON IN SOME CHURCHES, but that doesn’t mean this thing we call “church” is actually making disciples or represents God’s heart for His kids. It may satisfy our emotional needs and provide some of what we feel we need spiritually, but does it really represent God’s best for His kids?
Again, eating fried chicken isn’t evil, but is it really helping us to become healthier individuals, or the opposite. Just because it tastes good and is appealing to the senses does not mean we are gaining true benefits from eating it. It will keep you alive, but is that really the goal? I can tell you it’s not mine.
So who should I blame for leading me astray all these years? Was it the “preachers” fault? No. Was it my fellow church member’s fault? No. Was it God’s fault? Of course not. It really was not anyone’s fault. Rather I believe it was simply the natural progression that takes place in the human heart when it continues to look for God in a system that is in many ways unbiblical and foreign to the heart of God. It seemed to be working for years. It seemed to be doing the job, but in the end I realized I had become a part of a man contrived religious business. A business carried out in the name of God by some really good people who thought they were doing the right thing.
I could go on, but I need to end this (for now). Friends, the modern institutionalized church does help people. It works on many levels, but is lacking on many others and in the end will always fail us. Searching for God our way will always leave us empty and hungry. By the way, please don’t say, “There’s no such thing as a perfect church”. That is a really weak argument for the defense of a system that is not even found in the bible.
In the end, for me it’s not about finding “a system” that works, but rather a living relationship with a Savior that wants to be the head of my life and His body. Systems can mimic that successfully for a season, but eventually they fail you.
In conclusion, let me say that I love God’s people and do not wish to be divisive. Unfortunately, if you hold a view contrary to my own you will most likely view me as such. I realize it is not my job to change anyone. Only the Holy spirit can do that. If you are happy eating “fried chicken” have at it. For me, it’s just not something I desire, nor do I feel I need (or you need). Of course it could be that I’m the one who’s “diet” is out of whack. I’ll just have to let the Lord be the judge of that.
I am a Christian. I am a part of God’s church, and I love my brothers and sisters. I do not hate anyone nor am I angry, but let me be clear. I will not pretend to support something I feel is so very destructive to my brothers and sisters. If you disagree, and going to a “church” works for you, great! But know this, there are hundreds of hurting family members out there who have been left bleeding in the ditches so that the “church” could continue on, business as usual. If that’s happening (and it is), how could that really represent God’s best for His children?
Now that I’m married and away from momma, my family tends to steer away from fried fodder. With my increase in age and wisdom (don’t laugh), I’ve come to realize that although fried chicken “ain’t” evil, it also “ain’t” that great for you. This is especially true if you decide to make it a regular part of your diet. Yes, it does provide life sustaining nourishment (sort of), but unfortunately there are about a million other foods out there that do a far better job of keeping you alive. Yes, you can eat all the fried chicken you want, but sooner or later you will begin reaping some of the negative aspects of eating that delicious oil soaked bird. These “blessings” include getting fat and probably increasing your chance for clogged arteries which leads to heart attacks and stroke. In other words too much of a “good thing”, might not be so good! Now your probably wondering where I’m going with this. Well. I can assure you I’m no health nut and although I deem what I’ve written to be good advice, this blog “ain’t” just about chicken!
Over the last few months, I have posted many thoughts on the glorious social experiment known as Facebook. With these posts have come a variety of replies questioning everything from my sanity to my devotion to the Lord Himself. Well, despite others best attempts to paint me as being a bitter, cynical, and terribly wounded Christian in need of intervention, I must refute these musings and their validity. Believe it or not folks, I still love Jesus and I’m still doing my best to find His heart for my life.
Regardless of that fact, I do understand why so many folks would believe these things to be true. Like I shared with a gentleman the other day. Facebook is great, but it only presents a snippet of the totality of any given situation. So, with that, I have decided to share my thoughts in a little more detail.
Brace yourself, because I’m not going to sugar coat it. The following statement may not be to your liking, but it represents my heart. I truly believe that the modern day, institutionalized church is a killer of biblical Christianity and does far more harm to the body of Christ than people realize. There I said it! Please note that I did not say, "being a part of the church is a killer". The two are very different!
Now, does making such a statement make me a negative person? Does having a different take on what the word says make me less committed to God or biblical truth? I think not. To have a different opinion based on experience (lots of it), prayer (lots of it), and the study of Gods word (yes….lots of that too), shouldn’t be a cause for labeling me a hypocrite, confused, or “back slidden”. Yet, I’ve found that the moment you dare to question tradition, or step outside of the bible belt’s box of comfort, you immediately become.....questionable.
Now, back to the chicken. What does fried chicken have to do with all this? You see, fried chicken is is not evil. It tastes great and is enjoyed by many. But, is it really good for you? Is it the best thing you can put in your mouth? No. Ask any doctor and they’ll tell you that fried chicken should not be a consistent part of your diet. Baked chicken? Yes. Grilled or steamed? Fine. But not fried! Why, because your body wasn’t designed to function well on the stuff. Yes, it will for a while. You can even eat it with friends celebrating wonderful times of joy, but sooner or later eating such things will cost you. The crash in your health will come and all those “great meals” will seem so foolish.
