Hurt? Wary? Afraid? Do Not “Join” a Local Church!

“Church isn’t where you meet. Church isn’t a building. Church is what you do. Church is who you are. Church is the human outworking of the person of Jesus Christ. Let’s not go to Church, let’s be the Church.” Bridget Willard

 

solar flare NASA

Solar flare-NASA

 

 

This post will not endear me to many pastors. There are some who will understand. If you find one of these pastors, go to his church!

When we first started this blog, we told a story based on The Adventures of Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. This story became a symbol for the two of us. In fact, I am looking at my Alice tea cup as I write this.

Wonderland is an allegory for today’s church. Authoritarianism, heavy-handed tactics, confusing or strident theologies and arrogant leadership have hurt numerous people. Many have found their way to this blog. Just this past week, I have read a number of stories from wonderful people who have shared their heart-wrenching stories of poor treatment by arrogant ministries.

Folks who come from these churches have had “theories” of theology pounded into them for so long that they accept these doctrines as if they are the unassailable truth, straight from the mouth of God. Many of these people are deeply devoted Christians and want to believe and do the “right” thing. So, when these folks finally leave the church, they are conflicted about how to handle their new found freedom

One thing is for certain, they do not want to get caught in Wonderland ever again. And so, they approach new churches with hesitancy. That is a very, very good thing. There is much to be wary of in today’s theocrats.

We have had a number of people who have told us they are having trouble finding a church that is short on discipline and long on grace. I believe them because I have had similar experiences. I saw Wonderland in all of it’s madness and do not intend to go through that again. I also have been disappointed in my search for the “perfect” church since that experience.

Before I begin, I want to reiterate something. There are wonderful churches out there with great pastors. But, they can be hard to find. Unfortunately many of today’s hip pastors, seminaries and conferences are preaching a similar authoritarian agenda. These teachings are invading our churches. This can make it difficult to find a church that is trustworthy.

There are many ways to lead a vibrant, fulfilling Christian life even if you are unable to find a church with which you fully agree. God has created us for fellowship. The Bible is quite specific that we must not forsake the gathering of the saints. But, what happens when you do not trust the saints?

Currently, in certain circles, there is an emphasis on joining the local church . It is being presented, by certain Calvinistas, as a primary doctrine. They reject the gathering of the saints as church unless it is in context of a particular building in a particular place. You are told you are disobedient to God if you are not a committed member of a local congregation.

Why is this? Forgive my cynicism. There are some good reasons for being part of a local church. But far too often, I have heard that we must join the church and put ourselves under the authority of a pastor who is going to lead us into paths of righteousness and truth. They also mention discipline and money a bit too frequently for this blogger.

However, I also believe that we should get together with our brothers and sisters. And most of these folks are found in churches. So, I have come up with a solution. The ruling church growth theologians will roundly condemn it.

First find a church you can tolerate.

In other words, look for the positives. These will vary from church to church and from person to person.These can include:

  • Moving worship services with good music and prayer.
  • Interesting Sunday school classes.
  • Great small group Bible studies.
  • A number of people that you know and like
  • A decent children’s program
  • Church dinners and festivals
  • Interesting outside speakers
  • Good youth programs
  • Vibrant single’s ministry
  • A number of missions programs:
  • Outreach to jails,
  • Inner city ministry
  • Short tem missions
  • Music ministry that accepts people who are of modest talent
  • Outreach to the elderly

 

But, what if there are issues that concern you?

These might include:

  • Authoritarian leadership patterns.
  • A lead pastor who is a gushing Calvinista and worships at the altar of Driscoll or SGM
  • Frequent references to church discipline
  • An overreaching church covenant
  • Too much talk about giving money/tithing
  • Rich pastors

You are caught between a rock and hard place. The church has positives but you do not wish to get trapped. There is a simple solution.

Do not join the church! Instead attend as a non-member.

You can do as much, or even more, when not restricted by a church membership and you are not trapped into some membership covenant.

How about contributing money to that church?

Frankly, there is nothing in the New Testament that says you have to tithe to the local church. There is no question that in some fashion we should give to support ministries. I’ll leave that amount up to God and you. Tom Rich, at FBC Jax Watchdog, here , and Wade Burleson, here , have written some interesting pieces on this issue.

  • Let’s say you are dubious about the pastor but you like the youth program. Ask about their specific needs and then purchase stuff for that group. 
  • Maybe you like a certain missionary from the church. Give him your money directly through his sponsoring organization.
  • Suppose your church is involved in inner city missions. Give there.

In other words, give money directly to the programs you support.

How to serve the church as a non-member.

Rarely do churches restrict their ministries to members. Trust me, when it comes time to bring turkeys to the local mission downtown, they will be more than happy for you to use your Suburban to transport the fixings!

How to fellowship as a non-member.

Find a group within the church that is serving in an area that interests you. Spend time with those folks. Most likely you will meet sympathetic individuals who could become friends and confidants.

For example, you could join a woman’s Bible study or become part of a team that visits jails.

 

Outside the church

Here is where I really get in trouble with the Church Nazis.

 

Find or start you own small group outside of the church:

Find a small group which likes new people. Many churches have them. I have been in such a group for about 9 years. It started in a former church. We all left that church and have been attending other churches. The group is now made up of people who attend several churches. Yet, twice a month we still get together to study the bible and plan activities.

This group has supported one another through many hardships. We also have new members come in all the time. We don’t get all hung up on “commitment” yet everyone is committed due to friendship. In other words, we want to be there. You can skip meetings and no one gets his panties in a wad or reports you to a pastor. We have been with each other through sickness, death, job transitions and joyful events as well. It is the one stable point in my life.

Start your own group. You might be surprised how many people are interested but don’t want to be the leader. If it is formed outside of a church, you will not have to meet the restrictions of that fellowship. In fact, this is a way to show churches that God is alive and well outside of the local church as well.

Get involved with a para-church organization

Frankly, I am more than weary when I hear churches claim you must give all your money and time to them. Many of these organizations are doing far more in the world that some of these self-absorbed churches.

Here are some examples:
 

  • Low income ministries: I know someone who tutored low-income kids for many years.
  • Pregnancy Support Centers
  • Christian Vocational groups: My husband and I are on the board of a local affiliate of Christian Medical Dental Society. We pray with the group and find good fellowship.
  • Mission trips: Many groups sponsor relief work and need volunteers
  • Care for the forgotten: Go to a nursing home or work with handicapped kids
  • Big Brother/Big Sister: Take on a kid who needs a friend and build into her/his life.
  • Moms in Touch
  • Community Bible Study
  • Young Life
  • Prison Fellowship

In the end, I encourage you to seek support for your faith. But don’t let anyone tell you that you must do it “their way.” I believe that God will honor your search and I pray that one day you find a church home that you love and treats you as well as your loving Savior.

****************************

Prayer Request
From Bridget:

Pray for the leader’s of all the churches in SGM that they would be lead by the Holy Spirit in their decisions and not fall prey to fear of man or fear of anything else. This upcoming week is the time to really be praying as there is a pastor’s conference that will be like no other in their history. I’m praying and hoping for a total rewrite of history on this one.

 

Lydia’s Corner2 Chronicles 33:14-34:33 Romans 16:10-27 Psalm 26:1-12 Proverbs 20:19

Comments

Hurt? Wary? Afraid? Do Not “Join” a Local Church! — 199 Comments

  1. Your small groups sounds more like a real church than any church I’ve ever belonged to!

    Please forgive my skepticism on the following:

    “vibrant singles ministry”: I’m not sure this exists anywhere in real life.

    “short-term missions”: I have very mixed feelings about this term and the whole “We’ll drop in on the poor people in X country and do some mime and bring some food and help them build a house and gee, now we can go home and relax in front of our 52″ plasma TVs in our air conditioned houses and eat all we want whenever we want because we did our bit.” Now, I realize that what I’ve just said is patently unfair to all those who truly care about people in other countries and have ongoing relationships with them, but… (I think I’ve probably said enough!)

  2. Numo
    No need of forgiveness. I have some strong opinions on the value of many short term missions. In fact, I have been meaning to do a post on the subject. Don’t get me going about kids from well-off families asking others to support them on their little shin dig to “help the poor.” So, I guess I need to write this. See, Numo, you and are are a lot alike.

  3. For valuable short term ministries think about things like cleaning up a city park, helping out a missionary if they are home on furlow, spring cleaning of the church grounds, etc.

  4. Long ago, when I worked in an office building where there was a lot of tension due to declining revenues and stupid management, a couple of other guys that were always in early and I got to talking one of those mornings. We began having prayer for ten minutes or so every morning when at least two of us were in town. Just met in one of our offices, closed the door, read a bit of scripture and prayed. A charismatic Catholic who talked about the day God became real in his life; a Lutheran who talked about the day he got turned on to Jesus; and a born-again and recommitted moderate Baptist (me). And it was a great fellowship.

  5. My experience is; mega pastors have less of a desire to control my life than the small group leader who secretly desires to be a mega-pastor. They are the ones who cause me the most problem.

    Authoritarian tyrants are hardly limited to church staffs.

    Even blog queens can think they know what is best; smile upon those who agree with them and punish those who don’t. -:)

    So not joining a church won’t save you from the petty tyrants found in all walks of life. Petty tyrants are found in all walks of life. Lots of people out there want to control others.

    Resigning church membership does appeal to those of us, like myself, who do not wish to be accountable to anyone. After all, who doesn’t want to be their own god? If you’re a member of a local church you have agreed to submit to others. I don’t like that. However, God seems to think I need to be more submissive.

    Sons and daughters of Adam, we all struggle with submission.

  6. What a wonderful article. We have worshiped as non-members at a local church for over a year. We are even part of a Sunday School class that is very loving and warm. They have told us that they consider us just as members, and they invite us to social functions and are very happy to have our company.

    I did speak to the pastor of the church (who has now since retired) before I started attending to let him know that I was planning on attending with my wife who had already visited before me. I did this as a courtesy to the pastor to actually ask his permission to attend, as I knew he was well connected to the downtown mega church that trespassed us. He was very nice, said no problem with me attending, but that joining would be another matter and would require some additional “steps”. I laughed to myself and kindly replied, “no problem, we have no intention of joining”.

    So we are very happy Christians and church attenders who will probably never formally “join” a church again. The church we attend is wonderful…I would hate to have to burden them with having me, the great recalcitrant blogger, as one of their members.

  7. Seneca, why play coy? Just say what you want to say: we should all submit to abusive hyper-authoritarian mega church pastors because it’s God’s will for us, and we might as well anyway, because our other option is simply to worship Dee and Deb. Why worship a small tyrant when you can worship a big one, huh? You can have your opinion Seneca…you see, on this blog, you don’t have to equivocate. Just be honest. We may “struggle with submission”, but trust me, we understand what it means to be patronized.

  8. Dang it…I let Seneca bait me, didn’t I? Well, whatever you call what he is, he’s very good at it.

  9. The best short term mission trips I’ve heard about:
    Being a part of a disaster relief team. There’s tremendous needs in this country when all goes to hell, whether through hurricane, tornadoes, floods, or fires. That’s where I feel my pull to serve, not take a Bible and go with a group to Mexico or whatever.

  10. Seneca
    You are full of baloney. We do not punish anyone except vile trolls and people who are causing trouble for the heck of it or who are calling each other awful names. We are, by far, one of the most open Christian blogs out there and you know it. Why don’t you see if your Calvinsta friends are so accommodating?

    Secondly, there are church leaders who abuse their position. God does not say we have to put up with that nonsense unless you are saying that all church leaders are speaking for God. I am currently a member of a church. I will stay a member unless things change and I believe that there is abuse of privilege occurring.

    And you can be darn sure that I will resign from a church when I see pastoral staffs who abuse members or others. Should Martin Luther have stuck around when the Pope decided it was time to “deal” with him? And from my view in the “cheap seats” there should have been a lot more resigning going on by members of SGM when some of those abusive situations became known.

    Nope, God does not tell me I have to submit to tyrants.

  11. Tom
    Thank you for sharing your experience. i think you made a very wise decision not to explore the other “steps” that would have been necessary. We made that mistake and found out that a former pastor had pursued us to a new church and bad mouthed us and the pastor of the new church bought it. However, I got my side of the story in with my blog which I think was a better way to handle it. I got my side out to lots more people than he did. 🙂

    We returned to an old church who knew us and welcomed us, with blog in tow, with open arms. But, if had I to do it over again, I would have attended that first new church and not joined. No harm, no foul. They would have gotten to know us and probably would have enjoyed having us at their church. We tend to contribute a lot to wherever we go.

    Maybe you and I should explore starting a church online-The Church of the Holy Blogger!

  12. Argo
    You answered quite well. And Seneca is very good at baiting people, both here and in other locations, if rumors are to be believed. And yes, he does patronize but note, we allow him to comment. Bet his Calvinista buddies would not give me the same courtesy.
    The only question I have for you is this. Are you saying you don’t worship me??? Darn and just when I was beginning to feel a bit cocky. 🙂

  13. Elisabeth

    I envy you. I have always wanted to go on a disaster relief mission. What an awesome way to serve others. Great suggestion.

  14. Arce

    I wish more people would do something like this. So many churches seem to imply tat it isn’t really “good” unless you do through the church. Some of the best thing I have done have been through outside groups or on my own.

  15. There is more power in my living room during my weekly 1-hour Moms In Touch prayer group with 4 moms than in any church I’ve ever attended.

    After having prayed for that hour each week the way we do it, I have been more useful to my immediate community & family, am more charged up & encouraged than I am after having been at any church service.

  16. Seneca mentioned “resigning church membership”. I don’t believe the blog queen had that in mind, but it does suggest the follow-up question, of, “When should one disjoin?”
    Let’s say I have this hypothetical friend, “Fred”, who “joined” a couple years back, and is now having some conscience problems with that. Fred didn’t really believe in official membership even then, but agreed with the covenant, and took what he now considers the expedient course. He doesn’t feel trapped or wish to attend elsewhere. Fred likes the many positives at the church. Let’s imagine, for example, that on a certain Sunday, say, Nov 6, 2011, one of Fred’s pastors said something about communion being open to “members in good standing” of that or other churches. Lots of thoughts about this may have distracted Fred the rest of the service. One might have been if and how the statement should be confronted. Another pastor later opened up communion to any believer, so Fred felt a little better for the visitors and regularly attending non-members. But another thought might have been, “I feel like resigning.” If Fred were to do so, and continue to serve and fellowship there as a non-member, how might that work out? If I did have such a friend as Fred, of course.

  17. Senaca said:

    Resigning church membership does appeal to those of us, like myself, who do not wish to be accountable to anyone. After all, who doesn’t want to be their own god? If you’re a member of a local church you have agreed to submit to others. I don’t like that. However, God seems to think I need to be more submissive.

    Sons and daughters of Adam, we all struggle with submission.

    Hi Senaca. I hear what you are saying in a sense. It is true that we would prefer to be masters of our own lives. And we all need to humble our selves in Christ and ‘submit’ ourselves to Him and His purposes. But ‘submission’ as it is commonly emphasized is not what church membership is about. And it is a poor concept of the church that places ‘submission’ (especially of the ‘pions’ under the ‘clergy’) itself as a key concept for church ‘membership’. When ‘submission is emphasized in this manner and the leadership of the church becomes focused on the submission of their charges rather than their own to Christ, it actually heightens the chance there will eventually be abuse in that fellowship.

    Joining with a fellowship of believers is about communion, about corporate worship, about service to one another, about building each other up and supporting one another as we struggle in this world, about representing to the world an image of Christ here, on the Earth, today. Our role of ‘submission’ is to Christ, and through him to those around us, each deeming the other more important than ourselves. This naturally produces a sense of cooperation and ‘submission’ in the sense of seeking Christ and being willing to allow others to lead in the Lord (that is, not seeking ones own glory/status).

    ‘submission’ in Christ is not about allowing someone else to tell you what to do or brow beat you out of your ‘flesh’. ‘submission’ in Christ is about joining together for a common purpose and serving those around your. If one is a leader, then one leads as a servant, being an example to those around. If one is not a leader, then the closest the SGM et al emphasis comes to being realized is that one serves by enabling the leader to do what he is charged with – again in the Lord. Submission in the Lord is NOT about standing idly by while some megalomaniac abuses others and seeks his own vainglory. Submission in the Lord is virtually impossible if the people in charge are NOT in the Lord.

    At least that is how I see it. Submission should not ever be something demanded by a leader. And it should never be a tool to quiet those who disagree. It is however, a natural response to true servant leadership in the Lord by those who are also in the Lord.

    Zeta

  18. The bible is very clear that every believer is to be a priest to those around them, to other believers and to the non-believers they encounter. The role is to be a reconciler between God and humans, and between humans.

    New Testament submission is to the community of priests, that is, to the community of Christians, commonly known as the church. It is not to some leader (boss), but to the whole community. It is the community that should make the decisions and not the “leadership”.

