Elder lead

[Henry]

There is a great book out called "Biblical Eldership and urgent call to restore biblical church leadership" by Alexander Strauch.

I have been questioning the entire modern church structure becuase face is while the preaher says we teach bible, there is very little about a church and its service that is biblical.

LOL for that matter a man preaching every week is not biblical.

WHAT !!! Oh people say that is not so, preaching is all over the bible and on and on, but actually a man who preaches each week is not in the bible.

Now, that man is usually called the church pastor. And I promise you can not find him in the bible anywhere, the churches of the bible were not lead by a sr. Pastor.

They were lead by Elders, and not a board of rich men from the church that met every so often to talk about the money. No the elders where men who lead, taught, inspired, encouraged and so on. The biblcal Elder was a very bussy man as he was active in the day to day lives of real people.

Churches today with a Sr.Pastor have not followed the biblical pattern at all, and I am not sure how they can claim the bible while at the same time ignoring it.

Sorry, but our church pastor may be a nice guy, and really cares and wants to serve is not how the bible teaches.

We are to be lead by more then one Elder and this book is so far the best one that I have found which speaks to this matter. Read, it and let me know what you all think.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

There is a great book out called "Biblical Eldership and urgent call to restore biblical church leadership" by Alexander Strauch.

I have been questioning the entire modern church structure becuase face is while the preaher says we teach bible, there is very little about a church and its service that is biblical.

LOL for that matter a man preaching every week is not biblical.

WHAT !!! Oh people say that is not so, preaching is all over the bible and on and on, but actually a man who preaches each week is not in the bible.

Now, that man is usually called the church pastor. And I promise you can not find him in the bible anywhere, the churches of the bible were not lead by a sr. Pastor.

They were lead by Elders, and not a board of rich men from the church that met every so often to talk about the money. No the elders where men who lead, taught, inspired, encouraged and so on. The biblcal Elder was a very bussy man as he was active in the day to day lives of real people.

Churches today with a Sr.Pastor have not followed the biblical pattern at all, and I am not sure how they can claim the bible while at the same time ignoring it.

Sorry, but our church pastor may be a nice guy, and really cares and wants to serve is not how the bible teaches.

We are to be lead by more then one Elder and this book is so far the best one that I have found which speaks to this matter. Read, it and let me know what you all think.

I've read the book. It had some really good points, adn a few weaknesses. It is clear from scripture that there "elders who rule," but it is important to realize that there were multiple elders. Ergo, the Prsbyterian model and the Congregational model are incorrect.

What is not treated to my satisfaction in that book is the interplay between the episkopos (bishops), the presvyteros (elders) and diakonos (deacons), and the people. It seems as if Strauch takes the position that the bishop was a later imposition on this utopian plurality of leaders.History- and scripture- make it abundantly clear that this is not so.

I agree, however, that the Pastor model- ie, the priest who is not called a priest, and has to answer to no one, quite unlike a priest- is a worrisome and ineffective innovation.

The gifting of preachers has always been both a boon and a plague to the Church. On one hand, the ability to articulate the gospel in the manner of Chrysostom or Edwards has opened many, many eyes and hearts. On the other hand, the people in the pews have learned to be spectators.

The Orthodox Church I attend utilizes multiple persons to preach on the gospel of the day. This practice has been rekindled, and bears good fruit. It is in keeping with even the model of the ancient synagogue, where there were lectors and those responsible for teaching from the Torah

 

[Henry]

Orthodox Christian

Thank you for your reply...and yes it is very clear just to read the bible that the early church was lead by elders, or the old men as the word means old or older.

As for the interplay with the people, well that is something we get from this time not that time. In those days the leaders wheren't ABOVE they where AMONG and not OVER but PART of the people. I do not use CAPS to yell, just to make my point

For us the matter of leadership is offices and duties not any different then the world does, but to them is was not an office as much as it was a relational role.