For me, the modern church is much the same way. For twenty years, I’ve pulled up to the table and eaten every thing our religious system had to offer. I was certainly part of the famed “twenty percent” that does all the work in the church and proud of it. I did everything I was told a good Christian man should do and listened carefully to the “spiritual leaders” God had put over me. I went to visitation, volunteered for projects and committees, taught, preached, and sang. Yet, in the end I realized that what I had was a lap full of religion and an anemic faith that was built on the shoulders of some good guys trying to be far more than God ever intended. Was I saved? Absolutely! But, for some reason after years of doing everything I could, I was not growing much at all. My fault? Maybe, but I can assure you no one especially the “shepherds” of the church ever took the time to investigate if the poor little sheep were actually growing up. They were more than content to feed us our weekly dose of milk and remind us that we could get more next week. On the outside we all looked good, and unfortunately for our leaders that seemed to be good enough. The church was growing, people were being saved, people shouted amen and put their money in the plate, but no one was growing up!
Just like that plate of chicken that tasted so good for so long, I eventually had to come to terms with the fact that maybe this “stuff” was actually doing more harm than good. You see that’s really it for me. It’s not that it’s all bad, because it isn’t. There are lots of good things going on in some "churches", but what about the “stuff” that is so often ignored. You know, the “stuff”. Stuff like “services”, “sermons”, professional “clergy”, dress codes, denominations, unbiblical leadership (boards, committees, etc.), fancy buildings that are only used a few times a week, church covenants, and an endless list of other man contrived religious practices that aren’t even found in the book. None of those things really help you grow up spiritually or foster a true relationship with God, yet realistically these are the very “things” we esteem to be vital to church life. The truth is these “necessities” are not only not necessary or very biblical, but also tend to keep the body of Christ in an apathetic state. Adherence to such practices has caused Christ’s body to become dependant upon a system and its leaders to spoon feed us because we lack the strength or maturity to eat the solid food God offers. No one ever "grows" up because the system is set up to keep everyone in a perpetual state of infancy. Is it done intentionally? No, at least not in most situations, but that is the end result none the less. Say what you like, but many of today’s “churches” look more like a corporation than a living body of family members sharing life.
Again, let me make it clear, I KNOW THERE ARE GOOD THINGS GOING ON IN SOME CHURCHES, but that doesn’t mean this thing we call “church” is actually making disciples or represents God’s heart for His kids. It may satisfy our emotional needs and provide some of what we feel we need spiritually, but does it really represent God’s best for His kids?
Again, eating fried chicken isn’t evil, but is it really helping us to become healthier individuals, or the opposite. Just because it tastes good and is appealing to the senses does not mean we are gaining true benefits from eating it. It will keep you alive, but is that really the goal? I can tell you it’s not mine.
So who should I blame for leading me astray all these years? Was it the “preachers” fault? No. Was it my fellow church member’s fault? No. Was it God’s fault? Of course not. It really was not anyone’s fault. Rather I believe it was simply the natural progression that takes place in the human heart when it continues to look for God in a system that is in many ways unbiblical and foreign to the heart of God. It seemed to be working for years. It seemed to be doing the job, but in the end I realized I had become a part of a man contrived religious business. A business carried out in the name of God by some really good people who thought they were doing the right thing.
I could go on, but I need to end this (for now). Friends, the modern institutionalized church does help people. It works on many levels, but is lacking on many others and in the end will always fail us. Searching for God our way will always leave us empty and hungry. By the way, please don’t say, “There’s no such thing as a perfect church”. That is a really weak argument for the defense of a system that is not even found in the bible.
In the end, for me it’s not about finding “a system” that works, but rather a living relationship with a Savior that wants to be the head of my life and His body. Systems can mimic that successfully for a season, but eventually they fail you.
In conclusion, let me say that I love God’s people and do not wish to be divisive. Unfortunately, if you hold a view contrary to my own you will most likely view me as such. I realize it is not my job to change anyone. Only the Holy spirit can do that. If you are happy eating “fried chicken” have at it. For me, it’s just not something I desire, nor do I feel I need (or you need). Of course it could be that I’m the one who’s “diet” is out of whack. I’ll just have to let the Lord be the judge of that.
I am a Christian. I am a part of God’s church, and I love my brothers and sisters. I do not hate anyone nor am I angry, but let me be clear. I will not pretend to support something I feel is so very destructive to my brothers and sisters. If you disagree, and going to a “church” works for you, great! But know this, there are hundreds of hurting family members out there who have been left bleeding in the ditches so that the “church” could continue on, business as usual. If that’s happening (and it is), how could that really represent God’s best for His children?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Biblical Leadership Within the Church
The Multiple Pastor Model
by Steve Jones
Everywhere, the belief persists that the local church is to be presided over by one leader who has been "called to the ministry." He is to be the principle teacher and preacher. The care of the church is primarily his concern. He counsels, presides over board meetings, visits the sick, marries the young, buries the dead.
His name is often in the bulletin and on the sign in front of the church building, as if it is somehow his church. When the spiritual vitality of a church wanes, he is often blamed and summarily fired.
Unlike the deacons or elders, the pastor is almost always imported from outside the church. Churches, in fact, "shop" for a pastor when they are without one. These clergymen are usually formally educated in theology. Often they are "licensed" or "ordained" by a denomination.
