Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study "Pastor" Office or Gift?

Nathan

Member
So I read this one little book this week while sick and it brought up a point.

Personally, I have always believed way to much predominance was placed on this "position". So much so sometimes that it is sickening how much it resembles what Catholics think of the Pope as.

But I have heard in the past that the "position" of Pastor was one of an 'office'. In other words, I believe what they mean is, that it is something 'set up' and 'set apart' from the other so called gifts.

So is it something that we should put above all other things? Is it really what we deem it to be? Seems to me, personally, that the pastor is a simple gift that God gives to us. Not any different than any of the other except in its function.

Whats everyones thoughts on this?
 
So I read this one little book this week while sick and it brought up a point.

Personally, I have always believed way to much predominance was placed on this "position". So much so sometimes that it is sickening how much it resembles what Catholics think of the Pope as.

But I have heard in the past that the "position" of Pastor was one of an 'office'. In other words, I believe what they mean is, that it is something 'set up' and 'set apart' from the other so called gifts.

So is it something that we should put above all other things? Is it really what we deem it to be? Seems to me, personally, that the pastor is a simple gift that God gives to us. Not any different than any of the other except in its function.

Whats everyones thoughts on this?

Hi Nathan,
The calling of Pastor is a gift and these gifts are supposed to be shared so not all responbility falls onto one person. The Pastor, according to the Greek definition, is "protector of the flock", it does not mean teacher, but that is what happened. If you read Ephesians, it says these different callings exist until we ALL attain to the unity of faith. Are we there yet? No.
Sorry if this is not the direction you wanted this to go. In essence, a Pastor is a calling to protect the flock, it is not a calling of teacher or an evangilist.

Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, And gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now this, He ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: 13 till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
 
Hi Nathan,
The calling of Pastor is a gift and these gifts are supposed to be shared so not all responbility falls onto one person. The Pastor, according to the Greek definition, is "protector of the flock", it does not mean teacher, but that is what happened. If you read Ephesians, it says these different callings exist until we ALL attain to the unity of faith. Are we there yet? No.
Sorry if this is not the direction you wanted this to go. In essence, a Pastor is a calling to protect the flock, it is not a calling of teacher or an evangilist.

Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, And gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now this, He ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: 13 till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Thanks Rockie. Your fine, I really have no 'set' desire on where to take this. It really stems from my observation of the prestige and honor we bestow upon the pastor, and the pastor alone. Not that we should not. That is not what I am saying. We should all esteem each other higher than ourselves.

What I see is the prestige we place specifically on the gift of the pastor. Its like we single him out. Does that make sense? I personally do not have an issue, I never have had that tendency to do so. But part of the time I always thought it might be my rebellious nature. lol

But in seriousness, are we harming ourselves by looking to him for all the answers? Or has he taken over out of our simple complacency?

I just wonder if anyone has ever really contemplated the magnitude of importance we place on one single gift, while neglecting so many of the others. I am sure its different for each denomination, and even from fellowship to fellowship. But almost across the board we give a title to one man based on his gift. Why do we not title the prophet among us? Why don't we title the giver among us? The helper?

There are many parts of the body, why do we place special attention on just a select few? Not that I am saying it doesn't happen. Paul said we place greater honor on those parts that "need" it.....lol.
 
Thanks Rockie. Your fine, I really have no 'set' desire on where to take this. It really stems from my observation of the prestige and honor we bestow upon the pastor, and the pastor alone. Not that we should not. That is not what I am saying. We should all esteem each other higher than ourselves.

What I see is the prestige we place specifically on the gift of the pastor. Its like we single him out. Does that make sense? I personally do not have an issue, I never have had that tendency to do so. But part of the time I always thought it might be my rebellious nature. lol

But in seriousness, are we harming ourselves by looking to him for all the answers? Or has he taken over out of our simple complacency?

I just wonder if anyone has ever really contemplated the magnitude of importance we place on one single gift, while neglecting so many of the others. I am sure its different for each denomination, and even from fellowship to fellowship. But almost across the board we give a title to one man based on his gift. Why do we not title the prophet among us? Why don't we title the giver among us? The helper?