For example to be a Father to your son is not an office that you hold, but a role that you ARE...and in fulfilling your role there are most certainly things that you have to do, such as protect, and teach and lead and guide. But the idea is that one day the son will grow to be a man, and a father to his children.

And by the way the words Bishop, Deacon and so on are interchangable in the word. The only one that might not be is Deacon which means a helper, but the words Elder, Bishop, Pastor are interchangable and refer more to the role of a leader not so much the title.

The early church did not call anyone Bishop so so and or Pastor this and that, since they did not hold office. These again are not titles, they describe the work the leader does.

The same leader may be at once and bishop (to oversee) and at the same time a Pastor (to protect and feed) never the less what ever his role at the time he is not Bishop or Pastor so and so, he is just Brother so an so acting as elder leader.

LOL I like what you said about the Pastor being the priest who is not called a priest. I once read this "What is the difference between a pro. pastor and cat. priest"? ..... "The way they dress" in function they do the same, the work as the mediator and administer sacraments and do the major owrk of the church, which the entire body should be doing by the way.

But you are right in that, however I would add that WE ARE ALL priest as the scripture teaches and the true work of a leader is to help the younger take that and go with it, remember the father wants the son to grow and become a father of his own and so on.

So, back to the interplay, there should be not title or positional distinction of persons with in the body. The interplay should be just as brothers and sisters living the church life day by day together.

Oh man you are right about the people in the pews becoming spectators and that is so sad. Imagine if the ENTIRE body started to do the work of the ministry !!!! We would have a revolution and a great one at that.

I love the quote that goes something like "we are called to preach the gospel to the entire world, and when needed using words"

Preaching is just not that effective, it is a bore to be honest. What is effective is action, when we as Christians start to do the one to anothers and follow the Lords commands given in MATT 25. We would not need to go about yelling and pounding out the word, but they would "know us by our love one for another" (sound familiar) and then they would truly see we are different and what to know why.

Remember the early Christians met in homes not in what we call a church building and I would not compair it to the synugoge either. So, when we talk about the Biblica church leadership we have do it with in the context of how they met together and expressed chuch life.

Personally I think the church building is worst thing that has ever happened to the Church.

 

[thessalonian]

That term "Biblical" is thrown around pretty loosely these days and has a different meaning for different people. It can range from "if it ain't explicitly clear in the Bible it's not Biblical to if it is not contrary to the bible it is Biblical. I lean toward the latter definition in most cases and would say that it is Biblical. Though I don't go so far as to say "if it's not explicitly in the bible do it". I find much to be implicit in the Bible.

 

[Henry]

When I say biblical I mean that it lines with the ideas and principals that are taught in the bible.

For example I would say that a church building is not biblical becuase, there is no such thing found in the bible, and becuase the word that Jesus used to refere to the church excludes a building and becuase nothing like it was even remotely the focus of anyone in the bible.

The same applies to the pastor, the word is used on time and then last on the list and with out any extra explaination. So the only way we can determine what the pastor is to gleen it from other things that are said.

However, the word elder is used MANY times, actually it is the only word used in conjuction with the leaders of the church.

And all the intructions are given to the elders, not to the pastor, and to pastor is a function of an elder not an office.

So, the pastor of a church is not biblical rather the plurality of elders is, becuase that is the very idea taught in the word.

 

[Henry]

Interesting that I get silence when I ever I ask that someone proves the office of church pastor from the bible.

Since there is no such thing, it can not be done.

And more so, what so many would rather die then know is that the church pastor that we have today is more closly related to paganism and not the nt at all.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Interesting that I get silence when I ever I ask that someone proves the office of church pastor from the bible.

Since there is no such thing, it can not be done.

And more so, what so many would rather die then know is that the church pastor that we have today is more closly related to paganism and not the nt at all.