Many modern authors on church growth tout the need for a strong one-man pastorate. Such sentiments as those expressed by C. Peter Wagner are fairly common within churches today:
The local church is like a company with one company commander, the pastor, who gets his orders from the Commander-in-Chief [Jesus]. The company commander has lieutenants and sergeants under him for consultation and implementation, but the final responsibility of his decisions is that of the company commander, and he must answer to the Commander-in-Chief....the pastor has the power in a growing church.Reference1
But where is any of this reflected in the New Testament? If "the pastor has the power in a growing church," why doesn't Paul or John or Peter ever say so? Does this common perception of the pastor exist on the pages of Scripture?
Leaders in the Church
Amazing as it may sound, the New Testament does not authorize a single leader to be responsible for oversight of the church. On the contrary, the notion is flatly contradicted several times by the New Testament authors.
From earliest times, the church was governed by a body of men, not a single leader. Paul made this clear when he wrote to the Philippians: "To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1, NIV).
Note that there was a plurality of bishops in the Philippian church, not one man. In his writing to that congregation, Paul never once addresses "the pastor," nor does he in any of his epistles.
Elders, Bishops, Pastors
The bishops are entrusted with the spiritual oversight of the flock. The Greek word episkopos literally means "overseer," and is translated that way in some versions of Scripture.
These leaders, whose qualifications are spelled out in the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), are to be mature. For this reason, they are also called "elders." The words "bishop" and "elder" are interchangeable in the New Testament. This is obvious in Paul's letter to Titus: "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might...appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if any man is blameless...for a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless (Tit. 1:5-7, KVJ).
An elder, then, is a bishop and a bishop is an elder. There is no distinction between the two. The words give only different emphases. "Elder" (presbuteros) denotes maturity and "bishop," oversight. However, they refer to the same leaders, which are plural in number (see Acts 14:23; 20:17; Tit. 1:5; Jas. 5:14).
What about the pastor? Where is he in all of this? After all, didn't God give "some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11, KVJ)? Yes, He did. But this refers to the same body of leaders elsewhere called "bishops" and "elders," not a single leader.
The word "pastor" (singular) is absent from most translations of the New Testament. The plural form "pastors" occurs only once, in Ephesians 4:11. It is a translation of the Greek word poimen. Poimen is translated "shepherd" or "shepherds" 16 times in the King James Version. The verb form poimaino also occurs in the New Testament. It means to "shepherd" or "pastor" a flock.
But poimen (pastor), presbuteros (elder) and episkopos (bishop/overseer) all refer to the same function. It is unbiblical to speak of the pastor, on one hand, and the elders, on the other, as if they were somehow different. The Scripture makes no distinction whatsoever between the two.
This is fairly easy to demonstrate in the New Testament. In 1 Peter 5, for example, all three words - in either noun or verb form - are applied to the same group of leaders. The apostle writes to the church leadership: "The elders (presbuterous) which are among you I exhort...feed (poimanate, "shepherd," "pastor") the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight (episkopountes)" (1 Pet. 5:1,2).
Peter expected the body of elders to pastor the flock and oversee it. Can there be any doubt, then, that the modern idea of distinguishing between elders, bishops, and pastors is wrong? Paul conveyed the same idea while giving his farewell address to the elders (plural) of the Ephesian church in Acts 20: Paul "sent to Ephesus and called to the elders (presbuterous) of the church. And when they were come to him, he said...take heed...unto yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (episkopous), to feed (poimainein, "shepherd," "pastor") the church of God" (Acts 20:17,28).
Again, Paul makes no distinction between elders, bishops, and pastors. These are different terms for the same function. And so, the idea of each church having one man who is "the pastor" who is separate from the body of elders is a tradition without Scriptural support.
Having said this, there is actually one example of a single leader ruling the church as "company commander." His name was Diotrephes. John wrote of this man in 3 John 9,10. Here is a leader with far too much power in the church. He personally put people out of the congregation and refused to welcome the brethren. He did so without God's authority.
So the lone example of a "one-man pastor" in the Scripture is held up as a bad example. He is exposed as one "who likes to put himself first" (v. 9). That is not to say that all pastors are like Diotrephes. Far from it. Many are humble, virtuous men. T he point is that the New Testament never mentions one man as the church's overseer, except for one negative instance. Despite this, it has become the dominant pattern of leadership in churches - even those which ostensibly profess themsleves "Bible-believing."
The Lone Leader
There is a great deal of harm in the doctrine of the "one-man pastor." To begin with, it gives too much power to one person. Authority in the church was meant to be shared among several leaders. This provides a kind of check and balance against a powerful leader "lording over God's heritage" (1 Pet. 5:3, KJV). Most Christians have heard horror stories about one minister ruling a church with an iron rod. Even if the members oppose what he's doing, they are impotent because of their subordinate "layman" status.
When authority in the church is shared, there is less of a chance of a dictatorial rule. The other elders can step in and prevent one leader from overstepping his authority.
On the other hand, the "one-man pastorate" gives a single leader too much responsibility. God has granted a diversity of spiritual gifts to the church, but no individual has all of them. It is unreasonable to expect one man to excel in preaching, teaching, counseling, exhortation, helps, mercy, administration, wisdom, and knowledge. That is what the "one-man pastorate" calls for - an unrealistic, superhuman Christian.< /P>
True, many pastors have done good work in the churches. But the mutual ministry of "one another" mentioned often in the New Testament fails to flourish when traditional pastoral leadership is at the helm. Ministry is suddenly "his responsibility." That's why he's paid. It's his vocation. The "layman," accordingly, is not given much responsibility for ministry in most churches. Few "laymen" preach from the pulpit or officiate at funerals or visit the members - that is the particular province of the professional clergyman in many churches.