    Thus, “church discipline” is a community activity, wherein the members, in love and concern, act together to help a wayward fellow believer find their way back into fellowship, and if repeatedly stymied by that person and if absolutely necessary, ask them to leave. This is NOT A LEADERSHIP FUNCTION!

    Priesthood of the believers means that the organizational structure of the local church is Christ at the top, all of the members serving under Christ, and lay leadership next, and any paid “leaders” at the bottom, serving the interests and direction of the congregation. We usually have it upside down, except for where Christ is on the chart. Clergy should serve at the pleasure and direction of the laity — the people of God. And the only model that fulfills that vision is radical whole church democracy.

  19. Good article. Nodding my head in agreement to much of it.

    One comment regarding “Authoritarianism” and the Pastors and Churches wanting you to “submit to their authority”….this mantra and emphasis only goes…until they get sued for child molestation/abuse in their Camp.

    …then it’s “we have NO authority!”…”not our problem!”…”everyone’s independent!” etc.

    It’s really quite duplicitous (lying really). The Abusive Church Constructs often tout and practice “Authoritarianism”…until they are faced with paying out some of their precious money to victims (at the hands of their pastors, agents, employs, volunteers). See the Lawsuit brought by Tim Kosnoff vs. Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, et al.

    In the coming years, SGM, Driscoll (A29) etc. will be faced with the same or similar challenge…then we’ll see how they cry, “we have NO authority!” as well…all while they practice a very orchestrated and methodological Authority Structure (without providing and mandating Best Practices to help protect children in their Camps).

  20. Luke 22:25-26 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors.

    But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.

    If the Church you attend feels more like a strict version of Amway with a very defined and Authoritarian Leadership that is more concerned about the Show on Sunday morning than the well-being of the entire Group…run, don’t walk.

    If it feels like a Production and a Business rather than a Ministry…run.

    If the Pastor makes more money than your CPA…not good. And, if you can’t “know” how much the Pastor makes and where the money goes…run. (Calvary Chapel’s, nearly 100%, do not open their finances to the public and the Pastor owns and/or controls all the assets of the “church” which you paid for, through Trusts, Corporations, etc. See Jimmy Kempner, former CC Pastor of CC Beach Cities. He got busted for prostitution solicitation and when the church-goers freaked, Kempner made off with all the stuff they had paid for with their giving over the years).

    Another consideration: If the Pastor’s interpretation becomes God’s sole interpretation and if the Pastor’s take on all things becomes God’s take on all things…run. I’ve first-hand experienced a lot of Prophet Complex in the pulpit (my step-dad being one example). A good test: Find a point of doctrine with which you disagree with the Pastor’s teaching on it. Approach him and challenge him politely. If the response is defensive, aggressive and “lording over”…run. If the response is humble, approachable and conversational with a real interest in your thoughts and an attitude of discussion vs. “I’m right! You will SUBMIT!”…then, IMO, you’ve got a Pastor modeling Servant of All.

  21. I have seen this in action with my parents. When I was in middle school, they began looking for a new church. The one they found was more local than before, had more mature teenagers (anticipating us kids starting youth group) and a kind and involved youth leader-also a gifted pastor. However, for various reasons they could not fully agree with the membership requirements but the pros outweighed the cons. We attended the church for years as active non-members. I never felt left out but did know our family was slightly “apart” from the core group. While churches may welcome help, if you are not a member you will be restricted. For example the church did not allow my parents any leadership role such as leading including a small group or Bible study. They could attend congregational meetings but could not vote of course. In one way that was a shame since my dad had enjoyed those roles before but really it was a blessing because he found those outlets other places with friends and Christian organizations outside the church.

  22. I love these quotes:

    “Frankly, there is nothing in the New Testament that says you have to tithe to the local church. There is no question that in some fashion we should give to support ministries. I’ll leave that amount up to God and you.”

    and

    “In other words, give money directly to the programs you support”

    I can see the storehouse tithers like Steve Gaines and Robert Morris turning beet red at these “proposterous” assertions. How dare you say that there is no require to tithe to the church! How dare you say to designate where your money goes!

    The “first fruit” storehouse tithers like Robert Morris and Steve Gaines tell their people flat out that to be obedient you must not designate any of your giving. They say that the first 10% is not yours, and thus you have no right to designate how it is spent. You are to give 10% on the gross to their church, and THEY will decide how it is spent, not you. Apparently your first 10% is theirs, not yours.

    How gullible have Christians become that they can’t see how unbiblical, and how utterly ridiculous this is. The 10% is not your money, it is God’s, but you’re not giving it to God, you’re giving it to a 501(c)3 with a pastor and a board who decides how it is spent.

    Thank you for speaking the truth very plainly in this post.

  23. “Church isn’t where you meet. Church isn’t a building. Church is what you do. Church is who you are. Church is the human outworking of the person of Jesus Christ. Let’s not go to Church, let’s be the Church.”

    That is all I need to read to understand that Ms Willard knows nothing of Biblical church doctrines and definitions.

    That statement is the polar opposite of Biblical truth.

    A.R. Used to say, “You cannot use God’s words and your dictionary”

    The “CHURCH” is the “Covenanted Assembly Baptised People,” NOT the people who are saved.

    You have fundamentally denied, and defied the Biblical definition of what a “church” is, that Jesus loved and gave Himself for, and started.

    There is no such thing as “All the saved make up a Spiritual Universal Church.” That is no where in the scripture, and has been one of the greatest lies of Satan that Christians have bought into.

    Where there is no local assembly, there is no church, that’s what the Word means! Church means assembly.

    There are saved people “in” a church, and there are saved people “Out” of a church.

    The new testament standard is that they are to be “saved, baptised, and added to the church(assembly)

    That being said, Anger at abuse by men, is completely justified. However it does not excuse calling people to NOT do, what the New Testament teaches people TO do.

    To be angry at abuse in the church is not the fault of the doctrines of New Testament Church, it is the fault of wicked men.

    There are untold Biblical and spiritual differences that come with church “membership” that are never for those outside of the “membership” of the Biblically constituted local assembly.

    If you want to stop “Clergy Abuse” stop the “Abusing Clergy”, but take no aim at Biblical Doctrine.

  24. Zech:

    “We attended the church for years as active non-members. I never felt left out but did know our family was slightly “apart” from the core group.”

    Having experienced the “core group” by my husband being on staff of a large church for ten years, and now being “slightly apart”, all I can say is, I am SOOOO much happier being “slightly apart”.
    LOL.

    And Dee….LOVE, LOVE this article on so many levels, thanks. 🙂

  25. Appalled

    If Fred existed,(he sounds like a wonderful guy) this is what I would suggest. Once anyone is a church member, he is theoretically “under” their (leaders) authority. I don’t buy it but it doesn’t matter. One must understand the rules of the game in order to play.

    if this is a pastor-centric church, (BTW, even churches with many elders can be pastor-centric) it is highly likely that the pastors could get very possessive about their perceived “ownership.” Some don’t but i am suspicious of Fred’s church. Fred should assume that his does-better to be safe. I was blindsided when I did not realize the ego of one particular pastor. It all worked out but it was not pretty for a couple of months. I don’t want Fred to make a similar mistake.

    Fred should resign his church membership and tell “them” God is calling him to do something else (it is not a lie) He should not go to church for a few weeks. “Visit” some other churches to give a cover story. Plus, who knows, he might like another one. Then he should mosey on back to his previous church and start attending as a non-member.he needs to sit towards the back, looking pensive.

    When Fred is approached by pastors, etc., he should say that he is “working through some issues” and felt this church might be the best place for him as he goes through this process. Then avoid all new member classes, continuing to vaguely talk of “issues.” If the pastor offers to “help” (pastor will be very, very curious), he should politely decline, muttering something cerebral like “dark night of the soul”, etc. He needs to look thoughtful and intense.During his hiatus, he should regularly practice pained yet thoughtful expressions in the mirror. Most people, including pastors, will back off. And then he can go back to status quo. All should be forgotten in a matter of a couple of months.

    As for the communion thing, there are many churches which offer communion. Also, our small group does communion as well. I think the ordination thing in order to do communion is not found in the Bible. If Fred’s church gets weird about it, he should go do communion elsewhere. Most Anglican and Lutheran churches offer it weekly during the service. Who says it needs to “celebrated” with a particular pastor who loves the authority gig?

    Here is what I would NOT recommend to Fred. He should not go to leadership to discuss why he might be resigning. This is guaranteed to bring on pressure and negative conversations. Remember: many pastors are possessive and believe they have some control over their people. They don’t but they sure cause trouble trying to enforce it. These authority-meisters have been known to impose “discipline” on recalcitrant members in order to control them. Then, there is a long term problem to settle. See Tom Rich’s comment in this thread.

    I would be interested to hear if others have any other suggestions for Fred.

  26. Arce
    I am with you. As I have seen, both in this blog, and one time in my own life, there are far too many pastors who have got some “ruler” complex out there. I think it is born of the sin that we first saw in the Garden story, Men have a desire to be like God, in charge and running the universe.These pastors are capable of great sin and people who attend churches must be under no illusions about their leadership. Yet so many are “shocked” when the next “weird pastor of the day” falls.
    Close congregational oversight is one deterrent. I anticipate hearing from people who claim that pastors are abused by their congregations. That, too can be a problem. But, they are not slaves and are free to go.

  27. Alex

    Welcome to TWW! We would love to tell your story over here. There are many readers who would find it compelling. Please let us know if you are interested. Readers, in the meantime, go visit Calvary Chapel Abuse. I will link to your blog as well.

    I am a believe that lawsuits are necessary when recalcitrant churches turn their backs on children. God put the civil authorities in place for a reason.

    Now, I am waiting for the “defenders” of CC to descend upon this blog, threatening me to “move along.”(This is quite a vociferous group) Let me warn them: Anyone who turns their backs on a child, should have a cement blocks attached to their feet and be dumped in the Hudson (a bit of fractured Scripture). Harsh? I don’t know-Jesus said it. Was He harsh?

  28. Zech
    Thanks for sharing the story of your parents.

    Here is my view on leadership. Leadership is not appointed, it is recognized. Notice how, in a crisis, some people float to the top, helping others to survive. No one has done an ordination service, no one has appointed them “group leader,” it just happens.

    In the years that I have been involved in Bible studies, para-church groups and churches, I have noticed, within group dynamics, that the real leaders are not always the folks “leading.” We humans put far too much emphasis on a perceive title.

    For example, firefighters are almost always listened to in an emergency. Why ? Because everyone know that they are there to help them. They are willing to risk their lives for them. So, except for some idiots, when a firefighter says to “Move now” we say “On my way.” True leaders shine even when they do not have a title.True leaders are willing to put themselves on the line for other people and people naturally follow them.

    Who give a hoot about the “core” group? I have often thought this was a way to manipulate people into thinking they are somehow more important than they really are. I call them admirals in rowboats. My husband, has said the core group “guarantees” tithers. Your dad has found expression in ways that people in his church will not understand until they see him in glory! I bet he gets a “well done, good and faithful servant” and some of the core group members get “Eh, you’re saved.”

    Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

  29. MJ
    Look like we touched a nerve with you. Why don’t you explain “There are untold Biblical and spiritual differences that come with church “membership” that are never for those outside of the “membership” of the Biblically constituted local assembly.” What are the riches that are “never” for those who have not “joined” the church. What constitutes joining a church? Are you saying that people should join a bloated bureaucracy who are more interested in bums and bucks simply for the sake of “membership?” Have you read the book Pagan Christianity? You might find it helpful.

    You said “You have fundamentally denied, and defied the Biblical definition of the “church” Really? I have defiled? A little strong, wouldn’t you say? Do you understand the intent and purpose of this post? Would you prefer that hurt people just “stay away?” You have given precious little care for those devastated by terrible abuse. And that is my bottom line for comments. You give lip service to “abusive clergy” but you never express deep concern for the wounded.And that negates your entire discussion. Jesus always showed concern for those who were prevailed upon by the Pharisees. It appears to me that your first concern is for a “doctrine” that is not fully explored.

  30. MJ,

    A few things:

    -The problem you have is that there are no “doctrines of the local NT church” as you suggest. In fact, there were most likely several ‘assemblies’ in each city. Ex: The church of Corinth was not one big group who met.

    – Research the word “church” and you will see the confusion that made up word has caused with understanding what is the Body of Christ. ekklesia means “called out ones”.
    The “assembling” can take many forms. There are no strict guidelines. And that includes Baptism which you seem to see as a sacrament. Where did the Eunuch “attend local church” after being baptized by Phillip? I suppose Phillip was negligent for not putting him into a local church right away. But then Phillip was wisked away. You are suggesting rules where there are none.

    -All born again believers are “clergy”. There is no such thing as laity in the Body of Christ. There is no special clergy class in the Body of Christ.

    Good article, btw. Anytime I gather with other believers it is the body of Christ if we are born again. It is who we are because we have the indwelling Holy Spirit.

  31. Good article in many respects.

    Of course, in our area we see many people not joining churches. This has been going on for years.

    The primary reasons that we have seen in our town is that Christians often like to keep their options open, and they move from whatever place is the hot new place to the newer hot place.

    Church membership would actually help these people because it would be a commitment on their part to join a community and love other people in it.

    Of course, your article is really based on a situation where a person is unable to find a church they agree with enough to join, and the problems that your article mentions all see to be oriented toward authoritarianism issues. From that perspective, there is some helpful advice here.

    It is good to focus on the universal aspects of the church, and I like your article for that, too.

    Commitment is a good thing, however, but not commitment for the sake of commitment, and certainly not commitment to an abusive situation.

  32. A church in the New Testament was all of the believers in a particular place. There was no “membership” list and “joining” was showing up and confessing Christ. (A membership list would have been foolish — could become a tool for the authorities who could haul someone away for an appointment as lion food!).

    A church today tends to be an incorporated association with admitted members and some governance structure, generally set forth in the articles of incorporation filed with the state. There is nothing Biblical about getting admitted to such a body, since that was not practiced in the NT.

    Two questions that reveal someone’s thinking on this issue: “Where do you go to church?” vs. “What church do you belong to?”

    Obviously, one can go to most churches without being a member.

    However, there are a few churches who have an organization document that says that if you attend for a certain period of time at a minimum frequency — say six times in two months — they can consider you as having joined.

  33. Anonymous 10:54

    You have brought up valid alternative point. I know a fair number of people who do not join churches so they can church hop, never committing to a group. This was especially true in Dallas. Whenever a famous pastor (Swindoll for one) starts a church, all the celebrity seekers ditch their previous church to go to “Swindoll’s” church. (He had 6,000 people there for opening day. I highly doubt due to a massive move of the Spirit. They were all from other churches in the area ). Of they go to the church which had the biggest building until the newest bigger building goes up. I am not sure if such folks even understand the faith. They just like to be where “it” is happening, whatever “it” is.

    I have always been an actual member of a church. That is what got me in trouble with a vindictive pastor. These guys can cause all sorts of trouble for a person in search of another church. It is based on ego. (However, a good blog can usually put them in their place).So, I have ways to do an end run around these types of pastors.

    For me, the bottom line is this, i believe gathering with Christian to encourage one’s faith is built into our very being. It is better to b around Christians than not. So, this is one way to do it, especially in an area that is dominated by authoritarianism. And there seems to be quite a lot of that going around these days.

  34. Arce
    i have never been to a church that had such a document. Do you know if it is found in certain denominations more than others?

  35. Dee,

    At one time, when I was working on bylaws for a new church start I was involved in, and also helping churches with organization documents, I had a collection of bylaws and/or articles of incorporation for about 100 Baptist churches in Texas and Ohio (places where I had some contacts in SBC life). There were 2 or 3 that had an “attend often, you are a member” or “attend often, we can decide you are a member” clause. I no longer have that file.

  36. Arce
    It sounds rather amusing. i wonder what people would say if they found out they were a member by default?

  37. At one time in SBC life, you could join a Sunday School department or class and be on the roll without joining the church itself.

  38. While undoubtedly most pastors are giving devoted individuals there is no scriptural basis for the role of pastor that we see played out across the land every Sunday. The New Testament calls for participatory worship with oversight provided by a plurality of elders not the “first among equals” models that most churches employ. The teaching is to be a shared responsbility in an environment in which all of the saints can express their giftings. This by neccesity leads to small gatherings, which is consistent with the New Testament pattern.

    The word pastor appears only one time in the New Testament in Ephesians 4:11 and yet this has emerged as the most dominant ministry in all of Christendom. The tradition has become so entrenched that most folks accept that it is ordained of God, as opposed to a tradition of man that developed after the reformation. So the real question becomes not the type of church you attend with all of its attendant programs and hierarchial nature, but is it faithful to the pattern of the first century church. This post is not attended to slight pastors, most of whom are gifted teachers as well as being self sacrificing. However most are operating within a structure and in a role that is not consistent with the scriptural pattern.