There are many parts of the body, why do we place special attention on just a select few? Not that I am saying it doesn't happen. Paul said we place greater honor on those parts that "need" it.....lol.
I am in agreement with you, absolutely! I see this, too, and it's unfortunate for those people called to pastor, it seems they would see this elevated place in their fellowship, and the difficulty they must have trying to point the flock to God, when what the people seem to want is a closeness to the pastor as a status symbol.
I don't understand this either and it seems this is a dangerous place to find one self, as in elevating one person's calling above all others.
God bless -
Jake
 
Here are some texts to consider:

"The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages." 1 Timothy 5:17-18

"But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another." 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13


"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you." Hebrews 13:17

"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." James 3:1

I think there is a biblical case to be made for giving the one who fulfills the office of pastor higher honor. The reason being that they have charge over us, and are held accountable to a stricter judgment by God for us.

I think that the pastor is a protector and there is no reason why he cannot and should not be a preacher and teacher as well. Since the protection he is providing for us is spiritual protection, seeing to it that the flock is properly taught and equipped is part of that role.
 
Here are some texts to consider:

"The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages." 1 Timothy 5:17-18

"But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another." 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13


"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you." Hebrews 13:17

"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." James 3:1

I think there is a biblical case to be made for giving the one who fulfills the office of pastor higher honor. The reason being that they have charge over us, and are held accountable to a stricter judgment by God for us.

I think that the pastor is a protector and there is no reason why he cannot and should not be a preacher and teacher as well. Since the protection he is providing for us is spiritual protection, seeing to it that the flock is properly taught and equipped is part of that role.

This is where I really have to watch myself. But it is also where I learn where my true feelings are. My 'rebellious' nature would automatically start looking for loopholes. But then my desire to know the truth nature automatically starts searching for the context of the passages.

Look for a moment at those passages, but also at some other passages. First those passages clearly indicate a number of "elders", "those", "leaders", and "teachers". Now taken in the context it was written, to individual churches and people, then there clearly is indicated that there is more than one that poses these gifts. On top of that, it is not describing one particular gift, rather those who have shown themselves of following the Lord in a close walk, demonstrating that their gift is indeed from God and not man.

We automatically attribute this onto a select few. But in the context Paul is clearly describing those who were spiritually mature. This gives no clear direction to a hierarchal system to be set up within the fellowship, much less that the gift of pastor/teacher being the very top gift.

Now how do we take other passages into context with these;

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.

Mat 20:26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,

Mat 20:27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,

Mat 20:28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."


This teaching would seem to go hand in hand with this one from 1 Peter;

1Pe 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:

1Pe 5:2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;

1Pe 5:3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.

1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

1Pe 5:5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."


Here we have two passages which can be understood in complete context. And it probably is no doubt either seeing how Peter was probably right beside Jesus when He taught them about this. But here is Peter referring two only two "classes" of people within the church. Not a hierarchal group, but rather those who are mature and those who are not.

But no where is exercising authority even suggested, rather the very conduct of ones life is what dictates if they are an 'elder'. But notice what Peter specifically states preceding this instruction.

...a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed

A partaker in the glory. Where have we seen this before?

Jhn 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Now think back to the mount of transfiguration.

Luk 9:28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James and went up on the mountain to pray.

Luk 9:29 And as he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white.

Luk 9:30 And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah,

Luk 9:31 who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

Luk 9:32 Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, but when they became fully awake they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him.


When they awoke they saw His glory. Ok. Now what does this have to do with what Peter is saying in 1Peter 5? Well ask him. lol. He is the one that brought it up. So obviously he attributed something to it if that is what he is thinking about when discussing the topic of being "one" with each other and not having a system of hierarchy. And here is what just jumps out at me.

What do we know about mankind seeing much less talking to God face to face? It is just unheard of. But it does carry special significance.

Exd 33:11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.

A man speaks with his friend. Interesting. So this eldership of those who are mature in Christ is a friendship relationship not an office of position over the ones who are not as mature. And certainly we do not find a singular position found at all, the text in all examples given indicate a number of those who have the responsibilities for 'keeping watch' over the spiritual development of the ones developing.