I believe that many churches, if they took seriously the ministry of the elders and the "one another" responsibility of the saints, could function very well without a paid minister. Many smaller churches might be relieved of an oppressive financial burden if they followed a New Testament pattern of leadership. People would also discover and use their gifts of ministry.
The tendency of the one-man pastor, however, is to stifle such activity, even when the pastor himself encourages it. It is nearly impossible to get the saints to assume responsibility for the church when one man is "the minister" and everyone else, "lay persons." The system creates a hard-and-fast distinction, sometimes unspoken, between "the minister" and "the ministered unto." Most church members, I believe, would place themselves in the latter group - truly a spiritual tragedy.
The Bible presents church leaders as those who equip the saints for ministry (Eph. 4:12), not as those who do it all themselves. An author from the previous century notes:
The apostle plainly tells us, that "if they were all one member there would be no body," and who is there that does not see in these words a condemnation of the clerical system, which presents the body in the form of one member only - the minister, the ordained, official, and salaried minister, who, whether he be appointed to his office by a prelate or a popular election, supersedes all spiritual gifts in the church? In such a system as that, the saints are reduced to silence, the body is dead, all the members are inanimate, the "honorable" or "feeble" are alike useless, and one individual is eye, mouth, ear, hand and foot.Reference2
The tendency of one pastor undertaking the bulk of church ministry cannot help but contribute to, or even cause, the "burnout" so common among the clergy. God never intended one person to shoulder so large a burden. When a pastor attempts it, the result is often exhaustion, depression, emotional distress, divorce - sometimes even a lapse into immorality.
The idea of importing pastors from outside the church is also without biblical precedent. The qualifications of an elder (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9) suggests that candidates have been observed for some time by a local church. How can a church know if a potential bishop is above reproach or has obedient children (Tit. 1:6) unless he has been in the church for awhile? This seems to suggest that overseers were "home-grown" leaders.
May the church of Jesus Christ put leadership back where it belongs, in the hands of those mature Christians (plural) who are "temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach" (1 Tim. 3:2, NIV). It is time for us to move forward, with our elders out in front.
Notes:
1C. Peter Wagner, Your Church Can Grow (Ventura, CA: Royal), 1984, p. 65.
2Campaginator, Priesthood and Clergy Unknown to Christianity; or, the Church a Community of Co-Equal Brethren (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co.), 1857, p. 47.
by Steve Jones
Everywhere, the belief persists that the local church is to be presided over by one leader who has been "called to the ministry." He is to be the principle teacher and preacher. The care of the church is primarily his concern. He counsels, presides over board meetings, visits the sick, marries the young, buries the dead.
His name is often in the bulletin and on the sign in front of the church building, as if it is somehow his church. When the spiritual vitality of a church wanes, he is often blamed and summarily fired.
Unlike the deacons or elders, the pastor is almost always imported from outside the church. Churches, in fact, "shop" for a pastor when they are without one. These clergymen are usually formally educated in theology. Often they are "licensed" or "ordained" by a denomination.
Many modern authors on church growth tout the need for a strong one-man pastorate. Such sentiments as those expressed by C. Peter Wagner are fairly common within churches today:
The local church is like a company with one company commander, the pastor, who gets his orders from the Commander-in-Chief [Jesus]. The company commander has lieutenants and sergeants under him for consultation and implementation, but the final responsibility of his decisions is that of the company commander, and he must answer to the Commander-in-Chief....the pastor has the power in a growing church.Reference1
But where is any of this reflected in the New Testament? If "the pastor has the power in a growing church," why doesn't Paul or John or Peter ever say so? Does this common perception of the pastor exist on the pages of Scripture?
Leaders in the Church
Amazing as it may sound, the New Testament does not authorize a single leader to be responsible for oversight of the church. On the contrary, the notion is flatly contradicted several times by the New Testament authors.
From earliest times, the church was governed by a body of men, not a single leader. Paul made this clear when he wrote to the Philippians: "To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1, NIV).
Note that there was a plurality of bishops in the Philippian church, not one man. In his writing to that congregation, Paul never once addresses "the pastor," nor does he in any of his epistles.
Elders, Bishops, Pastors
The bishops are entrusted with the spiritual oversight of the flock. The Greek word episkopos literally means "overseer," and is translated that way in some versions of Scripture.
These leaders, whose qualifications are spelled out in the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), are to be mature. For this reason, they are also called "elders." The words "bishop" and "elder" are interchangeable in the New Testament. This is obvious in Paul's letter to Titus: "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might...appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if any man is blameless...for a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless (Tit. 1:5-7, KVJ).
An elder, then, is a bishop and a bishop is an elder. There is no distinction between the two. The words give only different emphases. "Elder" (presbuteros) denotes maturity and "bishop," oversight. However, they refer to the same leaders, which are plural in number (see Acts 14:23; 20:17; Tit. 1:5; Jas. 5:14).
What about the pastor? Where is he in all of this? After all, didn't God give "some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11, KVJ)? Yes, He did. But this refers to the same body of leaders elsewhere called "bishops" and "elders," not a single leader.
The word "pastor" (singular) is absent from most translations of the New Testament. The plural form "pastors" occurs only once, in Ephesians 4:11. It is a translation of the Greek word poimen. Poimen is translated "shepherd" or "shepherds" 16 times in the King James Version. The verb form poimaino also occurs in the New Testament. It means to "shepherd" or "pastor" a flock.