  39. One comment regarding “Authoritarianism” and the Pastors and Churches wanting you to “submit to their authority”….this mantra and emphasis only goes…until they get sued for child molestation/abuse in their Camp.

    …then it’s “we have NO authority!”…”not our problem!”…”everyone’s independent!” etc.

    Sounds like Muammar Gadhafi, “Brother Leader” of Libya until the rebellion broke out. Then Gadhafi claimed “How Can I Resign? I Hold No Office! There Is No Government In Libya!”

  40. A few random responses as I zip through today:

    (1) if you do come back from a short-term mission trip and flop in front of your 52” TV and are unchanged, then you have problems. My family and I leave in three weeks for a short-term mission trip. Looking back, I would say that I had to be a changed person to even pursue this. In addition, I haven’t even gone yet and the Lord has already been doing amazing things in my life. I’m looking forward to seeing what He will do through me and my family on this trip.

    (2) Many of you already know this is one of my pet complaints. “If the pastor makes more than your CPA … not good.” Really? Why? Is there some limit on how much a pastor can make. And if there is who is to determine that. “If you can’t ‘know’ how much the Pastor makes …. Run.” Again, why? How much do you make? How much do the other members make? Why is the Pastor different? Why should we all know how much he makes? I know, I know. You are only referring to a small number of big shot mega church pastors. And I would tend to agree that I think some of them are over paid. But, the general attitude of too many congregations (even smaller churches) is that a pastor must be poor and it’s our job to keep him poor. And, that is not right.

    (3) With regard to church hopping, having grown up in a rural community and now living in a large suburban community, I have working on coming up with a theory. I have seen people hop from church to church, especially every time a problem comes up. If something happens that they don’t like or if there is a conflict, off they go to the next church. Now, I’m not saying that moving to a church is necessarily a bad thing. But, I wonder sometimes if these suburban people were in a rural area where they didn’t have the option to just leave and go to the church down the street, what would they do. Would they stay and work through the issue or problem? Is it a good thing when people just leave and problems go unaddressed? I don’t have any answers yet. It is just a line of thinking that I have gone down a few times recently.

  41. Frank
    Good comment!

    Did you know that the average number of paid employs in America’s larger churches is @48? I used to attend a church that had about 91 paid positions for about 2200 attendees. Of course the model is going to devolve into a CEO model. We have church that looks like America. Throw a few bucks at the church and have them “do” God’s work. No wonder churches have to find a way to get bums on seats in bucks in plates.

    A top done hierarchy exists, making the average attendee feel like a second rate purchaser of a product. Even giving is measured on a capitalistic standard. The church provides a service and the people pay what they feel is the going price for such service. No wonder giving to missions is in a decline. The churches must come up with fancy coffee bars and bring in professional entertainment.

    Is this the face of the one true and living faith or just another American enterprise?

    Have you read Pagan Christianity or Mere Churchianity?

  42. One of the misunderstandings of the NT is the definition of “elder”. In the NT, there were two levels of basic church affiliates — elders and newbies, to use the modern term. If you had completed the year of instruction and had been baptized, then generally, you were considered an elder. In more modern terms, an elder was a confirmed member of the congregation. Not every one seeking baptism was granted it, the decision was based upon how well the prospect did during the year of instruction.

  43. Citation

    You have come to the blog run by 2 MBAs and we will take exception to #2. Next week, I am beginning a project that will involve painting the interior of our house and gutting two very old bathrooms. I got two estimates and am going with the one who is significantly cheaper. I am paying him and I get to know how much he is making on the project.Now, I have no idea what my next door neighbor makes but he is not responsible to me in any capacity.I give him no money. But, if he started a charity and asked me to contribute, I would ask to see the financials before i gave him anything. I won’t give to charities in which the CEO is making a lot of money.

    The government pays my husband via Medicare for his cardiology services.They get to tell him how much they will pay him for an echo since they are contracting him for his services. I pay taxes. Because I pay taxes, i am entitled to know the salaries of government worker which are published or made available to the public. I know how much the President makes as well as the guy who paints our fire hydrants.

    So, if I am expected to contribute money to the church, then I expect to know how money is being spent. How much a pastor makes may be an important decision in whether I think a church is using my money wisely. i also do not necessarily trust the elders who are often appointed to “protect” the pastor. So, if i cannot find out how much a pastor makes, something is deeply amiss. If they won’t tell me, I won’t give money that goes towards salaries, period.

    As for keeping a pastor in poverty, I have two things to say. One is that i believe a pastor should make a reasonable sum of money to support his family. I think the median for the congregation is a fair measurement. Secondly, no one is forcing a pastor to stay in a congregation that does not pay him a living wage. Slavery was abolished in the 1800s. People make choices for their professions. If one chooses to be an elementary school teacher, one must accept that they will never be paid like a doctor.But, in exchange for that, teachers have more time off.Also, I happen to know that some pastors make money on the side. I know one guy who uses his unaccounted time to give golf lessons, etc.

    I do not, in any way, feel “sorry” for those who choose to be pastors. They know the deal and do so willingly. Last i checked, no one was moaning about their salaries in the New Testament and they had to endure very, very harsh conditions.

    As for number 3 I”s it a good thing when people just leave and problems go unaddressed?”, I can speak from experience. We tried to address a terrible issue and got seriously abused by some people who did not their job in protecting children. They made a group of us the problem. There are some churches in which you should just get the heck out of Dodge, unless you are prepared to take up arms. Oh, this blog was one of those “arms.”

  44. MJ –

    What is “Covanented Assembly Baptised People?” I would like some scriptures for that please. That sounds like many different scriptures pasted together.

    I don’t know that Jesus gave his life for the church either. I believe we would find that Jesus gave his life to redeem man (as in individual men and women) so that we can again have fellowship with God. Paul wrote many letters to “all the saints at . . .” and he speaks to the brothers and sisters and refers to the Body of Christ.

    I have never heard the phrase you used above. Are you possibly of the Morman religion? I mean no offense either way.

  45. Well I guess we may never fully see eye-to-eye on that issue of paying pastors. I would agree with you that there needs to be financial disclosure, but I think it can be done in less intrusive way. For example, I don’t mind the disclosure of a total salary figure for staff as a whole. So, if you have five people on the church staff and when you do the math the average salary is six-figure then I would do some further investigating (or run). But, if the numbers appear to be reasonable, I wouldn’t think you have a problem. I don’t, however, necessarily believe in the need to reveal everything down to the exact penny.

    I would also agree with you on your comments the salary being representative of the community (hey maybe we see eye-to-eye more than I think). I can definitely see salaries based upon the salaries of the congregation. Another thing that should also be taken in to consideration is the educational level of the pastor. If a congregation is insisting that their pastor have a ThD, then they are going to have to pay differently that a church that will take someone with out an advanced degree.

    I also agree with you that a pastor knows what he is getting into. Although from a slightly different angle. If a pastor needs X to support his family and he candidates at a church and they offer him less than X, then he shouldn’t be complaining that the congregation isn’t treating him well. He knew it going in. I guess I’m looking at it more from an angle of once the pastor is in and the congregation starts to change things. Or the classic, we want to get rid of the pastor, but we not mature enough to do it outright, so we will just starve him out.

    Regarding my number 3, I think your example is major enough that leaving is definitely warranted. What about the smaller scale stuff? Are we creating a group of floating Christians cannot practice good Christian conflict resolution? I think too often Christians are not willing to do the hard work of resolving a conflict and instead pull up stakes and move on. On the bigger stuff, yes you could be walking into a buzz saw and you would have to weigh the cost there.

  46. I’m enjoying the discussion, and wondered where else people turn for help with the “joining” issue. Lacking time for a scholarly study, I did a quick and unscientific Google search under “biblical church membership”. Number one result is a site for “battered sheep” (anti-join). I skimmed it and will read further, but at first glance it looks really good and in agreement with this article. Next came 3 results from 9 marks (pro-join). I’m biased, but I thought their primary scriptures (Heb 13:17 and I Cor 5) missed the mark, since these passages don’t specifically mention membership and other passages DO (such as Ephesians 2, 3, 4, and 5, I Cor 6 &12, and Rom 12).
    Cynical side note: if a member of another church AND denomination came to 9 Marks for care and counsel, would they 1: suggest he honor his home church membership commitment and seek care back there, OR 2: scedule him as a guest preacher?

  47. Citation –

    Regarding the pastors individual salary issue, our church just has the line item of salaries as well. However, anyone could come to the man who oversees the finances of the church (this man is not an elder nor is he on staff) and ask and be told an individual pastors salary. A person could also go directly to a pastor and ask this question. A church needs to be accountable with the money it is given. If only one or two or three who are paid pastors or staff are responsible then their is too much room for issues to arise.

  48. Dee, ” Next week, I am beginning a project that will involve painting the interior of our house and gutting two very old bathrooms.”

    DON’T DO IT DEE! -:)

  49. Apalled –

    We’ve already seen how they handle that. Well we’ve seen how they handle that with an aPostle. I don’t know how they would or have handled a regular Joe who comes to their body.

  50. As for keeping a pastor in poverty, I have two things to say. One is that i believe a pastor should make a reasonable sum of money to support his family. I think the median for the congregation is a fair measurement.

    A bit above the median is my take. There are phycological reasons that having their salary above the median will stop a lot of people (not all) from acting like they own him.

    CitationSquirrel

    In my limited experience churches that disclose salaries tend to have pastors who know how to mingle and get along with the congregation. Those that don’t, but do disclose aggregates, tend to have pastors who form tight social circles.

  51. Citation and Dee:

    I trust we all are in agreement on knowing how much the pastor makes. That should be available to any person who gives to the church.

    I would not darken the door of any church, or any non-profit, that would not disclose financial information to members or contributors.

    How much a pastor should make is up to the congregation served by that pastor.

    There are lots of principles that I advocate. The pastor should not be impoverished. He should be paid a fair wage within the context of that fellowship.

    But he should not be paid a super high salary either.

    The same pastor, pastoring different churches, might make different amounts, depending on the status and demographics of the church.

    Here are some good questions to consider, I think:

    What is the education level of the pastor?
    How long has he been at the church?
    What is the size of the church?
    What is the budget of the church?
    What are the pastor’s responsibilities?
    What is the average age of the church?
    What is the average salary of the church?
    Will the pastor’s salary put him and his family in a situation where he makes much more or much less than the average person in the church?
    What is the community like where the church is situated? Is the church membership reflective of the surrounding community and does the church desire to reach that surrounding community. (A poor church in a poor area might pay its pastor one thing, whereas a wealthy church that has ended up in a poor area might look at compensation issues based on the congregational profile, rather than the community profile).

    All of these are the types of questions that churches should consider, I believe.

    I do not take a hard and fast rule regarding pastor compensation, except that I am against extremes to prove some point (e.g. keep him poor so all will know it’s not about the money or pay him millions to show God’s blessing etc.).

    There are also surveys put out by various church administrative organizations that can help give churches an idea of what is being paid.

    We use (for information only) a survey that includes all sorts of denominations and churches.

    Finally, I would say that the less the pastor has to do with it, the better. And it is usually good to have knowledgeable people (people who have experience with compensation issues in business etc.) serve on a committee to process this and make a recommendation rather than having a free for all where everyone throws out an opinion, usually with an irrelevant scripture reference attached.

  52. I’ve been reading at your site for a few months now and felt compelled to share a few thoughts on church membership. My husband and I have been attending our current church for over 4 years. We like it a lot. Is it perfect? Of course not, no church is. But generally speaking, we agree with the theology, heart, and mission of the church. We are completely committed to this church. We serve in various ministries, are part of a small group, attend Sunday School classes, and give regular tithes and offerings.

    We are not members of this local church and have no intention of becoming members. Why? Personally, I don’t believe in church membership, at least not in the sense that you discuss here. I believe that anyone who is a follower of Christ is a member of Christ’s church. No membership class required 😉 What congregation we choose to gather with on Sunday morning doesn’t change the Church we are a member of. I believe that those who gather in a building with a sign that says “Baptist” and those who gather in a building with a sign that says “Catholic” are indeed members of the same Church. I believe in the global, universal Church and that joining a particular congregation can actually be detrimental to our faith, because it becomes very easy to begin to believe that our duty and commitment is to that particular congregation rather than Christ’s Church. I don’t have a problem with people who choose to join their local church and I certainly understand the importance of meeting regularly with a group of fellow believers, but personally, my membership in Christ’s Church is the only church membership I need.

  53. Citation
    Perhaps you know how to read financials differently than I. But the average mega sized church (@2000) has a paid staff of 48. I left a church that had 2000 and a paid staff of 98. Simple division doesn’t cut it. The pastor could be making $700,000 and the rest peanuts, like in some churches we have written about. I insist on knowing what the lead pastor’s salary is. if i found out that my pastor was making an Ed Young Jr salary, i would leave that church, pronto. Some pastors, like Ed young also get a parsonage allowance-rumors are that his averaged $250, 000 per annum. In fact I think the average church goer might be surprised to find out what their pastor is making. This could be good or bad.

    Give me ONE good reason to conceal a pastor’s salary.

    And from a tongue in cheek perspective you said “insisting that their pastor have a ThD, then they are going to have to pay differently that a church that will take someone with out an advanced degree.” How about all the guys who claim to have doctorates which are then shown to be honorary or mail away? Also, once again, the free market will determine whether a ThM is reimbursed more than an MDiv. Since they insist on running the church as a business then I shall treat their salary the same way.

    Finally, if the congregation wants to get rid of the pastor, he should just get out. jesus said something about brushing the dust off your feet. Go where you are wanted.”Or the classic, we want to get rid of the pastor, but we not mature enough to do it outright, so we will just starve him out.” At least the pastor has an excuse that he couldn’t afford to stay. It sure sounds better than “they despised me.”

  54. Appalled

    Cynical? You sound just like me. There are the sheep and there are the shepherds. Shepherds are treated differently than the sheep-don’tcha know?And as for 9 Marks- let the buyer beware. They are into heavy discipline.

  55. Anonymous
    Excellent comment. Let me add one more factor. Is your pastor candidate being hired to be a pastor or celebrity? Celebrities get much more money and make the church feel that they are really, really cool because they have a name as well as a great building which means the church attracts successful, rich hipsters.

  56. When I was personnel chairman for a democratically governed church (the pastor worked at staying out of the day-to-day business of the church, which was left to committees and to the congregational business meeting once a month), we explored a number of studies and decided at the 60th percentile of the congregation. We surveyed the congregation, set up so we did not know whose response was whose, and then figured out where the 60th percentile would be. That included the housing allowance, any retirement or insurance we provided, that others had deducted in their wages or paid directly, etc. We allowed the pastor to determine the percentage that went to housing allowance and to retirement. We provided a separate auto mileage allowance, asking for a month of records each quarter as less burdensome than continuous mileage records, and paid the rate set in the IRS regs.

    All pretty open and reasonable.

  57. Emily:

    Even though you asked Dee, I’ll say – do what you want. If you want to join, join. If you don’t, don’t. It’s not that big a deal if it’s not something you want to do.

    You do lose out on having any say-so, I suppose, about decisions of the church. But if you don’t care about those either, then follow your conscience on this.

  58. Anonymous:

    Dee, our pastor is not a celebrity. He does not have any need to control or be loved. He has a healthy sense of confidence naturally and no need to be praised or other glaring pathologies.

    Churches should not hire men with problems like that.

  59. Emily
    Great comment-thanks for weighing in. I like your approach. i think some pastors who are into controlling the lives of people will not be.

  60. Anonymous
    You are blessed to be in a great church. I have been in a few of those and it is wonderful!

  61. Pingback: Hurt? Wary? Afraid? Do Not “Join” a Local Church! | The Wartburg … | pastorleaders.com

  62. Anonymous –

    I actually don’t lose out on any decision-making at my church by not being a member. Regular attenders are allowed to vote the same as members. Our church doesn’t make a big deal out of joining. That option is always available and commended, but there’s no pressure to join and no detriment to not joining. Non-members are valued just as much as members. One of the many things I like about my church.

  63. Emily
    Most voting is not all is cracked up to be in churches. It is usually pre-decided and voting is a formality.

  64. Follow-up
    I read the full #1 google article about biblical church membership here: http://www.batteredsheep.com/biblical_church_membership.html
    I can recommend it. Some blog queens may dislike his use of the term “biblical” and some egalitarians may disagree with his examples of submission, but I don’t think either of these groups would support using Hebrews 13:17 as a prooftext for “joining” requirements. I especially liked that he defines his terms in the intro.
    An aside, thinking about pastoral paychecks. Whatever happened to old title of “Minister?” Pushed aside because it emphasizes serving?