This make sense? So yes I agree that these passages dictate that there is special honor, or recognition, that is given to those who labor intensely for Christ, but it gives no credence to an office or position of 'authority'.
 
Also, just to add something else for consideration.

Heberews 13 gives very specific description of who these "leaders" are.

Hbr 13:7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.

So here we understand that the "leaders" that they are to obey and submit to are specifically the ones who brought to them the truth of God's Word. In context it is the writers desire that those who are unable to accept solid food yet, submit to the ones who are able to eat the solid food and who have fed them.

Its not a desire for the people who have "the knowledge" to be recognized, it is a desire that the ones who are still squirming in their dirty diapers not to be mislead with wrong teachings. In fact, it is the writers very desire for them to be teachers themselves.

Time would limit me, but this is what the whole 5th chapter of Hebrews deals with.

Hbr 5:1 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

Hbr 5:2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness.

Hbr 5:3 Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people.

Hbr 5:4 And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.

Hbr 5:5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you";

Hbr 5:6 as he says also in another place, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek."

Hbr 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

Hbr 5:8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.

Hbr 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

Hbr 5:10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Hbr 5:11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

Hbr 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,

Hbr 5:13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.

Hbr 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.


So very specifically no one takes this honor for himself, much less demands or keeps this honor for himself, and it surely does not say that God does not give this honor to more than one person.

I highly doubt that a pastor in todays fellowships is going to just accept the idea that God might have raised up another shepherd in the midst of the local fellowship. There are a few exceptions I have come across on this however. Where there is indeed more than one pastor "watching" over a fellowship. But in that particular case it is a fellowship that has thousands upon thousands of people involved.

Regardless there still is a hierarchal structure set up that just seems to be lacking in the NT church.
 
I'm going to answer in part here, because I want to take some time to study the idea of the "office" of pastor...

Until then, I do want to say that I've never been a big fan of any church in which the pastor is the only or even final authority. I've been associated with a lot of churches over the years, and with the exception of two, these churches have more than one authoritative person. Many years I was part of the Presbyterian church, in which the pastor is only considered the "teaching elder" but has no more, nor no less authority than any of the other elders, and all the elders are in turn to submit to the authority of the Synod. In the Lutheran church I now am part of the pastor is the authority in the church, but is answerable to bishops and elders at the synod level as well.

I see no scriptural foundation for the idea of a lone-gun pastor who gathers a congregation around him and is the one and only authority.

Also, I will say that, with the aforementioned exceptions, all the pastors and elders I've been under throughout the years have had that "servant's heart". These were men (and one woman, but that's a whole different topic) who truly sought to serve the congregation, not only in teaching and equipping, but also in seeking to understand and meet needs, to assist in any way they could during rough times. The pastor of the church that I am currently going to spends several days of the week going to various elderly and shut-in people to serve them communion and see to it that if they need anything at all, they get it and he feels free in asking others in the congregation to meet those needs, so that we can all serve one another.

Now, I'm going to delve into church authority a bit further, because I do believe that the Scriptures are clear that there is authority within the church and that we are under that authority. But, rather than just express opinions, I'll see what I can find in the Scriptures.
 
I highly doubt that a pastor in todays fellowships is going to just accept the idea that God might have raised up another shepherd in the midst of the local fellowship. There are a few exceptions I have come across on this however. Where there is indeed more than one pastor "watching" over a fellowship. But in that particular case it is a fellowship that has thousands upon thousands of people involved.

:lol If you're ever in my neck of the woods, I'll have to invite you to visit our church with me! We do indeed have two pastors. Our younger, "official" pastor. And an older, semi-retired pastor, who is only around some of the time. Both do indeed "watch" over the flock with love and care. Leaving our old church and starting at this new one was a rather "trying" experience for my husband and I. We left the old church with a lot of mixed feelings and with a lot of love for those who we left behind. I was so impressed by Pastor Reeder's loving understanding and advice as we navigated through that time. I was even more touched when, upon meeting the elder Pastor McCoy for the first time, he expressed his understand of what a rough time we had been through and offered excellent and advice as well.