But poimen (pastor), presbuteros (elder) and episkopos (bishop/overseer) all refer to the same function. It is unbiblical to speak of the pastor, on one hand, and the elders, on the other, as if they were somehow different. The Scripture makes no distinction whatsoever between the two.
This is fairly easy to demonstrate in the New Testament. In 1 Peter 5, for example, all three words - in either noun or verb form - are applied to the same group of leaders. The apostle writes to the church leadership: "The elders (presbuterous) which are among you I exhort...feed (poimanate, "shepherd," "pastor") the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight (episkopountes)" (1 Pet. 5:1,2).
Peter expected the body of elders to pastor the flock and oversee it. Can there be any doubt, then, that the modern idea of distinguishing between elders, bishops, and pastors is wrong? Paul conveyed the same idea while giving his farewell address to the elders (plural) of the Ephesian church in Acts 20: Paul "sent to Ephesus and called to the elders (presbuterous) of the church. And when they were come to him, he said...take heed...unto yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (episkopous), to feed (poimainein, "shepherd," "pastor") the church of God" (Acts 20:17,28).
Again, Paul makes no distinction between elders, bishops, and pastors. These are different terms for the same function. And so, the idea of each church having one man who is "the pastor" who is separate from the body of elders is a tradition without Scriptural support.
Having said this, there is actually one example of a single leader ruling the church as "company commander." His name was Diotrephes. John wrote of this man in 3 John 9,10. Here is a leader with far too much power in the church. He personally put people out of the congregation and refused to welcome the brethren. He did so without God's authority.
So the lone example of a "one-man pastor" in the Scripture is held up as a bad example. He is exposed as one "who likes to put himself first" (v. 9). That is not to say that all pastors are like Diotrephes. Far from it. Many are humble, virtuous men. T he point is that the New Testament never mentions one man as the church's overseer, except for one negative instance. Despite this, it has become the dominant pattern of leadership in churches - even those which ostensibly profess themsleves "Bible-believing."
The Lone Leader
There is a great deal of harm in the doctrine of the "one-man pastor." To begin with, it gives too much power to one person. Authority in the church was meant to be shared among several leaders. This provides a kind of check and balance against a powerful leader "lording over God's heritage" (1 Pet. 5:3, KJV). Most Christians have heard horror stories about one minister ruling a church with an iron rod. Even if the members oppose what he's doing, they are impotent because of their subordinate "layman" status.
When authority in the church is shared, there is less of a chance of a dictatorial rule. The other elders can step in and prevent one leader from overstepping his authority.
On the other hand, the "one-man pastorate" gives a single leader too much responsibility. God has granted a diversity of spiritual gifts to the church, but no individual has all of them. It is unreasonable to expect one man to excel in preaching, teaching, counseling, exhortation, helps, mercy, administration, wisdom, and knowledge. That is what the "one-man pastorate" calls for - an unrealistic, superhuman Christian.< /P>
True, many pastors have done good work in the churches. But the mutual ministry of "one another" mentioned often in the New Testament fails to flourish when traditional pastoral leadership is at the helm. Ministry is suddenly "his responsibility." That's why he's paid. It's his vocation. The "layman," accordingly, is not given much responsibility for ministry in most churches. Few "laymen" preach from the pulpit or officiate at funerals or visit the members - that is the particular province of the professional clergyman in many churches.
I believe that many churches, if they took seriously the ministry of the elders and the "one another" responsibility of the saints, could function very well without a paid minister. Many smaller churches might be relieved of an oppressive financial burden if they followed a New Testament pattern of leadership. People would also discover and use their gifts of ministry.
The tendency of the one-man pastor, however, is to stifle such activity, even when the pastor himself encourages it. It is nearly impossible to get the saints to assume responsibility for the church when one man is "the minister" and everyone else, "lay persons." The system creates a hard-and-fast distinction, sometimes unspoken, between "the minister" and "the ministered unto." Most church members, I believe, would place themselves in the latter group - truly a spiritual tragedy.
The Bible presents church leaders as those who equip the saints for ministry (Eph. 4:12), not as those who do it all themselves. An author from the previous century notes:
The apostle plainly tells us, that "if they were all one member there would be no body," and who is there that does not see in these words a condemnation of the clerical system, which presents the body in the form of one member only - the minister, the ordained, official, and salaried minister, who, whether he be appointed to his office by a prelate or a popular election, supersedes all spiritual gifts in the church? In such a system as that, the saints are reduced to silence, the body is dead, all the members are inanimate, the "honorable" or "feeble" are alike useless, and one individual is eye, mouth, ear, hand and foot.Reference2
The tendency of one pastor undertaking the bulk of church ministry cannot help but contribute to, or even cause, the "burnout" so common among the clergy. God never intended one person to shoulder so large a burden. When a pastor attempts it, the result is often exhaustion, depression, emotional distress, divorce - sometimes even a lapse into immorality.
The idea of importing pastors from outside the church is also without biblical precedent. The qualifications of an elder (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9) suggests that candidates have been observed for some time by a local church. How can a church know if a potential bishop is above reproach or has obedient children (Tit. 1:6) unless he has been in the church for awhile? This seems to suggest that overseers were "home-grown" leaders.