I disagree that it- the Protestant Senior Pastor position- is Pagan in origin.
I'll tell what I see, historically speaking:
The Senior Pastor role is a natural outgrowth of the scholastic nature of the Protestant argument. The 'sermon' replaced the Eucharistic celebration in Protestant churches. When you have a set liturgy that only requires a short homily, the teacher need not be eloquent nor scholarly. But the Protestant model, collegiate and didactic in origin, requires significant abiliy to articulate and instruct.

So the origin of the Sr Pastor role in the Protestant churches is more scholastic and intellectual than anything else. For these pastors are really not pastors, poimen/shepherds, but they are bible teachers.

The strength of the house church is that it is small and interactive, so there is less need to entertain. The weakness is that there is no mediating influence from without the group.

The Church in Acts had both- house to house, involving intimacy, and Elders of the city, ie bishops, who provided oversight to the house churches. Checks and balances. In those days, Bishops were selected by the people, not by other bishops. It is so in certain Orthodox jurisdictions today, but in the Greek juridiction, bishops are selcted by bishops. No check and balance there.

I am a firm believer in home fellowships for edificationad sharing, and central liturgical celebration for worship. My two cents worth.

 

[kwag_myers]

I abstain from voting on the basis that my opinion is not adequately represented. There is no office of Pastor in the Bible and it's not okay.

There is the ministry of a Pastor/Shepherd in Ephesians 4:11, but the only offices that I am aware of (Biblically speaking) is Elder/Bishop/Overseer (1 Timothy 3:1) and Deacon (1 Timothy 3:10).

The office of Pastor has been created by man to circumvent God's plan for church ministry and to satisfy man's desire for power.

You got me preachin', now.

 

[Free]

There is the ministry of a Pastor/Shepherd in Ephesians 4:11, but the only offices that I am aware of (Biblically speaking) is Elder/Bishop/Overseer (1 Timothy 3:1) and Deacon (1 Timothy 3:10).

Is there an office of the Apostle in the NT?

The office of Pastor has been created by man to circumvent God's plan for church ministry and to satisfy man's desire for power.

How do you know that God's plan for church ministry didn't include the office of the pastor? How does the "ministry of the Pastor/Shepherd" differ from the "office of the pastor"?

 

[kwag_myers]

There is the ministry of a Pastor/Shepherd in Ephesians 4:11, but the only offices that I am aware of (Biblically speaking) is Elder/Bishop/Overseer (1 Timothy 3:1) and Deacon (1 Timothy 3:10).

Is there an office of the Apostle in the NT?

That depends on which translation of the Bible you read. The KJV says, (Romans 11:13) "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:"

The New King James, Young's, and a bunch of others use the word "ministry".

I think that it's important to understand that we are talking about the local body of believers. We see that Paul and Peter both traveled from church to church, so they couldn't be involved in the daily governing of each location. They were, however, the spiritual covering of this churches. That's important to understand. The leaders of each church (Timothy for example) looked to the Apostles for guidance. Yet, it was up to Timothy to see that Paul's instructions were honored.

The office of Pastor has been created by man to circumvent God's plan for church ministry and to satisfy man's desire for power.

How do you know that God's plan for church ministry didn't include the office of the pastor?

Because it doesn't work as affectively as a true All Saints structure.

How does the "ministry of the Pastor/Shepherd" differ from the "office of the pastor"?

There's a really good example noted in the Lexicon (not sure which one, but you can access it at http://www.blueletterbible.org, Ephesians 4:11, click on the C button, then "some, pastors"). It says, "During World War II, a shepherd was a pilot who guided another pilot whose plane was partially disabled back to the base or carrier by flying alongside him to maintain visual contact."

I believe that the role of the Pastor/Shepherd is one-on-one with those in the body who are going through a trial, or need some TLC for a time. Today's Pastor basically does the work of the Elders and Pastor/Shepherd (which explains why so many of them get burned out).

 

[Free]

The leaders of each church (Timothy for example) looked to the Apostles for guidance.

And yet even the Apostles seemed to be under the authority of the church leader(s) - Acts 15.