...and our church has maybe about 80-100 or so people there any given Sunday!
 
I completely believe in the idea of a pastor being a part of the leadership of the church. I think that it would be simplistic in nature to understand that if we are going to trust someone to lead us as a shepherd would sheep then they would have to have some wits about them.

But why only one? Why only one pastor? I guarantee you will find absolutely no Biblical support for that one. No offense intended, it just is what it is. In fact, if anything, the Bible seems to support the idea of multiple positions of the same authority.

What it really boils down to is the need for us to be dependent on Christ as our leader. And if we are not, then we are relying on someone else to be. Which manifests itself in the role of the "pastor". He is the one who has 'direct access' to God. Again, this is just me working through this. When ever I am confronted with words that fit my understanding I have to work through them.

What I find interesting is if you take the time to think about the role of the 'pastor'. Is he the only one who can baptize? Serve communion? What are some other things that only he does? And why?
 
:lol If you're ever in my neck of the woods, I'll have to invite you to visit our church with me! We do indeed have two pastors. Our younger, "official" pastor. And an older, semi-retired pastor, who is only around some of the time. Both do indeed "watch" over the flock with love and care. Leaving our old church and starting at this new one was a rather "trying" experience for my husband and I. We left the old church with a lot of mixed feelings and with a lot of love for those who we left behind. I was so impressed by Pastor Reeder's loving understanding and advice as we navigated through that time. I was even more touched when, upon meeting the elder Pastor McCoy for the first time, he expressed his understand of what a rough time we had been through and offered excellent and advice as well.

...and our church has maybe about 80-100 or so people there any given Sunday!

That sounds great. And I by no means am trying to knock the gift of pastoring at all. How could I speak negatively about something God has given His church. They are very special people. Which is one of the things I believe that lends itself to the 'position' they find themselves in.

Maybe my biggest concern is that because the pastor has be placed in a position that he should not be in, he is then naturally not doing exactly what it is that God had given the gift for.

In fact, more often than not I think this is the case. The gift of pastor has been elevated to the position of leader, when we know for a fact that these are two separate gifts. And not withstanding those who do have both gifts, the leadership role out performs the pastor role, and what we wind up with is a strong direction that the fellowship should go in, but no care of the sheep falling along the wayside.

When in all honesty, the pastor is the very one who cares for the sheep. All the sheep. Not just the healthy strong ones. In fact the good shepherd will leave 99 healthy sheep and go looking for the 1 that is lost. Not what we typically attribute the modern day pastor too huh?
 
Nathan, I don't get that you are "knocking" pastors at all, just asking questions, good ones at that, about how pastors are functioning in the church today.

You asked, "What I find interesting is if you take the time to think about the role of the 'pastor'. Is he the only one who can baptize? Serve communion? What are some other things that only he does? And why?"

I'm doing some research in my church's denominational website on this subject and I found the following:

It is the official and longstanding position of our church that the Scriptures teach that "power of the keys" (the power to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments of the Lord's Supper and Holy Baptism) belongs originally and immediately to all believers (the church) (1 Pet. 2:5, 9-10). At the same time, however, the Scriptures teach that God, for the sake of good order, has instituted the office of the public ministry (Acts 20:28; Titus 1:5; Eph. 4:11) into which the church calls men to perform in their behalf (that is, "publicly" [meaning, in its technical theological sense, "in behalf of and with accountability to"]) the ministry of the Word (preach, administer the sacraments, judge doctrine, exercise church discipline) (see 1 Cor. 4:1 and the Pastoral Epistles). Thus, while in an emergency a lay person may baptize, the performance of baptisms in a Christian congregation should be limited to those who occupy the pastoral office.

https://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2692
When becomming members of our church, our pastor, my hubby and I talked about this very thing. Any Christian can perform a baptism or serve communion. But, so that order may be kept, as well as accountability, when the church is congregating for the purpose of communion or baptizing, the pastor and fellow elders in assistance, are the one's who do so.