May the church of Jesus Christ put leadership back where it belongs, in the hands of those mature Christians (plural) who are "temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach" (1 Tim. 3:2, NIV). It is time for us to move forward, with our elders out in front.
Notes:
1C. Peter Wagner, Your Church Can Grow (Ventura, CA: Royal), 1984, p. 65.
2Campaginator, Priesthood and Clergy Unknown to Christianity; or, the Church a Community of Co-Equal Brethren (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co.), 1857, p. 47.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
"UNCHRISTIAN"....CHRISTIANITY?
DISCLAIMER: I am a Christian, but I am not perfect nor do I claim to be "all wise" or "all knowing". My goal in sharing this is simply to provide my brothers and sisters in Christ with the facts. If you disagree with my thoughts....then, you disagree. I'm okay with that!
Most of today’s church practices have no biblical foundation, and in some cases, hinder people from having a genuine experience with God.
■ Church buildings were initially constructed under the Roman emperor Constantine, around 327. The early Christian church met in homes.
■ The pulpit was a piece of stagecraft borrowed from Greek culture in which professional speakers delivered monologues in public debates. There is no evidence that Jesus, the apostles, or other leaders in the early Church used a pulpit; it seems to have been introduced into Christian circles in the mid-third century.
■ The order of worship originated in the Roman Catholic Mass under the leadership of Pope Gregory in the sixth century.
■ Preaching a sermon to an audience was ushered into the church world late in the second century. Sermons were an extension of the activity of the Greek sophists, who had mastered the art of rhetorical oratory.
■ There were no pastors, as an official or director of a group of believers, until sometime in the second century. That was eventually furthered by the practice of ordination, which was based upon the prevailing Roman custom of appointing men to public office.
The biblical approach to "communion" or the "Lord’s Supper," was truncated late in the second century from a full, festive communal meal without clergy officiating to the presently common habit of having a sip of wine and morsel of bread (or juice and a wafer) under the guidance of a recognized clergyman.
Chances are you won't hear that on Sunday morning. That would spoil everything!
Most of today’s church practices have no biblical foundation, and in some cases, hinder people from having a genuine experience with God.
■ Church buildings were initially constructed under the Roman emperor Constantine, around 327. The early Christian church met in homes.
■ The pulpit was a piece of stagecraft borrowed from Greek culture in which professional speakers delivered monologues in public debates. There is no evidence that Jesus, the apostles, or other leaders in the early Church used a pulpit; it seems to have been introduced into Christian circles in the mid-third century.
■ The order of worship originated in the Roman Catholic Mass under the leadership of Pope Gregory in the sixth century.
■ Preaching a sermon to an audience was ushered into the church world late in the second century. Sermons were an extension of the activity of the Greek sophists, who had mastered the art of rhetorical oratory.
■ There were no pastors, as an official or director of a group of believers, until sometime in the second century. That was eventually furthered by the practice of ordination, which was based upon the prevailing Roman custom of appointing men to public office.
The biblical approach to "communion" or the "Lord’s Supper," was truncated late in the second century from a full, festive communal meal without clergy officiating to the presently common habit of having a sip of wine and morsel of bread (or juice and a wafer) under the guidance of a recognized clergyman.
Chances are you won't hear that on Sunday morning. That would spoil everything!
Saturday, April 10, 2010
The tale of "Boo" and the goober.
Seventeen years ago, on a day very much like today, a young gal known only as "Boo" completely lost her mind and married a goober of monumental proportions. It is said that she chose this fate of her own volition, but many believe something far more sinister was at hand. Some say she wanted his money (but unfortunately, he had none). Some declare it was his irresistible "animal magnetism" (but as I said, he was a goober). Yet, most claim it was his shiny, red truck that she fell in love with. Regardless of her reasoning (or lack thereof), she did indeed marry this poor soul (as I've already stated....no money) and attempted to carve out a life with him.
Today, "Boo" is still married to the goober. Throughout the years she discovered that he would probably never end up with very much money, and she has yet to see anything even remotely close to "animal magnetism" (unless you consider a fat belly "magnetic"). She even went as far as to procreate with the goober and bring four additional goobers into the world (trust me....they are goobers!).
BUT, don't feel too sorry for her. She still has the red truck (although it's not very shiny anymore), and more importantly, the love of a goober who is so very glad that seventeen years ago, a young gal completely lost her mind and married a......well, you know.
Love ya "Boo"!
Today, "Boo" is still married to the goober. Throughout the years she discovered that he would probably never end up with very much money, and she has yet to see anything even remotely close to "animal magnetism" (unless you consider a fat belly "magnetic"). She even went as far as to procreate with the goober and bring four additional goobers into the world (trust me....they are goobers!).
BUT, don't feel too sorry for her. She still has the red truck (although it's not very shiny anymore), and more importantly, the love of a goober who is so very glad that seventeen years ago, a young gal completely lost her mind and married a......well, you know.
Love ya "Boo"!
Friday, April 9, 2010
Pyramids....belong in Egypt
Who “pastors” the “Pastors”?
Yes, that is indeed a very good question. If indeed it is the role of a “Pastor” to shepherd, teach, and serve as God’s chosen authority for the body of Christ, one might ask the question, “Who exactly is doing this for the “Pastor”? I've heard it said by many that God Himself is the “pastor’s” Pastor. “God is the head of the “Pastor” and the “Pastor” is the head of the church.” While that may sound splendidly spiritual, it unfortunately has little to no biblical support.