  65. Appalled
    That is one excellent article. I may do a post based on the thoughts the author raised. I am becoming more and more convinced that people need to protect themselves from the idiots who believe that a pastor’s job is to control the flock. I agree with the premise that we are called to fellowship with other Christians. We were not created to be Lone Rangers in the faith. But, I am not convinced that we must “join” a local church via taking an oath, vow, or signing a pledge. My attendance, physical and financial support, the care that I have for other members all demonstrate my commitment.

    As for the word “minister” or “pastor” both should mean caring for the people. Whatever happened to the pastor/minster who knew the people, visited them in their homes, ate dinner with them, etc. Now, they are merely the CEO who can give a good talk once a week.

  66. Not intended to ignore the fact that there are people wounded by abusive churches, but that is not the fault of the New Testament Teaching, that is the fault of wolves in sheeps clothing.

    Excerpted from a post 6 months ago about the local assembly.

    First of all, when looking through the New Testament, our entire concept of the “church” changes if each and every time that we read it, we would see the word “assembly.” Which is what the “ecclesia” is. It is the called out assembly. It was a secular word, with a political function, and a practical purpose within the operations of a city, or city state. Not all citizens were part of the civil, “ecclesia”, only those who had met the qualifications and joined. While all citizens enjoyed the privileges of citizenship, not all citizens participated in the ecclesia. It is this word that Jesus used to communicate to His disciples, that while the earthly kingdoms have their “ecclesia” His kingdom too had an “ecclesia” or “assembly.” It was complete with qualifications and membership, purposes and practices.

    Now when we read the New Testament, and we see the “assembly” every time that we see the word “church” we have a more accurate view of the ecclesia of the New Testament.

    “I will build my assembly, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

    “If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the assembly.”

    “Saul, he made havock of the assembly, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.”

    “Unto the assembly of God which is at Corinth,(and) to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: ”

    “And God hath set some in the assembly, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers . . .”

    “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the assembly, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

    “Unto him be glory in the assembly by Christ Jesus throughout all ages world without end.”

    “Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly, and gave himself for it.”

    “The husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the assembly.”

    “That He might present it to himself a glorious assembly without spot or wrinkle . . .”

    “And he is the head of the body, the assembly:”

    “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the assembly:”

    “To the general assembly and assembly of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, . . .”

    To further this thought line, the “assembly” is the “body of Christ” in the same sense that Congress is a “legislative body.” Or that students of a particular school make up the “student body.”

    Now there are times in the scripture where the “institution” of the “assembly” is in thought, and a “future” assembly may be in thought, but as professor Thomas White of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has pointed out, all other times in the text, the “assembly” it is speaking of is just that, an “assembly.”

    All that being said, the “Church” is as much the “MEETING” of the people, as it is the People of the Meeting. It is the assembling of baptized believers who are in covenant one with another to carry out the great commission.

    All of the saved of all of the ages make up 1.) The family of God, 2.) The Kingdom of God, and 3.) the Household of God. But those groups do not constitute the Assembly, or body of Christ. The church (assembly) is within the Kingdom, but not the Kingdom. The church (assembly) is within the Family, but not the family. In fact it takes more to get into the Assembly than it does to get into the Kingdom. It takes more to be a member of the Lord’s assembly, than it takes to get into heaven. In the same sense that men could be citizens of their city, but not members of their ecclesia. But all members of the “ecclesia” had to be citizens of that kingdom. This is the picture word that Jesus chose when teaching his disciples, that Men enter the kingdom by faith alone. Saved men enter the Ecclesia through public immersion (baptism.) Men enter the family by birth, they enter the ecclesia by baptism. There are many in the kingdom and family, but have not entered an “assembly.”

    The reality is that there is no such thing as an “unassembled” assembly. To take the “meeting” out of the primary meaning of the word “ecclesia” is to eviscerate the word that the Lord chose to use when establishing His church within His kingdom.

    While this is not a popular doctrine it is rooted deeper and wider in the New Testament than I can speak of here . . .

  67. CWM

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

    Could I get you to go to the root of your thesis? So, is this word “assembly” is referring to each and every group that declares itself the church? Where in the NT does it define church membership as signing a covenant , walking the aisle, etc as prerequisite to being “part” of the assembly? Suppose someone attends an assembly, contributes time and money, is involved in fellowship, and cuts the grass at the “assembly” on Saturdays but they have not signed a piece of paper saying they will place themselves under submission to a pastor who has a thing for authority. Are they not “assembled” Christians?

    Are you familiar with the book Pagan Christianity? Here is a quote from the review we did on this blog. here
    “The authors suggest that we believers need to step outside the “safe bounds of institutional Christianity” and be willing to preserve “the primitive testimony that Jesus Christ is Head of His church. And that every believer is a priest…a minister…and a functioning member of God’s house”. Why should we care that the “priesthood of believers,” as exemplified in the early church, be preserved? The authors would argue that this practice is at the core of authentic Christianity. Such a church is “organic” in that it is “Spirit-led” with “open-participatory meetings” and “nonhierarchical leadership”. This contrasts sharply with a typical “clergy-led, institution-driven church”. The abdication of leadership responsibility to professional clergy ultimately results in the lack of transformation among the church members. The hierarchical separation of the pastor from the congregation causes the members to loose touch with “both the Word of God and the history of the church”.

    I would contend that today’s church in America is merely one form of expression of the church, and not a very good one, at that. In fact, I would contend that churches such as FBC Dallas, FBC Jacksonville, etc., may have wandered outside the boundaries of what constitutes a church that is reflective of the church Jesus gave us. The top down hierarchy, with a paid clergy and tons of paid staff ,offer a skewed view of the depth and breadth of the church universal.

    I disagree that Peter’s confession “I will build my assembly, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” refers to an individual gathering of the church. That great confession is directed to the Church Universal which will make it’s stand, actively bringing the Gospel to the very gates of hell-breaking down the defenses of darkness with the Gospel. in fact, if we had to wait for every assembly in this matter, things would get bogged down. Too many churches are pushing cruises these days, definitely cruising away from tearing down the gates of hell.

    We are in a new era, with authoritarian preachers who are attempting to “rule” over a group of people and using the structure of a conglomerate to do so. Our ties to the local church are not found in signing some statement, walking some aisle, “obeying” any lightweight who thinks he is now a patriarch. Our ties are spiritual, unlike the legal citizenship that is granted by civil authorities. In fact, I believe it is the erroneous application of civil structure, and business structure to the church that has gotten us into the mess we are in. I am not a big fan of Calvin’s city on a hill concept-I believe he screwed up in that capacity as a civil magistrate/preacher.

    I contend that setting up the structure of the church as some sort of hierarchy breeds wolves in the pulpit. Many pastors now think they are “in authority” and can “rule” with impunity. One only needs to look at the church in America to see where that has gotten us. We now do “church” and so long as we toe the line, sing a piece of paper, give our money, and smile a lot, we are considered the assembly?” I think not.

    Although I disagree with your premise, I will give you props. At least you gave a nod to those harmed by these wolves and that goes a long way in my book. However, i would urge you to consider that your proposed view of the church may actually breed the very thing that you speak against.

  68. CWM
    One question: You quote this verse “The husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the assembly.”
    When the curtain was torn in the Holy of Holies at the time of the Cross, this meant that God now dwells with His people. Did God set up a new priesthood of anointed pastors and a new head for women, once again building a curtain to His presence?

  69. After active membership in a church for 24 years my family, (myself, wife, adult children, and 14 year old son) found we just did not care for the preaching/teaching in the church services anymore. The main issue was the lack of time given to the mention of salvation thru faith in Christ , sin nature of man and its consequences, blood atonement, etc. in the sermons. The church has taken the position that it will gain the attention and interest of the unchurched, seekers, and disillusioned through its modern sermons. It then expects that those attracted by the church services will be introduced to Christ mostly through attending bible fellowships(sunday school).

    Other than the music the Church services just leave our family feeling empty. So our children have left and begun attending a new church start in our area. My wife and I only go to one of our churches adult bible fellowships which has really good teaching and a strong missions emphasis. We avoid going to the services that drag us down and have not been in months. This arrangement is working for now but in the future we would not rule out going to another church. We would however be hard pressed to ever become “members” of any church ever again as we have seen too much monkey business in the church we now attend and membership seems to not mean anything anyway.

    In the past we have given to our church but in the future we will give mainly to the churches missions program. We will give to other missions we support and to the church where our teenage son attends.

    Each one of us Christians is responsible for following Christ. We can not rely on Pastors and Preachers to have some vision that we blindly follow. All believers in the group have value and should be listened to and respected. There are those of us who have figured some of this out and are finding ways to deal with it. Thanks for the article on this subject.

  70. Dee,

    Thanks for kind dialogue.

    I have no disagreements with you concerning the “abuses” and the “perversions” and “twistings” of the state of the “church” here in America.

    Vance Havner said once of the local churches of his day, “We are so subnormal, that if we became normal, all would think we were abnormal.”

    However, even though the “twistings” have twisted us, basic Bible doctrine remains the same. What I share about “the ecclesia” is not a “premise” that is it’s historical use. Do an honest study of the secular “ecclesia”. It is within the “citizenry” but does not constitute the “citizenry.”

    Having a bad experience in the “ecclesia” has nothing to do with “ecclesiolgy”, but with “un-Christian, christians.”(if you’ll allow the expression.)

    That being said, the New Testament difference between the “Kingdom citizenry” and the “Ecclesia” was the “covenant of accord.”

    Acts 2:41-42 serves as the elementary building blocks for all New Testament “assemblies.” They are saved, baptized, added to the ecclesia (enter the covenant of accord), partake of the Lord’s Supper.

    Any other order, is out of order, from the New Testament picture.

    The covenant, is the entry into the “all in accord”, accepted by the membership, (those already in formal accord, in covenant with each other).

    In a true New Testament structure, the congregation is the highest authority this side of heaven, not the pastor. The pastor is subject to church, or ecclesiastical authority.

    Now that being said, what I’ve said is not premise, but it is the historical view and practice from Acts 2, onward; the practice and doctrine being hidden from the view of Catholic history, but preserved through Biblical promise.

    “Unto him be glory in the assembly by Christ Jesus, throughout EVERY AGE” world witout end.

  71. Dee:

    You asked, “Did God set up a new priesthood of anointed pastors and a new head for women, once again building a curtain to His presence.”

    Good question . . .

    Every instruction given in the New Testament is given to “The priesthood believer.” The priesthood believer IS the recipient of all New Testament instructions.

    The priesthood believer is the recipient of everything in the “church letters” and the “pastoral epistles” and the “general epistles.”

    Whatever is written to the saved is written to the believer priest. All instructions about “males/females” are written to male/female believer priests, All instructions given about the “ecclesia” are given to congregations of “believer/priests”.

    Too many people have the idea that the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer TRUMPS all other “structural” teachings in the New Testament, when those structural teachings were in fact given to Priesthood Believers!

    The saints are the intended audience of New Testmant. The believer priest is subject to the New Testament principles and structures, in the same way the Old Testament priests were subject to the laws and structures of the Old Testament.

    Yes, the believers are priests, but rightly understood, it is in their capacity “as priests” that the New Testament instructions regarding pastors, teachers, evangelists, missionaries, are to be surrendered to.

    Again,

    It is the “character” of bad men than ruin the “doctrinal practices” of the New Testament church, NOT the doctrine. Wolves will wound, but true undershepherds, rightly understood, will care for the Master’s sheep.

  72. Maybe donate to the charity of your choice and give someone on your Christmas list a card stating a donation was made on their behalf. Just an idea 🙂

  73. Here is an excerpt from “The Harlot Church System”. This is from chapter 3: Church – The Thing

    THE THING

    “We organize this Thing. We name it, incorporate it, elect officers to it, open bank accounts in its name, and train and hire staff to run it. We take up money for it. We devise campaigns to recruit more people to join it. We track attendance to it. We love it, get mad at it, resign from it, and leave it. If we are particularly fond of it, we make up brochures and buy ads to market it.

    We evaluate the Thing to determine its success or failure. “The praise service was good,” we might say. “The sermon was okay.” “The offering was poor.” “The attendance was down.”

    Ask a pastor how his church is coming along and he may answer with such comments as: “Oh, our building program is great.” “We’re getting in members left and right.” “We’ve doubled our membership in the last year.” “We are losing people out of the back door as fast as they come in the front.” See where his heart is? He is evaluating the thing over which he is likely the head. The growth of his church reflects upon his success or failure as its leader. If, on the other hand, he answers regarding the spiritual well-being of the people, he understands more of what it means to be the body of Christ. “Well, you know, many of them have endured some affliction, but it has made them stronger in the Lord.”

    If he talks about his people in a possessive sense, he is snared by his own conceit. They are not his people. On the other hand, if he talks about the sheep who belong to the good shepherd who is Jesus Christ, he may be free and more likely to set God’s people free.”

  74. My understanding is that, while the members were covenanted together, it was not some written document, but a spiritual agreement among them to be servants together and to each other, and, in fact, baptism was the act of covenanting as it was showing submission to Christ.

  75. We Christians do not make covenant with each other. We are all already included in the new covenant. Jesus Christ made covenant with the Father in His own blood. He is our Representative Head in the new covenant. We were included “in Him”. We have been crucified with Christ and baptized into His death. We have died and our life is hidden with God in Christ. The baptism of the Holy Spirit unifies us and knits our hearts together, and seals us unto the day of redemption. The new covenant in His blood is an eternal and supernatural covenant. We are joined to each other by Christ and in Christ, through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

  76. dee

    You write 0n – Nov 09 2011 at 09:31 am…
    “We were not created to be *Lone Rangers* in the faith.”

    You might NOT realize it But…
    That’s a favorite line used by “The Abusive Religious System” to keep butts in the pews.
    I had been called that more then a few times by those who didn’t like what I had to say. 😉

    Just ask a Pastor: Did anyone, in the Bible, go to church, join a church, tithe to a church?
    And – How come NO Disciple of Christ was called to be a “pastor” leading a church?
    When they have NO answer, the name calling begins: Rebellious, Lone Ranger, Heretic. etc.

    Then I have a “Light Bulb Moment.” And now I enjoy being called a “Lone Ranger” by
    those who do NOT like the idea that I’m *Free in Jesus* and can fellowship where ever I
    sense the Lord is leading. I NO longer have to be part of, pretend, attend, send support to,
    a 501 (c) 3, non-profit, tax $ deductible, Religious $ Corporation. Most today call church.

    You’re probably to young to remember the TV show “The Lone Ranger” of the 1950’s. 😉

    But – The Lone Ranger was the “Good Guy.” 😉

    Fighting all the “bad guys” who were taking advantage of, and abusing,
    the “innocent-ordinary-sociable guys” who didn’t know how to defend themselves.

    Kinda like what you do here at TWW. 😉

    And The Lone Ranger was never alone.
    The Holy Spirit – I mean Tonto was always there with him, **by his side.** To rescue him,
    to patch up his wounds after the bad guys left him for dead, and to protect his back.

    John 14:26
    But the **Comforter,** which is the Holy Ghost,
    whom the Father will send in my name, **He shall teach you all things,**
    and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    Comforter in the Greek is Strongs #3875 – parakletos – and it means…
    Thayers – summoned, called to one’s side, esp. called to one’s aid.
    one who pleads another’s cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense,
    one who pleads another’s cause with one, an intercessor.

    Kinda like what you do here at TWW. 😉
    With the help of the Comforter.

    Seems to me, dee and Deb, have a lot in common with “The Lone Ranger.” 🙂

  77. CWM
    You said “They are saved, baptized, added to the ecclesia (enter the covenant of accord), partake of the Lord’s Supper.” Once again, I ask this question. If a person attends church, participates in support of the church, and takes communion with the church, is he/she not functioning as a member? In today’s climate, with authority driven pastors who use signed membership “covenants” as a means to control and hurt members, it would seem to em that is merely a silly document that does not truly define the commitment of the individual to the church.

    CWM, I see that you are American Baptist. That was the first church that I joined after I became a Christian in Massachusetts. i had a wonderful pastor, Howard Keeley, who was shining example of how to lead a church. I have also been a member of good churches with great pastors and leaders. However, after I experienced a brouhaha at the hands of a pastor who, after we resigned, actively sought to cause trouble when we tried to join another church, I have begun to think differently. Since that experience i have become concerned that certain documents are used as a means of control which is designed a contract system which is how secular government uses to give stability to a free market system.

    If I freely participate in a church, minus signing a document or “walking the aisle” why is that not enough? True authority is recognized by the faithful by voluntarily following a leader. Frankly, the contract can be broken as well so it does little in the way demonstrating commitment. I contend that a person who is involved in a church is as a member of that local assembly whether or not they have signed some manmade document.