But, there might arise situations where any Christian might be called upon to baptize or commune someone, and any and all Christians should do so in those situations. I think of soldiers out in the battlefield, car accidents, or other type of situations. No one, expressing a desire to be baptized in a situation like this should be denied just because there is no ordained minister on hand.
 
The church I attend has about a dozen (interesting number?) pastors, each shepherding a different group within the church body. Each one has equal but different responsibilities, with the "senior" pastor being just that. They all are considered as being teaching pastors in that the each teach their respective "flock" or community (age group). They all have a valuable contribution to the church body, and have servants hearts. I don't see any one as more important than another. They all have been given the gift of being able to "lead a flock" and fulfill the responsibilities that God has given each one.
 
Nathan, I don't get that you are "knocking" pastors at all, just asking questions, good ones at that, about how pastors are functioning in the church today.

You asked, "What I find interesting is if you take the time to think about the role of the 'pastor'. Is he the only one who can baptize? Serve communion? What are some other things that only he does? And why?"

I'm doing some research in my church's denominational website on this subject and I found the following:

When becomming members of our church, our pastor, my hubby and I talked about this very thing. Any Christian can perform a baptism or serve communion. But, so that order may be kept, as well as accountability, when the church is congregating for the purpose of communion or baptizing, the pastor and fellow elders in assistance, are the one's who do so.

But, there might arise situations where any Christian might be called upon to baptize or commune someone, and any and all Christians should do so in those situations. I think of soldiers out in the battlefield, car accidents, or other type of situations. No one, expressing a desire to be baptized in a situation like this should be denied just because there is no ordained minister on hand.

read my new siggy.awesome post

i have baptised yrs ago.
 
I am glad this topic is not coming across wrong. I really am keeping my emotions in check. Its not that I have anything against a 'pastor' as such. I have been around quite a few that I respect. However, I personally detest the emphasis that has been seemingly placed on them. Why? Because I see wonderful men and women of God, full of virtue and faith, who get passed on because they do not have the title 'pastor'.

The honor is supposed to be placed on the elders of the church, not an individual. I am glad to hear that this is not the rule around here. But I had to find out if it was and why people thought this way. I can find no precedent that the 'office' or 'position' of pastor exists. A gift yes, but not a position. In my mind once it is put into a position status, then the position is the honored thing and not the gift.

We can 'claim' otherwise all we want, and most people will, but actions speak louder than words. There is no doubt a thread of personal experience that is running through this. I do not hold grudges, but at the same time I am very quick to prejudge a situation.

I know without a doubt that God has called me into something. He has given me a gift. But when I approached my 'pastor' it was almost as nothing unless I was going to start attending a school of some kind. I realize that I have projected this onto the pastor who now is apart of our fellowship, but only because he has also not shown much interest in those who are not the type 'A' personality he is.

Strange thing is that I for some reason or another have not felt like I am supposed to leave the fellowship. Frustrating to say the least. And I want to so bad make my fellowship seem like a diamond shining among the lumps of coal, but we have a bad bad habit of elevating our 'pastors' to positions of 'god like status'. And we are a simple little Baptist fellowship.

This topic stems from the book I read, but also from a conversation I had with the current pastor on the gifts a while back. He made the statement that there is a gift of pastor and a office. And that has kind of stuck with me, because I can find no truth to back it up. Through out the NT there is only two groups of people. The mature, elders, and the immature, young believers.

So, for those references that you give Handy, taken from your fellowships web site, Acts 20:28 is specifically talking about mature men who he called and gave charge to watch over the young ones in the faith. There is absolutely no 'system' or 'office' being set up in this situation. Not when you take the whole story in its context.

Then we have Titus 1:5, Titus was to appoint elders. He was to select, from among ALL the believers in that church, those who showed themselves mature in the faith. He was to get them 'set up' and then obviously move on. This is the God given gift of a church planter or what some would call an apostle. Not to be confused with one of "the" twelve apostles, but the practical outworking of what an apostle does. Paul does not instruct Titus to appoint just one, or a few, but simply what ever is needed.