For the purpose of clarification, let’s look at an example of the typical hierarchical structure that exists in many of today’s modern churches. As you read through my descriptions, try and view this “structure” as a pyramid. Lots of folks at the bottom, less in the middle, and one lone fella on top. By the way, I have personally seen and been a part of many such structures several times myself. It goes something like this:
First, we start with the laymen or “laity” of the church. This group would represent most of the congregation in a typical church’s body. They come to receive what the leadership has prepared for them. Some may occasionally volunteer in various, menial tasks within the church, but most are happy just to warm a pew a couple of times a week. By the way, if this is representative of where you are in the “church” food chain, you are on the bottom and under everyone else’s authority...pretty much.
Next, we have our “lay leaders”. These would be your Sunday school teachers, committee members, small group leaders, etc. They are not part of the “professional” ministry team, but are responsible for much of the basic ministry that happens within the church. If you’ve ever heard of the old 20/80 analogy (20 percent of the congregation does 80 percent of the work), this group would certainly represent the blessed 20 percent. As a side note, I truly believe these are your real ministers within the body of Christ. Hard working, git-r-done folks!
After that, comes the esteemed “professional” ministers and the church staff. These folks are typically paid, although there are some who work as volunteers. The “professionals” are generally responsible for heading up the “major” ministries within the “church” such as children's, youth, and music ministry. Some are actually regarded as being “pastors” at least within their given areas of ministry, but they are all under the authority of the “Senior Pastor” (use caps for him).
Although the following group does not exist in all churches, most congregations do have something at least similar to a Board of “whatever” in place. The “whatever” could be elders, deacons, or like the ones I’ve been associated with, just plain old board “members”. These guys (not many women ever make it to this level...sorry gals!) are generally responsible for anything and everything having to do with the financial aspects of “church” life. They approve budgets and make the “big” decisions regarding how the money is spent that has been given to the church. Many boards have authority in some respect over the “Pastor”, but only in a business sense. Yeah, they can work to oust the guy if they don’t like him, but when it comes to “spiritual” authority, the “Pastor” is the man!
Finally, we come to the “Pastor”. In larger churches (or if he likes the way it sounds), he may be known as the “Senior Pastor”. It is the “Senior Pastor” who has been called by God and he alone has been given authority (by God) to be the head of the church. This is especially true in regards to spiritual authority. We are asked to “get behind” the “Pastor’s” vision for the church and follow his lead when it comes to ministry and how “church” should be “done”.
With that, let’s take a moment and try to put all this into perspective. If you are one of the following:
The laity
Lay leaders
Church staff
Board members
You are spiritually (and for the poor staff in a business sense...he’s the boss!) under the authority of the “Senior Pastor”.
Only one problem with that. Where exactly do you find such a notion in the bible?
Answer: Nowhere!
You may think I’m being a overly critical in my presentation of the bogus hierarchical structure that exists in today’s churches, BUT...you know...for the most part...it’s a true representation of the roles that exist!
Now, back to my original question. Who “pastors” the “Pastors”?
Well, that depends. If you buy into the above mentioned church structure. Your answer will most likely be God. God is the authority to which a “Pastor” is subject to.
If that is so, might I pose a different question?
If the “Pastor” is able to reside under the spiritual authority of God and God alone...why can’t the rest of us?
Why do we need a “spiritual CEO”?
Are we stupid, "unspiritual", or just plain lazy? Of course not!
By the way, according to the modern church’s usage of the term “pastor”, the only way a person could ever hope to become a “Pastor” is to be hired by a church……to be a “Pastor”. Cause when you quit, or are fired, you’re obviously no longer a “Pastor” (according to the modern church). You're just another, run of the mill Christian.
If that’s so, who’s authority would a former “Pastor” be under? See the logic? It’s foolishness to say that this man “chosen by God” only possesses authority over the “church” while holding an exalted position within the “church”. Lose the job, no authority. Did God strip it away?
Truth is, he NEVER had any more "God given" authority than you, me, or any other “run of the mill” Christian.
It’s time we dropped the middle man friends. The veil was torn into. Through Christ, we all have equal access to the Holy one. He alone is our ultimate authority and He alone is our Chief Shepherd. Yes, I'm quite aware the bible speaks of the elders as shepherds and of their "shepherding" the people, but it DOES NOT speak of a hired gun, one man show "Pastor". If your "church" doesn't have multiple "elders" leading the people, you don't have a biblical leg to stand on, so don't waste your time on pointless, feel good arguments. Our Father has given us His spirit to “bring us into all truth” and we are all called to live as brothers not “lording” power over each other.
As a side note: If you think I’m being a little harsh in using the term “lording”, try working for a “church”. The “Pastor” is the “boss” and most don’t waste any time in letting you know it! BUT don't blame the "Pastors". All the blame goes to the "church members" for allowing non biblical leadership structures to remain in place.
Does God use leaders and allow for leadership to exist within the body of Christ? Absolutely!
Does this leadership look anything like the man-contrived positions of authority that exist in the modern church? Absolutely...not!
Bottom line: Leave the false “pyramids” of “church” structure where they belong.....in Egypt!