  78. Doug
    Well stated. Thank you for adding your experience to this post.

    I know of many people who find themselves in your situation. They participate in the life of the church, give money, etc but reject the elements of foolishness that do not well serve the attendees. Frankly, confrontation rarely works. You are labeled as a “troublemaker” and ostracized by the admirals in rowboats who are too big for their britches.
    Sometimes it is better to be quiet, find the good in the situation, and avoid the turmoil. I don’t know if the NT writers ever envisioned a church that would reject a person who sincerely goes to the leaders with a suggestion. Certain groups, like SGM, reportedly go after the person who expresses concern telling then that they are so full of sin that they have no idea what they are talking about! Oh yeah, that is sooo thoughtful of them.

    I think people who have never experienced this nonsense cannot believe that it exists. About 5 years ago, i would have been among them. No more!

  79. Matt
    I do think highly of these organizations. In fact, I have an Operation Christmas Child box in my car, ready to be filled. However, I was disappointed to learn of Franklin Graham’s salary a couple or years back. For many of us, his salary would constitute a big paycheck.

  80. Dee

    When I think of giving to these organizations I like to think of giving specific need-based gifts (i.e. Christmas Child Box, Goat, Rabbits, Deworming Medication, Share of a Deep Well, Mosquito Nets, etc.).

    You’ve got me curious – what is Frankie earning as the head of a charitable organization?

  81. Matt
    i agree with you. That is why I participate in actually giving the gifts instead of donating money. This story came to light in 2010 and we did a post on it. Here is the quote

    “Franklin Graham – He received $1.2 million from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse in one year’s time. Since the public scrutiny, he took a “major” cut and now makes “only” $600,000/year. The BGEA also pays his father a salary of @$700,000/year even though Billy Graham is no longer able to actively engage in evangelism. This money reportedly is in addition to Billy Graham’s retirement plan.”

    I still think that $600,000 is a pretty nice salary for a charity.

  82. Dee,

    $600,000 for a guy leading ministries who apparently has a “getaway cabin” in Alaska and a plane. Please stop it.

    This paycheck is provided through DONATIONS!!! What kind of income does he get with honorariums, book income, blah blah blah blah blah?

    When I read this stuff it really feels like ministry is a means rather than an end.

  83. Matt
    He has allowed people to address has Dr Graham as well. I personally saw it on Bill O’Reilly. He graduated from Appalachian State- a good college in the mountains, nearby where his family lives. He got an undergraduate degree. But, he’s received “honorary”doctorates. It is odd that Christians, who claim the upper hand in humility, would be so quick to address themselves as “doctors.” I am collecting a list and plan to do a post one day.

    We saved up for quite awhile for one trip to Alaska for two weeks and it was the trip of a lifetime. It is not cheap to go to Alaska not is it cheap to maintain a cabin or a plane. I know a doctor who makes about $350,000 a year, engaging in a medical specialty. He loves Alaska and goes to fish at least once a year, and rents a cabin,etc. he would love to have a place up there but cannot afford it. It is impressive that a “not for profit ” kind of guy can do so. And Christian wonder why non-Christians are cynical.

  84. Amos
    The only thing that i wish is that Christian would stop using words like “harlot.” So many wonderful Christians, who do so many good things for Christ, are members of churches. Even if some would disagree with the church structure, it would be nice to try to say it a different way. Wade Burleson did a great post on polemics.
    Here

  85. Amos
    Thank you for correcting me. Scripture does say that we should not neglect the gathering of the saints.Some of the greatest joys of my life, outside of my relationship with jesus and my family, comes from a loving relationship with Christian friends.I would survive without them but the road would be a bit bleaker.

  86. Matt
    I think that it is a great idea. Please do not mind my criticism of Graham’s salary. i love Operation Christmas Child. Last year my son gave up his time at Thanksgiving and worked in the warehouse, getting these boxes ready for shipment. It is a good thing!

  87. Arce
    What is your opinion of these covenants? I am concerned because many of them are drawn up with the help of attorneys yet the people who sign them are not warned of that fact.

  88. David
    I would tend to agree with you. i have become concerned with these covenants of late. Many are treated as legal documents and contain vague language such as “I will not engage in gossip.” Well, I have already blown that one forever and eternity with this blog. Or have I? What constitutes gossip? What if I discover my pastor is getting free land, cut rate building and a salary in excess of $700,000? I tell another person at the church. I could be accused of gossip.

  89. About the whole doctorate thing, I really like how The Message translates Matthew 23:4-10:

    “Instead of giving you God’s Law as food and drink by which you can banquet on God, they package it in bundles of rules, loading you down like pack animals. They seem to take pleasure in watching you stagger under these loads, and wouldn’t think of lifting a finger to help. Their lives are perpetual fashion shows, embroidered prayer shawls one day and flowery prayers the next. They love to sit at the head table at church dinners, basking in the most prominent positions, preening in the radiance of public flattery, receiving honorary degrees, and getting called ‘Doctor’ and ‘Reverend.’

    “Don’t let people do that to you, put you on a pedestal like that. You all have a single Teacher, and you are all classmates. Don’t set people up as experts over your life, letting them tell you what to do. Save that authority for God; let him tell you what to do. No one else should carry the title of ‘Father’; you have only one Father, and he’s in heaven. And don’t let people maneuver you into taking charge of them. There is only one Life-Leader for you and them—Christ.”

  90. Dee:

    Thanks again for your dialogue.

    First of all, The church that I pastor is in fellowship with the “American Baptist Association” not the “American Baptist Convention.” The ABC is more northern, and generally more theologially liberal. The ABA is more Southern, and theologically conservative.

    Second you said, “If a person attends church, participates in support of the church, and takes communion with the church, is he/she not functioning as a member?”

    No. Members vote, make decisions, call pastors, elect teachers, become part of the Bride of Christ, and will answer to God for their function within His ecclesia. It is His church, and His church makes earthly decisions. It is the “membership covenant” that distinguishes the difference between “visiting Christians,” and parties responsible for the stewardship of this body.

    According to that text, there is no partaking of the supper, until after one is “added to the church.”

    What constitutes “membership” is when a biblically baptized saved person, petitions the church body to be part of their “covenanted body.” Or in the language of Acts, be “in one accord with” them.

    I know nothing of “signing” anything. I do know that no one is a “member” of this assembly, until they have identified themselves to us as believers, possess Biblical Baptism, and want to be a part of this church body. Then the church, not the pastor, accepts them into the covenant or they do not; (sometimes for particular reasons) and then they are added to the church.

    Then they may partake of the Lord’s Supper, vote in all church related business, upon “time examination” serve as teachers, leaders, committeemen/women, etc.

    From what I’ve read, my guesstimation is that the grievances that you have are a result of “un-christian christians” in “man-made congregations” “governed by charlotans” rather than the Biblical method.

    The Biblical method of church government is very simple. The Members of the Church are the authority in the church. Whether you have time or not, and so I don’t have to take up your space here, I have written several articles on the Role of the Undershepherd, and the Role of the Preacher, that may shed some light for you on what I stand for, and what I believe the Bible stands for.

    Thanks again though for your dialogue.

  91. dee,

    Many see today’s church system as the Babylon the Great in Revelation. Revelation 17:5 says – “And upon her forehead was a name written a mystery: BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”

    It is the SYSTEM that is accused of harlotry, not those who are being abused by that system. Being in the SYSTEM does not make the people themselves harlots. They are victims of the harlotry SYSTEM. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers. The church SYSTEM is a principality and a power that binds and deceives.

  92. CWM

    First, thank you for kindly responding to my questions.

    However, here is where I disagree with you. Perhaps it is a denominational distinctive. You said “According to that text, there is no partaking of the supper, until after one is “added to the church.” I believe very differently than you. I will take Communion with any believer. I also believe that any group of Christians are allowed to celebrate communion together, which i do with my small group made up of members of a couple of churches ad even nonmembers yet Christians.

    I will read the recommended writings. But, I guess that is why it is a good thing there are various denominations. Beliefs vary widely in this area. And each of the groups have studied the Bible and have theologians to back them up. Ah, one day in heaven….

  93. David

    Help me a bit, please. Until i had a run in with a former church, I had been a member of some very good churches with thoughtful leadership, Evangelism was stressed, small group fellowship was the norm, there was very little legalism experienced, etc. I could go on and on. I saw people come to Christ, become vibrant in their faith, etc. People were encouraged to be involved in leading the church. One such church is Bent Tree Bible Fellowship which has Pete Briscoe as lead pastor. Why would such a church be called a “harlot.” If it is, then I am totally lost.

  94. All denominations are man made. God did not make any denominations. There is ONE body, ONE Lord, ONE faith, and ONE baptism. The are no divisions in the ONE body of Christ. We are all members of that ONE body – 1 Cor 12.

  95. Dee,

    On communion, if one is a part of the kingdom, having made a confession of Christ and been baptized, then they are part of the church (singular, world-wide) and communion with them is appropriate. That is generally called “open” communion. BTW, we call it communion as it has to do with sharing in community, the community created by Christ as his body. Many small groups have communion as a part of their activities.

    On covenants, a contract is a covenant and covenant is a contract. However, to truly be a covenant or contract there must be consideration on both sides, and the value of those things needs to be approximately or close to equal. So a covenant in a church is a contract since is an agreement among the members where each provides something of value to the others and gets something comparable in value from the others. Sometimes the things exchanged are actually promises to act in certain ways, such as a promise to pay in exchange for a deed to a property.

    Contracts appear easy to enter into and difficult to get out of. But that is because it is presumed that both sides are performing as promised. If a side is not, then that side loses the right to enforce the contract. Typically, churches do not live up to their promises!!!!

    On gossip. To me, gossip is like libel. If it is true, it isn’t libel and it isn’t gossip. But remember the old telephone game, where the tale changes from one party to another until it no longer resembles the tale first told. So a true story can become gossip as it gets shared and elaborated and confused.

  96. dee,

    I posted that before I saw your last post. But my reply still relates to your question – and that is a very good question.

    There is no such thing as “a church”, that is a separate and distinct entity. As soon as you put a name on it “Bent Tree Bible Fellowship”, it becomes a THING. There are no named “churches” in the Bible. Christians were written to by Paul according to location only – Rome, Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus, etc. Never by any name like “First Baptist of Chicago.”

    The ONE body of Christ does not name itself and divide or make distinctions. There are no “statements of faith”. Did you get to read any of the book link that I posted? Again, this is not a accusation against any specific Christians who are in these denominations. It is about the church SYSTEM that has deceived, beguiled, enslaved, and manipulated God’s people into individual and distinct groups of man made sects and cults.

    The Christians in these groups may be very loving, kind, etc. Again, this is not about the people themselves – it is about the man made church SYSTEM.

    Does that answer your question? I am trying very hard not to accuse anyone or to be offensive in any way. That is not my agenda. I love ALL of my brothers and sisters in Christ.

  97. David
    There is no question that denominations are manmade. They were formed in response to doctrinal differences that could not be resolved. For example, you can look at the comment by CWM. he said that only members of a church can take communion in his denomination. I disagree with him. Others split over Calvinism, baptism, the charismatic gifts, etc. I do not believe these secondary doctrines can be resolved this side of heaven.

    It is like the controversy over creationism. There is no way i will ever concede to a young earth unless I am offered irrefutable proof. So many theologians seeking after God. So many theories on secondary issues. What is a Christian to do?

    However, I will take communion with any declared Christian, believing in One Body.

  98. Arce
    Thanks for you thoughts. I have heard one too many stories of covenants being used to go after the little guy and rarely to go after leaders. Could many of these be one-sided?

  99. The hirelings are scattering the sheep:

    I moved away from a small fundie church, and am in a community where there is no decent church. Trying to find a non-ecumenical or non-Catholic daughter or Rick Warren church wipes away about 99% of them. Then when you bring in Dominionists, false teachers, and the rest, it cuts the numbers even further down. There is part of me who believes God is calling His people OUT of BABYLON and the majority of the church system is part of BABYLON.

    http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2011/08/soul-winning-and-scattered-sheep.html

    I attempted a Bible study, refusing services at a supposedly more “conservative” SBC, but even that was a failed experiment as the false pastor retained control over the proceedings, and well once I found out everyone in the church had to sign a contract to “obey” and “never gossip” to join and saw all the Jim Jones edicts in the bulletins trying to “control” dissenters, I knew God didn’t want me there even for the weekly Bible studies, so while the author suggests being involved with the groups, that are under less supervision, one needs to be careful with that.

    See here where I describe what that was like:

    http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2011/03/silencing-dissent-in-pews-1.html

    A book club may be ok, where Christian ladies meet elsewhere [perhaps a good witnessing opportunity in some cases] but watch out for compromise even in this area. I know Christians out of the churches going to book clubs, and coffee shops to meet with Christians who are not part of the churches but one must do this with caution and following the Lord and who you are met to warn and minister to. God may even lead a Christian to minister elsewhere.

    There are many of us out there who have no church. We are in the time of the great falling away. I also believe most of the pastors out there, are following the sin of the Nicolatians, like the priests, which Jesus said he hated. It wasn’t supposed to be one guy up at the front totally in charge. I left the Popes and priests in the Catholic church and am not interested in another one.

  100. dee,

    I do not assemble with other Christians based on them having similar doctrines. The Bible clearly warns about making divisions. If some Christians decide to meet at the local park on Wed night for fellowship, there is no need to organize it, and name it. And I do not need to meet with the same group each time. Again, we are all one body. We can meet and fellowship anytime and anywhere and for any reason. I do not need some “pastor” telling me when, where, or how to meet or what the rules are. There is one rule – love one another. If someone wants to smoke a cigarette while at the park, so be it. He does not need to excuse himself or go hide somewhere while having a puff.

  101. Bible believer and David

    This is why I love blogging. On this thread I have a pastor who believes one must be a member of a church to have communion and then I have you guys who run from the organized church for good reasons. And then there is me! I sound positively middle of the road! Somehow, we are all the Body and will be with one another in heaven!

    I have a question for you both. Firstly, I do not believe there was time in which the church was totally in synch with the teachings of Christ. Just read all those letters to the churches! So, when was there a time that you would consider “not part of the great falling away?” I love history and have red greatly on this matter so I am curious.

    Now, the church is made up of a bunch of sinners. So, by leaving the church system, are you doing so because you think you are less sinful than the churches to which you refer? How do you avoid the same sins that you point out in the organized church? Heck, if I spent time with myself, you would be amazed all the sins I could come up with on my own, particularly the one in which i am sure i know the “truth.” Most bloggers struggle with this one!

    Then there is the Body thing talked about in Corinthians. How do you function within that paradigm?

    i find this all very interesting.

  102. David
    Never fear. i am fascinated by your approach. I may not fully agree but i am willing to listen and learn. Oh, Bent Tree Bible Fellowship is the church that meets at that location. So, why do not the letters apply to this group of people who meet there. Remember, the church was quite small. We would have to build stadiums to fit all the believers of Dallas to meet in one place. Also, did not the early church meet in certain homes?

    I, too try to love all my brothers and sisters but it can be a challenge at times.

  103. dee,

    Here is why I left the organized church – Galatians 5:1 “It is for FREEDOM that Christ has set us free. Stand firm then and do not submit yourselves again to a yoke of slavery.”

    I will never again let some man made SYSTEM offer me a “choice” of either contemporary or traditional worship. Just another division in the body of Christ over what songs we will sing or how they will be sung. What absolute nonsense.

    If someone wants to baptize their baby, who am I or some pastor to tell them not to? What business is that of mine or the pastor? Do we need to agree on that to be in fellowship? Do we need to agree that the gifts are functioning today? Do we need to agree if there are apostles and prophets today?

    When and if we meet at the park, we may discuss such topics, but there is no need to agree on them. We are there to love each other and to love Christ together.

    Billy Graham said years ago that he and his wife went to different churches! How crazy is that! There are no different churches – there is ONE body of Christ. There is more fellowship in the parking lots than there is once the “church service” starts.

    The church SYSTEM quenches the Holy Spirit and the unity of the ONE body of Christ.

  104. Many here are bringing up great points, but I’ll add a few other thoughts.

    Prov 3:5: Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.

    When I left a church (more like a cult) years ago, I came face to face with God in the sense that He was all I had to lean on. I remember crying out to Him to guide my steps and not let me go. I told Him I wanted to please Him and follow Him, but I did not know which way to go. God worked through His Holy Spirit to guide my steps and keep me close.

    Prov 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

    Gal 2:20: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

    Christ is at the center of all good decisions. Since eternal life is a free gift, not earned or deserved, and I am a sinner who cannot save myself – I need the mercy God extended by sending His Son Jesus to die on the cross and then ascend to the throne of Heaven to secure a place there for me and others who follow Him.

    “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” Eph. 2:8

    You ask, “What does this have to do with finding a body of believers to worship with?”

    Everything. It is only through Christ’s righteousness indwelling a person who desires to follow the Lord’s ways and show His love to others – that we can know the sheep from the wolves. To discern correctly it is vitally important to be steeped in God’s Word daily. To

    Right now an ecumenical, inter-faith movement is gradually conditioning people to believe that all faiths can be merged into one, largely through a “social gospel” that centers more on man’s good works than on the sufficiency of sound Scripture and Christ. Movements to be wary of: Rick Warren (Emergent Movement), Tony Campolo (Progressive Movement), Peter Wagner (New Apostolic Reformation), Oprah Winfrey (New Age mysticism), the Pope (check out NoiseofThunder.com), and more.