I believe that the role of the Pastor/Shepherd is one-on-one with those in the body who are going through a trial, or need some TLC for a time.

Can you prove that from the Bible? What about Jesus? Leading great multitudes, including the Twelve, he was referred to as a shepherd. Shepherds tend to flocks, do they not?

 

[Imagican]

Go Henry, go Henry, go Henry..............

So, once more, you impress me with your understanding.

Amazing how much 'men' have taken the Word and changed it to suit their place and pockets isn't it?

It kind of reminds me of something this really really special man tried to tell us. Something about 'those that love to stand in the temples..........' and those that love to sit in 'special places'. Those that love to 'talk' about God, but inside...................

I agree with your point Henry. Our example from the Word gives us a pretty clear picture. The problem is that 'true' Christianity was hijacked shortly after the formation of the Church and much of what we were given for example was changed to that which already existed 'before' Christ. Man did exactly what man will do. Always when given the opportunity he will do things 'his' way, regardless of teaching or God or AnYTHING else. That's his nature.

And what about service? Weren't we told that our leaders would be those that 'serve'? Maybe I'm a bit near-sighted, but it seems to me that our modern 'Pastors' are treated and EXPECT to be treated as 'bosses' rather than 'servants'. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a lot of humbleness and service from the leaders. They seem to desire this position for the benefits that it offers more so than the 'service' that they can render.

 

[cj]

The strength of the house church is that it is small and interactive, so there is less need to entertain. The weakness is that there is no mediating influence from without the group.

Funny, I seem to remember reading that the strength of believer (those who make up the church, whether a local or universal expression of it) is Christ.

But I do agree that without the restraint of a proper vision believers will suffer a of lack control.

The Church in Acts had both- house to house, involving intimacy, and Elders of the city, ie bishops, who provided oversight to the house churches. Checks and balances. In those days, Bishops were selected by the people, not by other bishops. It is so in certain Orthodox jurisdictions today, but in the Greek juridiction, bishops are selcted by bishops. No check and balance there.

Actually, in Titus(as well as Acts) we see where the overseers/eldership were initially appointed by the apostles.

After this the only word we have regarding becoming an elder is that found in 1 Timothy 3, where paul tells us it is a good thing to aspire to become and elder.

The key to this though is found in the words that follow, and also in the related speakings found in other epistles regarding eldership.

Eldership is not a matter of position, eldership is a matter of growth in divine life.

A tree is not positionally more mature than any other true around it, a tree either expresses growth in life or does not express growth in life, and it is by this yardstick that a tree is viewed in a certain way. The same is (should be) true of elders.

Elders are not appointed, elders simply rise to occupy a need.

And their viability is either echoed in the body or rejected by the body.

It is the oneness of the body in its sense of the elder that upholders their eldership.

I am a firm believer in home fellowships for edificationad sharing, and central liturgical celebration for worship. My two cents worth.

Thing is, if the home fellowship is standing on an improper foundation the reality is just a negative environment.


In love,
cj

 

[kwag_myers]

The leaders of each church (Timothy for example) looked to the Apostles for guidance.

And yet even the Apostles seemed to be under the authority of the church leader(s) - Acts 15.

Again, Apostleship is a ministry. Their job is much like the Prophet in that they see spiritual truths much easier and can act as consultants (Prophets tend to be more like traffic cops). You also must remember that the early church was in complete submission to one another, so it's difficult to see the hierarchy of offices.

I believe that the role of the Pastor/Shepherd is one-on-one with those in the body who are going through a trial, or need some TLC for a time.

Can you prove that from the Bible? What about Jesus? Leading great multitudes, including the Twelve, he was referred to as a shepherd. Shepherds tend to flocks, do they not?

Yes, they do. They watch over the flock, see if any are missing, sick, or wounded, and tend to those who need attention. Giving one-on-one ministry. They lead by example, just as a shepherd walks with the sheep and gently guides them.