Yes, that is indeed a very good question. If indeed it is the role of a “Pastor” to shepherd, teach, and serve as God’s chosen authority for the body of Christ, one might ask the question, “Who exactly is doing this for the “Pastor”? I've heard it said by many that God Himself is the “pastor’s” Pastor. “God is the head of the “Pastor” and the “Pastor” is the head of the church.” While that may sound splendidly spiritual, it unfortunately has little to no biblical support.
For the purpose of clarification, let’s look at an example of the typical hierarchical structure that exists in many of today’s modern churches. As you read through my descriptions, try and view this “structure” as a pyramid. Lots of folks at the bottom, less in the middle, and one lone fella on top. By the way, I have personally seen and been a part of many such structures several times myself. It goes something like this:
First, we start with the laymen or “laity” of the church. This group would represent most of the congregation in a typical church’s body. They come to receive what the leadership has prepared for them. Some may occasionally volunteer in various, menial tasks within the church, but most are happy just to warm a pew a couple of times a week. By the way, if this is representative of where you are in the “church” food chain, you are on the bottom and under everyone else’s authority...pretty much.
Next, we have our “lay leaders”. These would be your Sunday school teachers, committee members, small group leaders, etc. They are not part of the “professional” ministry team, but are responsible for much of the basic ministry that happens within the church. If you’ve ever heard of the old 20/80 analogy (20 percent of the congregation does 80 percent of the work), this group would certainly represent the blessed 20 percent. As a side note, I truly believe these are your real ministers within the body of Christ. Hard working, git-r-done folks!
After that, comes the esteemed “professional” ministers and the church staff. These folks are typically paid, although there are some who work as volunteers. The “professionals” are generally responsible for heading up the “major” ministries within the “church” such as children's, youth, and music ministry. Some are actually regarded as being “pastors” at least within their given areas of ministry, but they are all under the authority of the “Senior Pastor” (use caps for him).
Although the following group does not exist in all churches, most congregations do have something at least similar to a Board of “whatever” in place. The “whatever” could be elders, deacons, or like the ones I’ve been associated with, just plain old board “members”. These guys (not many women ever make it to this level...sorry gals!) are generally responsible for anything and everything having to do with the financial aspects of “church” life. They approve budgets and make the “big” decisions regarding how the money is spent that has been given to the church. Many boards have authority in some respect over the “Pastor”, but only in a business sense. Yeah, they can work to oust the guy if they don’t like him, but when it comes to “spiritual” authority, the “Pastor” is the man!
Finally, we come to the “Pastor”. In larger churches (or if he likes the way it sounds), he may be known as the “Senior Pastor”. It is the “Senior Pastor” who has been called by God and he alone has been given authority (by God) to be the head of the church. This is especially true in regards to spiritual authority. We are asked to “get behind” the “Pastor’s” vision for the church and follow his lead when it comes to ministry and how “church” should be “done”.
With that, let’s take a moment and try to put all this into perspective. If you are one of the following:
The laity
Lay leaders
Church staff
Board members
You are spiritually (and for the poor staff in a business sense...he’s the boss!) under the authority of the “Senior Pastor”.
Only one problem with that. Where exactly do you find such a notion in the bible?
Answer: Nowhere!
You may think I’m being a overly critical in my presentation of the bogus hierarchical structure that exists in today’s churches, BUT...you know...for the most part...it’s a true representation of the roles that exist!
Now, back to my original question. Who “pastors” the “Pastors”?
Well, that depends. If you buy into the above mentioned church structure. Your answer will most likely be God. God is the authority to which a “Pastor” is subject to.
If that is so, might I pose a different question?
If the “Pastor” is able to reside under the spiritual authority of God and God alone...why can’t the rest of us?
Why do we need a “spiritual CEO”?
Are we stupid, "unspiritual", or just plain lazy? Of course not!
By the way, according to the modern church’s usage of the term “pastor”, the only way a person could ever hope to become a “Pastor” is to be hired by a church……to be a “Pastor”. Cause when you quit, or are fired, you’re obviously no longer a “Pastor” (according to the modern church). You're just another, run of the mill Christian.
If that’s so, who’s authority would a former “Pastor” be under? See the logic? It’s foolishness to say that this man “chosen by God” only possesses authority over the “church” while holding an exalted position within the “church”. Lose the job, no authority. Did God strip it away?
Truth is, he NEVER had any more "God given" authority than you, me, or any other “run of the mill” Christian.
It’s time we dropped the middle man friends. The veil was torn into. Through Christ, we all have equal access to the Holy one. He alone is our ultimate authority and He alone is our Chief Shepherd. Yes, I'm quite aware the bible speaks of the elders as shepherds and of their "shepherding" the people, but it DOES NOT speak of a hired gun, one man show "Pastor". If your "church" doesn't have multiple "elders" leading the people, you don't have a biblical leg to stand on, so don't waste your time on pointless, feel good arguments. Our Father has given us His spirit to “bring us into all truth” and we are all called to live as brothers not “lording” power over each other.
As a side note: If you think I’m being a little harsh in using the term “lording”, try working for a “church”. The “Pastor” is the “boss” and most don’t waste any time in letting you know it! BUT don't blame the "Pastors". All the blame goes to the "church members" for allowing non biblical leadership structures to remain in place.
Does God use leaders and allow for leadership to exist within the body of Christ? Absolutely!
Does this leadership look anything like the man-contrived positions of authority that exist in the modern church? Absolutely...not!
Bottom line: Leave the false “pyramids” of “church” structure where they belong.....in Egypt!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)