    The Sept. 16, 2010 broadcast here is good:
    http://vcyamerica.org/crosstalkdeeparchives

    God’s church is alive and well, and God is on His throne.

    Isa 41:10: So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.

  105. dee,

    Yes, the Christians met in homes. But when Paul wrote, he did not address the letter to individual home meetings. The letter was circulated to all the Christians in that city. Today, we may have 10 “churches” on the same street with each having it’s own distinct membership requirements, doctrines, church government structure, dress codes, forms of worship, etc etc.

    Paul wrote one letter to each city. He did not write one to the Baptists, one to the Lutherans, one to the Presbyterians, etc. There are no divisions in the body of Christ. (I said that already!)

  106. The Tooms episodes are some of my favorite X-Files episodes. The Pusher episodes are great, too. But if I had to pick one X-Files episode as my favorite it would be “Bad Blood”. Nobody could make fun of X-Files better than X-Files made fun of itself.

  107. W the Hatchett/Ealge

    Only on this blog would a group of Christians know about Tooms. I forgot Bad Blood-I am awful with names but will check it out. True confessions, I purchased all of the seasons of X Files on DVD. No one in my family will watch it with me.

    I haven’t forgotten your (W)series on SOS. We will do it something in the next two weeks. I am very interested in the feedback for this one!

  108. Not to challenge anyone specifically, but it has been my experience trying MANY different variations on the theme of church meeting that the most dysfunctional by far are the ‘home churches’. That a group of people disgruntled by all they see in regular churches who band together to form the ‘better’ or ‘best’ church that is an attempt to ‘get back to the perfect way Christians met in the 1st century’ tend to in actual fact be a bunch of folks with real issues with authority – and as such they generally end up in fights equal to or bigger than your typical church split or issues even less important than the ones that split your typical mainline church.

    This is my experience, so there is not much one can say to argue with it, though I will accept that there are probably other folks reading this blog with equally valid yet different, or even the opposite, experiences to my own.

    But because of my experience, I run the other way whenever anyone claims to have established a ‘true New testament church’. I’m a firm believe in the old adage that if one finds a perfect church, don’t join it, ’cause then it won’t be perfect anymore 😉

    Zeta

  109. Eagle
    You are the most Christian agnostic I know! You sure have spot on insights.

    Now don’t sell all para-church organizations down the river. There are many good groups out there-Christian Medical Dental Society for one. There are lots of organizations which bring health care into impoverished areas. Some groups sponsor after school programs for kids that provide tutoring, a safe place to play and healthy snacks. I am sorry for your experience in Campus Crusade. Sometimes a group will get a critical mass of stupid people in one area. (Stupid attracts stupid, if you catch my drift).I know a couple of really awesome CC people who wouldn’t play the blame game with you.

    And if any Christian claims to have never struggled with doubt, they are either lying or stupid.After all, faith is trust in the unseen and that is hard. I only wish i could have gotten ahold of you prior to your 9/11 experience and introduced you to some really awesome people. They are out there.

  110. David
    i agree with you in much of what you said at 4:12pm. i have been a member of three churches in which people differed widely on the issues of baptism, gifts, etc. And we all got along. That is why I was so startled when I found a different system in play at a former church.It is possible to have a fellowship like that. I miss it.

  111. Dee –

    Geat discussion here! I know you’re not really worried about endearing yourself to pastors. Jesus wasn’t either was he? The leaders of his day didn’t understand the message he brought. It seems many leaders today have deceived themselves and think that because they can look back at history that they can see everything clearly. Oh, and history got everything correct? In many cases, leaders today have eyes but do not see! I am thankful for Jesus today – my Savior and Friend. Do you think Jesus had denominations in mind when he spoke to Peter about His Church?

  112. Ted
    Thank you for the broadcast . I will listen to it.There is much strangeness out there. Peter Wagner has to be the most bizarre guy I have heard recently. Apparently he knows all the names of demons in charge of principalities! Good night! we will be doing some stuff on dominionism if i can get the reading done.

  113. Zeta
    A few of these folks do not even subscribe to a home church model. They believe in informal gatherings without any structure. This is the first time I have heard much about this.

  114. Bridget

    I think God has allowed the denomination because some theologians and pastors actually believe that there is only one precise way to do something. It always amuses me when people write to the blog and say that the Scripture is actually clear on (meaning they know what it says for sure) : creationism, communion, gender roles, eschatology, etc. Some people feel so strongly on these issues that they feel they are defying God by allowing an opposing point of view. My good friend Zeta “Orion’s Belt” was thrown out of a Sunday School class when he corrected the teacher on the whacked science that was being taught to “prove” the earth is 6000 years old.

    I only wish that we could all get along like we did in a couple of churches I attended. It is possible.Someday in heaven we will see the true church universal and finally get along.Thank Jesus for His grace in the midst of our silliness.

    Thankfully i know a couple of pastors who like me in spite of my edginess! Thanks for your kind words,

  115. I share Orion’s Belt’s caution about house churches and home churches. The ones my parents dragged me to in my later teens were frequently weird. I saw people annointing teddy bears in the name of Jesus on the basis of a passage about Paul and handkerchiefs. I ended up hearing some self-described prophet from Korea saying California would sink into the sea by 1997 because of its sin. I found out that some folks in house churches in Oregon were complete suckers for the Omega bank debinture fraud from the late 1990s and some people who fell for that still think it’s legit even though Clyde Hood was in prison for about a decade after having pled guilty. Now I’m not trying to broad brush all house church movements but the ones I got dragged to back in my Pentecostal days were crazy. less talk about Jesus and more talk about black UN helicopters doing black op preparations to take over America. That would have turned me into an amillenial partial preterist if I hadn’t settled on that position through slightly more scholarly grounds. 😉 Informal gatherings of Christians is totally cool. I’m okay with that and do that all the time. House churches … I’m cautious about.

    Between my Mars Hill experiences and my house church experiences before that I’ve come to be pretty happy being Presbyterian.

  116. Hi Zeta,

    This whole authority issue is a real mess? Let’s say we accept apostles, prophets, evangelists, teacher, pastors, elders, deacons, bishops, etc. Do the prophets have authority over the teachers? Do bishops have authority over the evangelists? What does this authority structure look like? Pyramid top down? Who’s on top after Christ? The Pope? C J Mahaney? The President of the SBC? Ok, then who is next in authority? And just how far does this authority extend? Can they kick me out if I do not tithe? Can they discipline me for being divisive if I openly disagree with some of their doctrines? Can they excommunicate me as a heretic like the Catholics did to Martin Luther?

    Does Paul say anything in his letters to the assemblies about submitting to someone’s authority? (We can tackle Hebrews 13:17 at a later time if you so desire)

    So who has the authority and why? And exactly what is the extent of this authority? Who gave authority to the Pope, Cj Mahaney, or Bill Gothard with his “umbrella of authority” and the covering doctrine?

    I asked an SGM pastor once about the authority of the prophet. He did not have a clue. Everyone knows who the senior pastor is. Try asking who the senior prophet is and who has more authority and why.

  117. Our “new” church….after having left an abusive one….does not have “membership”. You either attend and fellowship there or you don’t, there are no “members”. I hate that whole members thing. Makes it sound like some kind of country club.

  118. This conversation reminds me of the story about the man who’s boat broke down and he was stranded on a deserted island for many years. When he finally got rescued, they asked him about the 3 buildings he had made. He said that one was his house, and one was his church. When they asked about the third building, he replied, “That was the church I use to go to.” 🙂

  119. Thanks Dee. Well, you know you and Deb are raising the blood pressure of any elitist pastor who dares to read here….

    As for home churches:

    They apparently thrived, blemishes and all, in the New Testament, and they do thrive today in many parts of the world where genuine Christians are in hiding from government intrusion. We all know that it is in times of persecution where the church goes underground that the greatest spiritual growth (including numeric growth) seems to occur.

    Looking at the New Testament model, it is clear that the Word of God was taken seriously and the good news of Christ our Lord was strongly preached. The people were not pew sitters, but actively involved in sharing the Gospel in their respective areas. The apostles traveled and took the Good News to other areas, along with encouraging the believers they met with in home churches.

    I’ve had two short-lived experiences with home churches and both lacked effectiveness for two reasons (as far as I could discern):

    1. In one home fellowship the scriptures were never read or discussed due to concern over offending someone who had come out of a different denomination. People sang and prayed and that was it. No learning, no exhortation from the Word. Sad.

    2. In the second home fellowship the man hosting the fellowship in his home began to view himself so highly that his own “word” replaced the Bible. Eventually he moved toward New Age dogma.

    I do believe a home fellowship can work if the people involved hold to the humility of Christ and to the integrity of major Biblical doctrines in their teaching. The longer I live, the more I see how pride hinders any endeavor.

  120. David

    I just heard that joke this week but I can’t remember where. Are we reading the same things?

  121. Jerry: “I hate that whole members thing. Makes it sound like some kind of country club.”

    In most cases, when you ask church leaders to explain why “membership” is so important, they will site the need for “discipline.” Actually, “membership” is a way of shielding the church (or corporation) leadership from legal liability when they exact church “discipline” on a member. In may cases, in the “covenant” members sign, there is some clause that they agree to “submit” to the “authority” of the pastor or elders or some such dicta. Sometimes, there will even be some clause whereby the “member” waives his or her right to seek legal action.

  122. David
    Yep-that’s it! I’ve been telling my family and friends this joke for the last day. Thanks for the laugh!

  123. It is my opinion that structure in the church is necessary. It is also Biblical. The early churches appointed elders and overseers. People who had authority to deal with issues and make decisions binding on the entire congregation. The Apostles had the the most authority, and their decisions where binding on the church as a whole. As the Apostles died off, their authority was passed on to worthy successors. Worthy again being determined by factors such as demonstrated moral and personal character, wisdom etc. What they didn’t do is appoint people to positions based on 2 years of special classes on being church leaders, but that is another issue 🙂

    It is my personal opinion that God works within man-made structures when the people populating them are themselves Godly people who are seeking Him. The specific structure is generally less important than that there is structure and order, and that the people that populate the various agreed upon posts are seeking God and His purposes above their own. I do not believe there is a ‘perfect’ church order, or even that one structure is necessarily more ‘Godly’ than another – with the exception that the more power there is in a small number of posts, the more likely it is for the temptations of power to corrupt.

    Authority structures are necessary and practical constructs. There are varying levels of gifting, and some people are far better at seeing the big picture than others. Some better at teaching and retaining necessary information and skills. Those people are naturally going to gravitate to leadership positions, and the rest of us, if we feel we can trust them and are not given over to self- idolization, will naturally allow them to lead.

    Issues of ‘submission’ arise out of the fact that in a group of 100 people focused on a goal there are decisions that need to be made. And we can’t all be the ones making the decisions because there WILL be differences of opinion, and sometimes those opinions will be mutually exclusive. Further, in most cases, only a subset of the people have the gifts that allow the making of good decisions. (Democracies only work for highly educated societies – and even then the gifts and capabilities will tend to fall on a bell curve with the ones better qualified to make good evaluations and decisions occupying a small subset of the existing society). But if we are on the >2sigma part of that curve but not in a position of leadership, and we are in situation where our opinion differs from the decision of the appointed leaders, then many times we are obligated to yield to the decision made. Otherwise the congregation fragments, and in doing so loses power and presence as the ‘church’ in the world. It is imperative then that we out of respect for the church and the people appointed (and the Lord) defer to them in those situations as much as is possible in the Lord. (it goes without saying we can’t defer to decisions that are clear violations of some basic principle of Godliness or doctrine)

    In the church the leader is supposed to be a servant. He/She is a leader because of recognized gifts and character. He/She is a servant because they lead as a service to those that appointed them to leadership. And because they wish to emulate the model Christ put forward.

    And we can’t all be leaders.

    But when a bad egg becomes a leader, or even the entire leadership structure becomes infiltrated with bad eggs, then things get very nasty indeed. But that is not mean authority structures in the church are bad or evil. It means that men are bad and evil, and that we all must be vigilant. It also means that there does need to be as much as possible a distribution of power in any authority structure so that a bad egg can never be in a position to have full control.

    But my experience with the house church as a somewhat anti-authoritative expression of ‘the church universal’ has convinced me an authority structure is almost always better than no authority structure. But it should always be seen as a practical tool, a servant of order, never a means to the glorification or idolization of some man or men – never an end in itself . And if we are somewhere that men abuse authority in the church – we can always let them know they are out of line by confronting the problem, and if necessary voting with our feet. Any full time pastor or staff can’t eat or pay their bills on a congregation of 1.

    The trick is knowing when to walk vs. when to yield. I’m not going to even try to address that issue at this time.

    Zeta

  124. Zeta

    You said “There are varying levels of gifting, and some people are far better at seeing the big picture than others. Some better at teaching and retaining necessary information and skills. Those people are naturally going to gravitate to leadership positions, and the rest of us, if we feel we can trust them and are not given over to self- idolization, will naturally allow them to lead.”

    Here is where I disagree a bit with you. There are far too many people who appear to be “called” to be anointed leaders. And, I fear, the church has fallen into the trap of evaluating leaders like the secular community does. Jesus turned the idea of leadership on its head, emphasizing the servant role.He chose the unlikely. Do you think that Peter, while he was fishing, ever considered himself a soon to be leader of men?

    Today’s new breed of leaders appear to this blogger to be brash, self assured,mean, authority junkies who would have a hard time leading a business in the real world because they are so obnoxious that no one would “naturally” want to work for them. I believe we have created leaders in our own image as opposed to leaders who mirror the disciples.

    For example, my friend, I think you would make an excellent elder/pastor. I would feel at peace at night, knowing that you would be watching over things.

  125. Zeta,

    Thanks for your response. I think there is a great misunderstanding with many Christians as to the purpose and nature of elders, bishops, apostles, shepherd/teachers, etc.

    Jesus gave the apostles authority to heal the sick, cast out demons, and to preach the Gospel. He gave the same authority to the 70 elders. Authority was never given over other men.

    We are to submit to one another out of love – not out of authority. Elders and bishops (overseers) were men who had wisdom and could teach. They gave Godly counsel. We are encouraged to follow that counsel. It was not about authority.

    When I go to the Dr, he tells me how to get well. If I go to a marriage counselor, he tells me how to strengthen my marriage. If I go to a foreign country to visit and do some sight seeing, a tour guide will lead me and show me the way.

    Ephesians 4:12 “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry, to the building up of the body of Christ.”

    So these callings/giftings were for the equipping of the saints. For training, teaching, guiding, counseling, etc. They were not to Lord it over anyone. They did not have authority over the saints. They are equippers. They give us the tools and the knowledge necessary to mature and to learn.

    They cannot tell people they must be baptized to me a member. They cannot command tithing. They cannot tell people they must put their children in Sunday school. They cannot demand participation in certain group activities. They cannot enforce a specific dress code like not wearing shorts to the Sunday morning service.

    Jesus Christ is the ONLY head of the church. We are all under His authority, and the authority of His word.

    “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.” (Matthew 23:10 – NASB)

    Here is a very good article on this subject:

    http://www.friktech.com/rel/kings1.htm

  126. I agree with David C on Thu, Nov 10 2011 at 09:45 am! That is why a democratic governance of the church, which reflects the priesthood of each and every believer, is the model that allows all of the members to participate in decision making, appointment of committees and of those who operate the business affairs of the local body. More ability in the worldly realm results in being on a committee or being a moderator, selected for a term and limited by the body to such issues.

    Most local bodies err by assuming that spiritual calling means being in charge of non-spiritual matters, but few seminary trained people have training in business management, personnel, tax, building and grounds maintenance, utilities, etc., etc. But the error is in putting that one person in charge of all of those things, rather than having them under the charge of the congregation and the committees appointed by the congregation.

  127. dee
    I too enjoy all the differing opinions allowed here. And most are very respectfu of others. 😉

    You write – Nov 09 2011 at 02:08 pm…
    “So many wonderful Christians, who do so many good things for Christ, are members of churches. Even if some would disagree with the church structure, it would be nice to try to say it a different way.”

    I like the answer by David C… “It is the SYSTEM that is accused of harlotry,
    NOT those who are being abused by that system.”

    I lovingly challenge you on your understanding of, and use of, the word – “Church”…
    Because – Jesus warned us about “making void” the Word of God by your tradition.

    Mark 7:13
    KJV – Making the word of God of “none effect” through your tradition…
    ASV – Making “void” the word of God by your tradition…
    NIV – Thus you “nullify” the word of God by your tradition…

    I have a feeling that when you say “church” – and I say “Church”…
    It just ain’t the same thing. 😉 Which “church” are we talking about?