Jesus was more than a Pastor. In fact, you can see evidence of all five ministries (Ephesians 4:11) in His life. I think that the best example of a Pastor is Barnabas (Acts 15:37). We see Barnabas attempting to be the Peace Maker. This is the character of a Pastor/Shepherd. Or Priscilla and Aquila (Romans 16:3).

 

[Free]

Yes, they do. They watch over the flock, see if any are missing, sick, or wounded, and tend to those who need attention. Giving one-on-one ministry. They lead by example, just as a shepherd walks with the sheep and gently guides them.

Jesus was more than a Pastor. In fact, you can see evidence of all five ministries (Ephesians 4:11) in His life. I think that the best example of a Pastor is Barnabas (Acts 15:37). We see Barnabas attempting to be the Peace Maker. This is the character of a Pastor/Shepherd. Or Priscilla and Aquila (Romans 16:3).

It looks as though you have no evidence of the role of a pastor shepherd being only one-on-one. Remember, Priscialla and Aquila had a church in their house (Romans 16:5). Just as Christ was a pastor to many, so can a modern day pastor be a pastor to many.

 

[Brother Ian]

You won't find ruling elders in the Scriptures. Paul told Titus to appoint elders in every city indicating there should be more than one. Paul did not make a plurality of elders a requirement. There is nothing wrong with a multitude of counselors, but there should not be a body that directs the pastor, whether they be elders, deacons, or trustees.

There is only one that can be responsible for the direction of the church and that is the pastor or senior pastor as the case may be.

By the way, there should be another selection of "yes".

 

[Henry]

kwag_myers

Hi, the offices of Elder/Bishop/Overseer weren’t actually offices. I think that if you read the scripture carefully you will see the words here are interchangeable all referring to the same man. An elder is to BE… now, the word deacon however is different, that actually means one that helps the elders.

But I totally agree that the office of pastor is a man made thing to be sure.

Free

To use the phrase office implies government, and the church was never meant to an institution but a family. A family has leaders and people who other look up to, but not an institutional government.

No matter how you turn it there is no office in the bible, of pastor or other wise. Jesus said we are not to govern as the gentiles do, and yet here we are giving out titles and offices and so on.

The fact is my friend that the church is a people, and family of the Lord and ALL are brothers.

To be a pastor is like being a good brother, or a loving father is just one of the things we all do for each other. No it A PASTOR by title but we are all to be shepherds to those we are with in accordance to our faith and maturity.

Um why would we need a modern day pastor in the place of Christ??? Is Christ not alive and able to lead?

Imagican

but it seems to me that our modern 'Pastors' are treated and EXPECT to be treated as 'bosses' rather than 'servants'.

You are so right, but I would add that we can not hold this against them. Being in seminary I know that is what they are taught and believe to be so. While they may be missing the point, they are certainly doing the best they can according to what they have been told.

However many are coming to terms with this unbiblical form of church and leaving, not the church but the institution that has been beating them down (and they did not know it) and these men I tell you are the best house church folks around.

Just like Paul when he was Saul was so zelous to serve God and did not realize how far from that he was, but when he did he did not loose the zelousness it was merely transformed into a better way. Oh my friend, lift these men in prayer while speaking the truth in love.

Orthodox Christian

The weakness is that there is no mediating influence from without the group.

This my friend shows a lack of knowledge, to start with Jesus is the shepherd and he leads. And in our area the house church hold each other accountable and speak into each others lives.

Brother Ian

Cool icon 

You wont find ruling anything in the NT, they lead not by rule but by example, their wisdom, maturity and respectability were the tools of leadership. You can not find rulers, remember Jesus said we are not be that way.

However I do believe that each church was lead by a plurality of elders, meaning more then one older man. I think that is the pattern that we can find, after all the text says they appointed ELDERS in each of the churches.

What we will never find though is the ruling pastor.

To all,

This is turning out to be a very good talk, and I am glad that so many are sharing their thoughts here and I hope that it keeps going. We should never accept “that is the way it is†for answer, but as the Bereans did we need to search the word daily to see if these things be true.