Then there is is Ephesians 4:11. Again, clearly this is specifically speaking of 'gifts' from God.

Eph 4:7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.

Eph 4:8 Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.....And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,"


No where can we pull out that these are 'offices' that are set up. They are gifts. The term gift implies that it can be given to anyone. And I think that is where the majority of the animosity toward it comes from. When we take away the 'privilege' of an 'office', then that means we have to concede that the average joe just might be equipped by God to shepherd His people.

But we put people through the tests to see if they are 'qualified' to be the 'leader'. Whenever that is a separate gift altogether.

Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function,

Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Rom 12:6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith;

Rom 12:7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching;

Rom 12:8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

Rom 12:9 Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.

Rom 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.


It just seems like we take one passage and then paste it with another to build our own understanding of what God wants. When it seems plain to me that when taken in context we can see exactly what God desires from His church.

Ok, I'll get off the box now.:)
 
Nathan,
I agree again. The church I attended for many years, and I am not bashing any one church, but what I noticed is that people who were given gifts were not allowed to use them because a). they did not have higher education, as in attending seminary b). the leaders of the church did not recognize these gifts from God.

Many people left the congregation because they felt they were really called by God and so set out to use their gifts when their own fellowship ignored what God had given them.

It's stiffling for sure and God's gifts are not be ignored in an individual. Why would we want only the pastor to have all the gifts? Other people are given gifts as well? Isn't it a sin to ignore these gifts God has given us and not use them to build up His church?

God never intended for a pastors, no matter how many pastor your church may have, that they are also teacher, evanglist and elder. Granted some can be all, but not all have all the gifts.
 
So I read this one little book this week while sick and it brought up a point.

Personally, I have always believed way to much predominance was placed on this "position". So much so sometimes that it is sickening how much it resembles what Catholics think of the Pope as.

But I have heard in the past that the "position" of Pastor was one of an 'office'. In other words, I believe what they mean is, that it is something 'set up' and 'set apart' from the other so called gifts.

So is it something that we should put above all other things? Is it really what we deem it to be? Seems to me, personally, that the pastor is a simple gift that God gives to us. Not any different than any of the other except in its function.

Whats everyones thoughts on this?

I agree it is a gift and each gift should be honored and respected by the body because the gift comes from God and is to be used for the glory of God and for the good of God`s people. Therefore, each member is valuable and should be regarded as valuable.

However, my question to you is you said you feel the pastor`s role is a protector and watcher but not necessarily a teacher, so I`m wondering what exactly do you think a pastor is supposed to do and how?
 
Eph 4:11 And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

I find it interesting that we only have some of the above in the church today. We seem to have lost the apostle (which means :"sent" ) we are very hard on those who are called to be prophets , Teachers somehow have been grafted into the pastor and they do not stand alone anymore. We do see some evangelists , but do we respect their office like we do the pastor? Plus if we decide to pay the pastor for his office, then why do we not pay the teacher, prophet , evangelist and apostle (if we can find one :) ) ?

Why is the pastor (which is the shepherd) also the teacher ? Why is the pastor also fulfilling the role of prophet and evangelist in many churches ?

Why are we using the church as the place for evangelizing ? Alter calls ? Is the church not suppose to be the gathering of the saints alone ? Think about it. Is there a Biblical example of the saints gathering the lost in their meetings to "save" them ? Or did they go out to preach and then added those who were saved to the church ?

We do seem to have a different system here today.
 
G652
ἀπόστολος
apostolos
ap-os'-tol-os
From G649; a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ (“apostleâ€), (with miraculous powers): - apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

So is it impossible for God to still be sending people? Have we run out of ambassadors of the Gospel ?
 
G4396
προφήτης
prophētēs
prof-ay'-tace
From a compound of G4253 and G5346; a foreteller (“prophetâ€); by analogy an inspired speaker; by extension a poet: - prophet.

Surely this is as important to the body of Christ as any other Office ? The prophet shows the direction that we must go to. He warns and builds us up. He is the "ears" of the body.
 
Back
Top