    1 – “The Church of God?” Where Jesus is the head of the body,
    (The ekklesia, the called out one’s), The Church? 🙂

    2 – the church of man? Where the 501 (c) 3, non-profit, tax $ deductible,
    Religious $ Corporation? Is called by most today the church? 🙁
    IMO – This is where todays so-called “leaders” do their “Kingdom Building.”

    Seems, in the Bible, “The Church” The Ekklesia, the called out one’s,
    refers to people, individual’s and an assembly, and now the house of God. 😉
    Aren’t we – “the Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood. Ac 20:28.

    Did Jesus shed “His Blood” for: An organization? An institution? A building?
    A denomination? A business? A $ Corporation? NO – He shed His Blood for you and me.

    Should “Disciples of Christ” call a $ Corporation – “The Church of God?” 😉

    Don’t know if you ever checked or not but… In the Bible, I found…

    NO one ever *Led* “A Church.”
    NO one ever *joined* “A Church.”
    NO one ever *went to* “A Church.”
    NO one ever *Tithed* to “A Church.”
    NO one ever brought their friends to “A Church.”
    NO one ever applied for membership in “A Church.”
    NO one ever gave silver, gold, or money, to “A Church.”
    NO buildings with steeples and crosses called “A Church.”
    NO – Pastors – in Pulpits – Preaching – to People – in Pews. 😉

    In my experience… that’s what happens in #2 – the church of man. Yes?
    In the Bible… Believers become “the Church of God.” 🙂

    IMO – “The Traditions of Men” we all came to believe is the “church” – Ain’t the Church.
    “The church of man” is a business, run like a business and is filled with “Spiritual Abuse.”

    I’m blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul… Jesus…

  128. As usual we all seem to get wrapped around the horn on language and give little attention to meaning. I think Orions Belt hit the nail on the head. Church structure is neccessary, authoritarian leadership is not. By the nature of this blog many of the folks that post here are very down on organized churches because they’ve been wounded by them. That’s understandable. It’s happened to me to which is why I keep coming to this site…..BUT I got hurt in a car accident once too….that doesn’t mean I don’t drive any more…it just means I’m more careful about how I do it. I got thrown by a horse once but I still ride. I got my heart broken by a girl once but I still got married. I even got very hurt by a church or two…but I still attend one.

    Just because some churches/pastors/leaders are bad does not mean that ALL “organized churches/pastors/leaders” are evil authoritarian pigs. BTW biblical church leaders do exist. Whether you want to call them leaders or not is a matter of language. Even in those “unorganized” home churches there are leaders. Formal or informal they are leaders. Someone makes the announcements or meeting times….someone calls to check on people they haven’t seen lately…someone puts together a phone list or prepares snacks. Leadership is about way more than a position of authority. Who here is going to say that Paul or the other Apostels were not leaders of the early church?

  129. Jerry
    I am a member of a local church. however, if you read the intro to this post, you will see that it is directed at those who have been hurt or view with suspicion a church community. This is one way to take time to see how that community functions. The longer i have been a Christian the less i am enamored of joining a church willy nilly. Also, some churches change over time and what was once a dynamic congregation can become bound in rules. Also, some people have been betrayed at very deep levels. Give them time. Please read the comment in this thread by Tom Rich. God to his site and see what happened to him. Note how his current church said that there would be some “steps” that would need to be taken before he could join.

    There is a great deal of a difference between comparing a car or a girlfriend to one’s spiritual community.

  130. Jerry

    Just something to think about when you say… “Who here is going to say that Paul
    or the other Apostels were not leaders of the early church?”

    Haven’t you ever wondered why Jesus taught His Disciples NOT to be called “Leaders?”
    For you have “ONE” leader – the Christ. Mat 23:10 NASB – And NONE did… 😉

    New American Standard Bible – Mat 23:10-12.
    Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.
    But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
    Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

    The Message – Mat 23:10-12.
    And don’t let people maneuver you into taking charge of them.
    There is only one Life-Leader for you and them—Christ.
    Do you want to stand out? – Then step down. – Be a servant.
    If you puff yourself up, you’ll get the wind knocked out of you.
    But if you’re content to simply be yourself, your life will count for plenty.

    Jesus instructed **His disciples** NOT to be called **leaders** and NONE did.

    Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
    Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ,
    Col 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ,
    Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God,
    Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God
    2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant

    **His Disciples** all called themselves **Servants.**
    None called themselves “Leaders.” None? None.
    None called themselves “Servant-Leader.” None.

    If Jesus instructed **His Disciples** NOT to call themselves “leaders”
    and someone calls them self a “leader” or thinks they are a “leader;”

    Are they a “Disciple of Christ?”

    Why isn’t what Jesus said important? 😉

    And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
    them also I must bring, and they shall **hear MY voice;**
    and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
    John 10:16

    One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice – One Leader

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

  131. Amos I’ve had this conversation before with people and it amazes me that folks can’t grasp such a simple concept. Perhaps we’ve had so many failed leaders in churches and politically that people no longer understand what being a leader means. I suspect that alot of people these days also have authority issues and bristle at the word leader. Let’s put it very simply: You don’t have to be called a LEADER to be a LEADER. Paul was a leader in the early church regardless of whatever noun you want to associate with him. The fact is he LED people. He guided, advised, praised and even admonished people. He set an example and urged others to follow that example. This is what leaders do. There is in point of fact no such thing as a group of people that is completely leaderless. Individuals can be but groups never are. They may be informal leaders that eshew titles but they are Leaders notheless. Like Orions Belt said, people with the gift of leadership naturally gravitate twoards those positions be they formal or informal.

    Dee believe me I’m not argueing that people should not go into a new church with their eyes closed. When we were trying to find a new church after our experience I approached each church we visited like someone was trying to sell me a used car. Skeptical and on-gaurd does not come close to describing it.

    My comments were more aimed at the other comments some folks have made than with the article itself. I think the article should be required reading for finding a new church after you’ve been hurt by an old one. The problem is that, after being hurt, people tend to give up on attending a church altogether and I don’t think that’s the right answer….I made that mistake myself once, being real negative about “organized churches” and it resulted in an almost 10 year period in my life were I was not walking the walk the way I should. Ultimatly that almost cost me my marriage and family. I rather not see others go through that.

  132. Amos as an aside I see that when you quoted from Mathew above you quote from a translation that proved your point…in the interest of full disclosure I think it would be fair for some context and some other translations don’t you?

    Context: Jesus is admonishing the Pharasis while speaking in the temple.
    NIV 1984 and NLT uses Teacher instead of Leader…by your arguement anyone called Teacher is bad.
    American Standard and King James says “Master” and “instead be a servant” which I believe is Jesus’s point.
    NIV says “instructors” which sucks for me because I used to carry that title at work. Dang.

    Translations of the Bible are tricky things don’t you think. (Greek and Hebrew are pesky sometimes.) One translation proves your point and another shows it in a different light. I guess it’s ok to be a leader in a church unless you only use the New American Standard Bible…then it’s bad….but at least you can have Masters, Teachers and Instructors.

    Either way I believe the context of the verses you selectively quote is that Jesus is saying everyone should have a servants heart and no one is exalted above anyone else by virtue of their position or rank like the Pharisees.

    Still I can’t find anywhere in your referece where it says or implies “thou shalt not have leaders at church”.

  133. It has been said that in every organization that ends up democratic in structure, there is one autocratic decision: the initial organizer autocratically decides to organize a democratic structure, rather than something else!

    If an organization of purported equals is to continue in a non-hierarchical, non-authoritarian, and non-autocratic condition, those who are “natural” leaders must use those capabilities to maintain participatory democracy. As an example, my family were members of such a church. The pastor, who in our society is naturally considered a leader, refused to serve as church moderator, would often remind the monthly business sessions that the “whatever” committee was making the recommendation and should be asked the questions, etc. When asked what he felt about a motion, he would defer to being last and then say, “I think everything that needs to be said has been said, so let’s vote.” Yet, when I as personnel chairman wanted his input on an issue, we would have lunch and one-on-one discuss the matter. So it was rare that he would be surprised by a committee recommendation to the church.

    I believe we had a strong community spirit because we worked together, as committee members and as a church business session, to make decisions. This was in a church with regular attendance in the 400-500 range people on a Sunday.

    Churches larger can work on a democratic basis, it just takes a little effort and inventiveness and a pastor and other staff who stay out of trying to run everything. Train up a congregation i the way it should govern itself, and as it grows it will not stray from that path.

  134. BTW, this church had women as committee chairs, including as the chair of the nominating committee that filled all of the committee slots, including chairs, all of the teaching slots, etc., and at least some committees where chaired by women. Only the deacons were solely men, but the deacons did not do church business, but were in ministry to families living in near them, each responsible for about ten family units, and being concerned about the elderly, ill, and needy in the congregation, sort of like those in the early church in Jerusalem.

  135. Here are some very good points on the authority issue. The pdf link to the entire article (11 pages) is at the bottom of this post.

    1. The duty to worship God (to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength) is the responsibility of every individual. Therefore, the authority and jurisdiction to worship God belongs to each individual, not to any group or corporate body. There is no right or duty of corporate worship.

    2. Religious freedom is the right of every individual, which right flows from the duty and authority each individual receives from God. Religious freedom is by definition an individual right, not a group or corporate right.

    3. The authority of the Church is given to every individual believer – not to any group or subset of believers, nor to any leadership or hierarchy among believers. All Church authority is
    vested completely in every individual believer.

    4. Every believer is accountable solely to God and not to any man or group of men for the worship of God, the exercise of religious freedom, and the exercise of Church authority.

    5. Believers may cooperate together in worship and the exercise of religious freedom if they wish, but this adds nothing to the validity or sanctity of the worship. A believer is not required
    to meet or associate with others to worship God or have his religious rights recognized.

    6. All believers are, and of right ought to be recognized as, equal under the laws of God and man. No law may recognize any difference in religious status, rights or authority as between one
    believer and another.

    7. There is no religious authority which any church leader may claim, which does not also belong of right to every individual believer. No particular persons designated as clergy or otherwise,
    has any religious authority whatsoever which is not also shared in equal measure by every other individual believer.

    8. An individual does not have to go through anyone else to get access to God. An individual does not need anyone’s permission to become a believer and cannot be made an unbeliever by another’s will.

    http://www.lonang.com/Reclaim_the_Church.pdf

  136. Arce,

    In many ways I actually do not really believe in a ‘democratic’ (in the true sense of the word) church government. There are some things for which it makes sense to get a consensus opinion. But there are a lot of things that just don’t.

    One of the critical problems with a true democracy is that most of the time the majority of the folks in a particular church gathering aren’t involved enough or mature enough to be trusted with all decisions that need to be made.

    Secondarily, I do not see a democracy ever being established as the governance for the local church in scripture. There was always some subgroup in charge. A good bit of Timothy deals with how timothy, not an elder, should deal with conflicts where he is the one who knows best, but is not the one in charge. Why all that useful information on how to conduct oneself in such a way if there was not a subgroup of people in that church that he needed to defer to?

    But we do need to be careful not to conflate different issues.

    First there is the question: should there be leaders in a local congregation. The answer to that is yes. Not only that, as Jerry pointed out, even if you try to answer that no and set up some kind of leaderless congregation, you will, whether you like it or not, have leaders rise up – usually too many of them. And they will actually, in the end fight over the fact one thinks the other is ‘usurping a leadership role’, each one LEADING the charge against the other.

    If you don’t believe me – just go form your own perfect, leaderless church and lets get back together in 10 years and see how it went.

    The second question is what kind of leadership structure makes sense, and WHO should the leaders be. I think the scripture gives us good guidelines for this, but we have to factor in our own culture into the equation. What made sense as a leadership structure in Rome in 100 AD is not necessarily what is going to make sense in the USA in 2011.

    And the third, and most important question is WHO should be leaders. That is, of course, at the heart of a lot of the turmoil and trouble these blogs are devoted to exposing. Lots of the people that end up ‘leaders’ in the church today end up bad eggs about half the time. So something is broken about how we select leaders. I personally believe one of the things that is broken is the seminary system itself. We orient our training around YOUTH. But the Bible leaders were called ELDERS. We should not be turning over the reigns of local congregations to young, impetuous, arrogant, and easily tempted by their own success, kids who happen to be good at school and public speaking.

    There is a happy medium between the vim and vigor of youth (necessary for starting new congregations and building vibrant congregations) and the wisdom that comes with age. Personally, I don’t think the Elders of a church should be much younger than 40. And I don’t think a teaching pastor (just using current terminology for reference) should be younger than 35. If a church adopts a ‘head pastor’ model, then that person should be at least 40. I offer these ages as guidelines, not laws. There will always be exceptions. But even the most mature appearing 30 year old will have gaps in their maturity commensurate with their age.

    A person needs to live the christian life IN THE WORLD but not of it for a while before they start trying to tell other people how to do the same. They need to experience some variety in their own life, feel what it is like to grow and mature so they can understand why they should value the input of those even more mature than they are, and why they should be careful not to put people that are too young in charge.

    And most of all, they need to prove through the school of hard knocks they have the chutzpah to live for Christ outside that walls of a pastors study. To face all the temptations and difficulties that real life brings and remain faithful. You don’t want untried, unrefined, unscarred by the difficulties of life people running the church. They don’t know what they are doing.

    Zeta

  137. I’d like to add: people with wisdom and experience and character are rare. But they have a lot to offer. They can see problems others can’t see, they have seen where certain roads lead.

    And that is why we need leaders. We don’t hire the kid next door to takes us up Mt. Everest. We need leaders in the church because we need the people that have been over the trail to help guide us successfully over the same trail.

    Where we are screwing up in that is that we keep hiring the kid next door to lead us up Mt. Everest. And for those that have only experience being led by the kid next door, it looks to them like a guide to help us get up Mt. Everest is silly – they do not better than we could ourselves.

    But that is because we aren’t hiring the right people to take us up Mt. Everest. The people that have already been and come back alive.

    Zeta

  138. Christ is the Head of the body of Christ. We are to be led by the Holy Spirit.

    9. Since Christ is the head of the Church, by definition there is no human head of the Church. All church authority on earth is of necessity decentralized and a matter of local organization as each locality sees fit, subject only to such restrictions as apply to all believers universally. No man or group of men stands in the place of Christ to rule the visible Church.

    12. No group of people can possess any greater right or authority than what is possessed by each member individually. No group of believers can possess any religious or ecclesiastical authority whatsoever which is not also possessed by every individual believer.

    http://www.lonang.com/Reclaim_the_Church.pdf

  139. You have actually made my point. There is spiritual leadership and there is the conduct of the business affairs of the church. For spiritual leadership, we HIRE a pastor to be the servant of the church. But the business affairs of the church, budgets, buildings and those sort of things, who sits on committees, etc., those should be decided by the congregation.

    As I have written elsewhere on this blog, the term elder applied to all who were Christians in the first century church and not in some other called and given role. To be baptized, one underwent a year of study and learning under other congregants. Then came baptism. After that, one was a full part of the congregation. Baptism did not generally include the young, only adults. Generally, all congregants in the area having been Christians more than the year required for baptism were considered elders. So it was governance by the congregation.

    In many Baptist churches, the deacons serve in the role of elders as well as deacons. But the questions arises, what part of the operations are handled by whom. Business affairs should be by the congregation, spiritual matters — by the elders or deacons supervising the pastoral staff.

    People being paid should not be making the decisions — never put a person in charge of the budget that their income comes from without outside checks and balances.

  140. May I add my 2 cents? Actually just a quick question. Why doesn’t Paul ever talk about leadership to the churches he writes to? You know, something like “Listen to your pastors”, or “Follow the advice of your leaders.”

    The silence seems deafening in Paul letters to the churches. How are these Gentiles suppose to set up church government, when Paul never says one word about this matter? He tells Timothy and Titus about elders, deacons, and overseers, but not anything about their roles in some form of a church government. Why is that?

  141. Zeta/Arce

    I have some questions for you. You(Zeta) say that many church members are immature and incapable of making wise decisions. Then, i look at today’s “leadership” and I see a leadership gap. Yet, we advocate for “leaders.” I am concerned that the whole system is in disarray. If we truly believe the Holy Spirit is given to all at the time of conversion, then the average church member has this Spirit. Corinthians speaks of the Body, functioning together, each having an important part of the action.

    If we remove the majority of the church from leadership, do we not remove a significant part of the Holy Spirit? Are we giving up the totality of the Spirit as expressed in the lives of the congregation? Are these folks any more whacked out than many (and I do mean many) in today’s leadership? I would rather take the Holy Spirit, in all of it’s glory within all of the membership, than restrict this to a few leaders.