Oh so you know the Sr. Pastor is Jesus Christ

 

[Free]

Jesus said we are not to govern as the gentiles do

Where is this found?

To be a pastor is like being a good brother, or a loving father is just one of the things we all do for each other. No it A PASTOR by title but we are all to be shepherds to those we are with in accordance to our faith and maturity.

Something we all do for each other? That's not what Scripture says:

Eph 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

1Co 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
1Co 12:30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

Um why would we need a modern day pastor in the place of Christ??? Is Christ not alive and able to lead?

If you take that argument to its conclusion, then we shouldn't need any form of church whatsoever. The above Scriptures I gave refute this argument.

Do you lead your home church Henry?

 

[GundamZero]

:roll:

Your missing the point!

Are you forgetting the entire books of first and second Timothy. Why do you think Paul explicilty said what an overseers and deacons should be like.
If you read 1 Timothy 3 and still think that the Bible does not call for pastors and deacons your blatantly ignoring scripture and that's blaspheme.

You forget that not every Christian is at the same maturity level. Nor is every Christian capable of explianing scripture in an effective way. Paul clearly meant for the role of the pastor to be like a manager. Whenever someone needs prayer, they go to the pastor, when ever the church needs a dispute resolved, the pator and the deacons mediate.

And this is the reason why some were appointed to be apostles and some overseers. The apostles were to go out and spread the church to different areas. They were to teach the people there of the Word of God and then continue on their way, where ever God led. The Apostles taught certain men that had an especially strong love for God and who were willing to bear the responsabilities of the local body. However, even these still needed teaching and correcting sometimes. THAT'S WHY THE APOSTLE WROTE THEIR EPISTLES IN THE FIRST PLACE!! :-?

As for the church building, you have missed the point again. The Building is for the believers. Can you fit a congragation 2,000 plus strong in someone's house? No. We need the building for the family to gather in one place and to bring others to meet the WHOLE family. :D

And I will say this last thing.

As you read Romans did you happen to come across Romans 14 were Paul tells you not to judge the other believers? Yet some on this thread have dared to call the pastor power hungry and paganistic. :x

Let me tell you that the role of a pastor is not to have a parsonage given to by the church and a nice pay check. It is never putting an end to your work as long as you live to see to it that the flock is safe.

Yes, there are many false apostles out there, some of whom seem to be on this very forum. 8-) But to chastise and critisize the work of your local APOSTLE is deplorable to say the least.

Stop over analyzing the problem. If you don't like what a pastor is doing, find witnesses and bring it before the church deaconS, the elders. Better yet, take upon yourself the cross of the church as the disciples appointed to a few in Acts. But do not, do not, do not, undermine the authority that Christ has placed over you and the teacher that Christ has trained for you.

 

[cj]

As for the church building, you have missed the point again. The Building is for the believers. Can you fit a congragation 2,000 plus strong in someone's house? No. We need the building for the family to gather in one place and to bring others to meet the WHOLE family.

This is an absolutely ignorant statement.

A building is "for" no one....... unless people give some sort of importance to it.

A building serves a purpose, and that's all it does; it serves the purpose of providing a sheltered meeting place for groups of different sizes.

If 2000 believers can't fit into a building,... so what? Do you think God will be disappointed that they have to gather into smaller groups?

Take a quick look in the bible an tell us whether God sees more profit in lower numbers than in higher numbers?

In fact, scriptures tell us that God is well aware that when men are grouped in large numbers many will succumb to the evil of pride and vanity.

E.g........ the "Crystal" Cathedral,... or the mother of all vanity, the Vatican with its "chapel".

Try an get the truth in the Tower of Babel episode; was it the Tower that caused the problem,... or was it what the Tower came to represent to the men building it that caused the problem.


Honestly, what you said above is such an utter expression of superficiality.

And you want to speak about maturity?

Give me a break.


In love,
cj