    Sin affects the whole system. So, why should we trust leaders more than the average Christian?Paul talks about how we are to function. What if that system is broken down? If we really functioned in the way it seems to be intended, shouldn’t leadership be decentralized, putting those in positions that fit their gifts and allowing them to run with it with a minimal of oversight? Why should I trust a group of elders anymore than a woman who has a heart for children and starts a ministry to inner city kids? Could it be that para-church groups got started because people felt stifled in the local church and needed to own the process?

    Arce-I have become quite a fan for the system that was worked out in your church. It seems to me that power is decentralized and pastors are removed from the money which, in my opinion is wise.

  142. David

    I am most empathetic to your point of view in this matter. I have seen some very bad leaders who have done some dastardly things.

    Yet, I have also seen a few leaders who selflessly encourage the people in their gathering to grow and effectively engage in all sorts of ministries. For example, I am indebted to Pete Briscoe for asking me to teach when i didn’t even know if i could. His strong support opened up a whole new venue for me that I never could have imagined.

    He did this for many, many people in the church. He held “leadership” meetings that were open to anyone who was interested in being leaders in various ministries. He honored so many people on a weekly basis, from a a kid’s preschool teacher to missionaries to people who worked with the poor. He called them all leaders. He even has a woman pastor for whom he went out on a line, knowing it would likely ostracize him from some mainstream evangelicals. If he were to call me today and ask me to do something, I would hop to it because he has demonstrated Godly, sacrificial leadership in the position to which he was called. He puts others before himself.

    There are differing gifts in the fellowship. There is a beauty in the gathering of the saints. We are called to minister to one another and i do see that happening, often, in the local gatherings that some call church buildings. The deeper issue is man’s sin nature and how we can effectively deal with this as we work together. My own tendency towards self-preservation is why i need to be in regular communion with a group of the saints who know me and can push me a bit to see things differently. God’s Spirit is in me but t is also expressed in the community.

    Perhaps you hear the voice of the Spirit better than do I. You may be one of those people who hears God’s voice very clearly and do not have the need for the Spirit moving in others. i fear I am not that strong. You are looking at a weak vessel who needs the regular conviction and encouragement of the saints.

  143. CC Rider
    If I were to play devil’s advocate, i might point out that those letters were most likely addressed to the leadership in those church such as Galatia, et al. The local gatherings were already in full force, the churches formed and the leaders in place. And now, there were issues that needed to be addressed.

  144. I think one thing perhaps that needs to be said is that I am very, VERY, jaded against people who think they have figured out the ‘perfect’ way to run a church. Over the last 30 years these kinds of people have ruined every single fellowship I have ever been a part of, regardless of its denominational affiliation or lack thereof. Usually inciting some kind of uprising against the existing leadership of the church and a subsequent split in the church with all the hurt and disarray that comes with it.

    To me there is something fundamentally unChristlike that is part of the mentality that has to have everything ‘perfect’. Nothing is perfect. We work within what we have and strive to make if better and in all things we walk in grace. We seek God as a best as possible as a group, and yes there are those situations that must be addressed, and sometimes there are irreconcilable differences, but those need to be something more substantial than what KIND of church government there is.

    Please understand the difference between WHO is in charge and what KIND of structure exists. ANY authority structure has problems, and functions only as well as the people that make it up are honest, Godly people of character. Some systems are generally better than others at balancing the various temptations and tendencies to sin and the abuse of power, so clearly we should gravitate to a system within that set.

    That being said, the scriptures do give us basic guidelines that I believe provide sufficient information. We can also study the history of the church for examples of how various historical leaders and institutions have approach the issues of authority.

    Arce, I’ve heard your claims about 1st century church governance before by folks in the home church movement. I’m not sure I believe them as a general application and as a sustainable mode, as the dominant model, or as a model that survived the test of time – it is contrary to what I am aware of, however, I’m aware of my own deficiencies in the study of church history so I’m going to take some time to research it and see what shows up. Keeping in mind that the Jerusalem church also held all things in common, another specific model that did not and could not survive the test of time. In the end it made the Jerusalem church poor and needy.

    What seems contrary to your statements is the fact that infant baptism enters the church very early, and the fact that there are passages in the new testament that mention specific requirements for elders/bishops etc. as unique appointments (not the general status of believers) We could of course be dealing with semantics as the terms deacon, pastor, bishop, etc tend to have multiple designations depending on who one is talking to.

    Zeta

  145. Hi dee,

    The letters are addressed to the saints in each location. Paul never even uses the word leadership. In Romans 16, Paul tells them to greet Phoebe, Prisca, Epaentus, Mary, etc etc.

    Paul does not describe any of them as leaders.

  146. Orion’s Belt,

    “Run” a church? The church is not a business. God is the WHO that is in charge. We are all under His Lordship and Headship.

  147. David C Christ is the Head of the body of Christ. We are to be led by the Holy Spirit.

    9. Since Christ is the head of the Church, by definition there is no human head of the Church. All church authority on earth is of necessity decentralized and a matter of local organization as each locality sees fit, subject only to such restrictions as apply to all believers universally. No man or group of men stands in the place of Christ to rule the visible Church.

    12. No group of people can possess any greater right or authority than what is possessed by each member individually. No group of believers can possess any religious or ecclesiastical authority whatsoever which is not also possessed by every individual believer.

    I agree with 9 for the most part, though the language is oriented it seems to me to support a home church like position.

    I disagree with 12. We are all a holy priesthood yes. But we do not all hold equal position in the church. If that were the case then Ananias and Saphira would not have been subject to the rebuke of Peter. Instead, they both fell dead at his feet. They did, in fact, answer to Peter and though him to the Holy Spirit.

    And indeed, we know that it was the Apostles that decided what should be the ‘burden’ of the gentile believers. They clearly had the authority to decide if gentile believes were to be circumcised or to follow the Jewish law. They decided they did not. Such decisions could not come from the Apostles if everyone has equal position in the church.

    To me there is something fundamentally wrong with not being able to recognize that some people have earned the right by their personal holiness and wisdom and experience to be recognized by those around them as being worthy of respect, as holding a de facto position of authority in the church. Recognizing them and designating them is a matter of convenience and practicality. I need to know who they are when I need their help. They need to have a certain amount of power/authority given them in order to be able to put their hard earned wisdom to the most effective use.

    One of the more practical reasons it seems to me for recognizing and designating authority is that there are lots of people that want authority but do NOT deserve it. Those people then know who is actually recognized as having what they would otherwise usurp for themselves. A system which has standards and official designations means if they want it, they’ve got to first earn it. They have to convince other they do in fact deserve it in some fashion.

    In all of this, of course, one should never lose sight of the fact that ‘leader’ or people in positions of ‘authority’, in the church, are, in fact, servants of the church. But them being servants does not mean they do not have real authority. But their authority is/should be wielded as a service to the church as a whole, never to serve themselves or their own personal pleasures.

    And this of course is another part of what is wrong with how authority is handled in the church today. The authority that exists is often seen as a means to gratify selfish desires, rather than a tool used to edify and strengthen the church as a whole.

    Zeta

  148. CCrider: “Run” a church? The church is not a business. God is the WHO that is in charge. We are all under His Lordship and Headship.

    Please observe the context. I am specifically criticizing those that get their panties in a wad over whether or not the authority structure of a particular fellowship matches perfectly whatever they envision as the ‘perfect’ authority structure – which includes everything from the Quaker’s sitting around waiting for God to speak to the Pope being Christ’s representative head of the church.

    Secondarily, how an organization is ‘run’ applies to whatever form of governance is in place and whatever kind of organization it is. It is not strictly a business term.

  149. Zeta,

    There was in the early church, leftover practices from Judaism. The transition was not immediate. There was much debate over circumcision, the law of Moses, etc. Some were still meeting in the Temple and Synagogues. The Holy Spirit is given to each and every believer. No one has more of the Holy Spirit. We all have giftings and callings, but not any authority over other believers. The Holy Spirit does not have authority over the Holy Spirit! We are to be led by the Spirit, not by some “pastor”. We can learn from a pastor, but he has no authority over anyone else. The ministries of Eph 4:11 are for the EQUIPPING of the saints. It is not about authority or some governmental structure.

    We are all to submit tone one another in love. Not out of fear or from being under someone else’s authority.

  150. Orion’s Belt,

    It is the body of Christ – not an organization. The Head controls the body. The Catholic church is man made and the Quakers is man made. There are no Catholics or Quakers in the Bible. There are no Presbyterians, Lutherans, or Methodists. The is ONE body of Christ. Paul warns in Corinthians about such divisions saying “I am of Paul”, or “I am of Cephas”. So why do Christians disregard this clear Biblical warning?

  151. David C on Fri, Nov 11 2011 at 10:32 am

    And my view is that the structure that results in every person being in submission to all of the others, and can best reflect the leadership of the Holy Spirit, especially in selecting people to be the spiritual and business servants of the congregation, is a democratic congregational governance which starts with prayer and concludes with prayer that the Holy Spirit will lead the congregation in making decisions. IT WORKS. And it glorifies God by minimizing the opportunity for the power hungry to overwhelm and turn the organization to selfish ends.

  152. David C,

    We seem to be talking past each other a bit. I am not talking about anything that violates the concepts you mention. Consider this simple practical exmaple:

    If we are folks of equal maturity in the Lord, but your gifts mean you lead in the area of worship, and my gifts mean I could lead in the are of teaching, then we then mutually submit to the other as God has given us authority and gifting.

    Or perhaps consider this: If I and 3 other folks in my congregation are equally gifted in teaching, and there are 2 teaching slots, then if we are all as we should be, then we can all equally assume the leadership role or alternately the student role without any conflict. But there IS real authority (and responsibility) given the teacher that does not exist in the non teacher at that time. Authority to lead the class, decide what is taught and how it is taught. And there is real submission required of the non-teacher not to grumble or undermine the one teaching as long as the content is sound.

    Can we agree on this much?

    Zeta

  153. CC Rider It is the body of Christ – not an organization. The Head controls the body. The Catholic church is man made and the Quakers is man made. There are no Catholics or Quakers in the Bible. There are no Presbyterians, Lutherans, or Methodists. The is ONE body of Christ. Paul warns in Corinthians about such divisions saying “I am of Paul”, or “I am of Cephas”. So why do Christians disregard this clear Biblical warning?

    How do you know they are man made? Why are they not also the ‘leading of the Holy Spirit’ and a vestage of that leading? The RCC structure rose out of the early church. Those traditions flowed from what was existing at the time. How do you know it was not exactly what God intended, at least at first? What gives you the right and ability to know it was all wrong, and all those early church fathers that thought it made sense just didn’t have the Holy Spirit?

    What makes you the person that knows best how to lead in this area?

    Zeta

  154. Arce,

    Why do you and Zeta call the bride of Christ an organization? I agree with CC Rider. It is the body of Christ and it is the bride of Christ.

    1 Cor 14:26 – 31 “What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret. But if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can ALL prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.”

    Is that happening in today’s church system? Can anyone give a teaching just the pastor? Does he need permission first? Can anyone sing a song? Or just the choir or worship team? Does a solo act need permission first? Can 2 or 3 speak out in a tongue if there is someone who has the gift of interpretation? Can 2 or 3 prophets speak? Most of today’s services are planned out in advance who is going to teach and who is going to sing. If someone gets a prophecy on the spot or a revelation, can they speak it? Or does it need to be approved in advance?

  155. Orion’s Belt,

    The names themselves are man made! The name Roman Catholic Church is not in the Bible. Nor are any of the other denominational names. Let’s start with the Catholic Church. Here are some of the things they teach and practice, and positions that are not in the Bible. Cardinals, Nuns, required celibacy for priests, praying to Mary, Holy Days of obligation, mortal and venial sins, indulgences, purgatory, limbo, calling priests “Father” (forbidden by Jesus, Monseigneur, transubstantiation, confessional booth, penance, lighting candles, holy water, the sign of the cross, the stations of the cross, etc etc etc etc. The list of man made nonsense is HUGE!

  156. But it did not start that way, that is the result of centuries of men making decisions about how to continue the faith, and making mistakes, because that the is result of people putting themselves forward and building a structure that is hierarchical rather than not, and the alternative looks a lot like democracy.

    Decisions have to be made. They can be made either by one, a few or the whole of the congregation. Once you have people who have to have decisions, you have a local organization. Fact of life. The question is, do we accede to anyone who says that the Holy Spirit told them to do thus and so, or do we have some checks and balances, and allow the entirety to make decisions based on what they perceive the Holy Spirit saying to them individually and as a group. For a variety of reasons, I prefer the latter, because group decisions are generally better than the decisions any individual in a group would make (social psychology research), and because the Bible teaches that we are all priests to each other. Another saying: The ground is level at the foot of the cross, none of us are the top of the heap so to speak.

  157. Jerry

    Thanks for the response. Sounds like you’ve found a place, a group of believers, and a structure, where you’re comfortable. And are now “walking the walk the way I should” with your family intact. Thank you Jesus. 🙂

    Seems we have different views about “leaders.” We also have different views about “church.” I don’t believe it’s possible to “find a new church.” Now finding a group of folks you like meeting with on a regular basis – I’m all for that.

    IMO – Where most go on Sunday morning – and give time, money, and allegiance to, is NOT the Church of God found in the Bible. Where most go on Sunday morning is a – 501 (c) 3, non-profit, tax $ deductible, Religious Corporation.” And Corporations, have heirarchy, “Leaders.”

    I was intrenched in “The Corrupt Religious System” of today. I was ordained. I was in “leadership.” I was guilty of “Exercising Authority” like the Gentiles over other believers. A big No, No, according to Mark 10:42-45. And “lording it over” God’s heritage. Another No, No, according to 1 Pet 5:3. 🙁

    You write…
    “in the interest of full disclosure I think it would be fair for some context and some other translations don’t you?” I appreciate your willingness to research the scriptures. And yes, “Greek and Hebrew are pesky sometimes.” 😉

    I’m familiar with the Bible versions you mentioned. The NIV 1984, the NLT, the NIV, also the ESV, and how they translate “kathegetes” in Mat 23:10, as teacher and instructor. The problem I have with those translations is in Mat 23:8, just two verses before, Jesus instructs His Disciples NOT to be called “Rabbi.” And every version you mentioned uses “Rabbi.” Now Rabbi, in Thayers, is – a title used by the Jews to address their “teachers.” Some versions say – you only have “ONE” teacher – Christ.

    So, in Mat 23:8, the Bible versions you mentioned use “Rabbi” which means “teacher.”
    Then in Mat 23:10, the Bible versions you mentioned use “Teacher” or “Instructer.”
    Seems a bit to repetitive to me. Why would Jesus tell His Disciples twice, in short order,
    NOT to be called “Teacher” for you have “ONE” teacher – the Christ?”

    I use “Leader” in Mat 23:10, because “Master” in the KJV is “kathegetes.” Strongs #2519,
    from two Greek words # 2596 + # 2233. Now #2233 is the Greek, “hegeomai.”

    And “hegeomai” is in Heb 13:17 KJV, Obey those who have “the rule over” you…
    A verse “The Abusive Religious System” – preaches on – a lot… Mis-uses – a lot…
    In the Bible versions you mentioned, Heb 13:17, “hegeomai” is translated as “Leader.”

    Seems to me “Leader” fits well in Mat 23:10. NOT “Teacher” or “Instructer.”
    But – I could be wrong. Been wrong before. 🙁

    I’m still willing to challenge those who want to be known as “Teacher.” 😉
    Because Jesus taught His Disciples NOT to be called “Teacher.”

    If someone wants to be known as a “Teacher” or calls themself “Teacher”
    Are they a “Disciple of Christ?” 😉

    Why isn’t what Jesus said important? 🙂

  158. David C Arce,

    Why do you and Zeta call the bride of Christ an organization? I agree with CC Rider. It is the body of Christ and it is the bride of Christ.

    There is no disagreement from me with you on this issue. I have said that a few times now. Perhaps you don’t believe me? Or perhaps you are not reading my posts thoroughly? However, as we meet together ‘organization’ is required for there to be order. Paul tells us this in 1 Corinthians 12-14. They were out of order, they where anarchy and everybody was just ‘following the -Lord- (their flesh)’ An order was them imposed by Paul. He said they need to take turns giving what they felt God had given them and he gave them a relative order of importance for the various gifts and giftings. All of this brings ‘organization’ to chaos. It is necessary.


    1 Cor 14:26 – 31 “What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret. But if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can ALL prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.”

    This works to a point. Now, what of the one that will not yield to the other. Or the one who always has something more to say that interrupts the other? WHO is it that says – we’re done now?

    I’ve been in lots of meetings that try to run this way. It works as long as everybody there is sane, seeking God, and humble. And it works a lot better in a small gathering than a large one. I would suggest that this model did not actually stand the test of time. It can work, it may even be really good sometimes, but it doesn’t work very well in the long run. I’ve never seen it work very well in the long run except as part of a small group Bible study or fellowship, and the fact few churches actually adopt this model successfully would to me be additional evidence along that line.


    Is that happening in today’s church system? Can anyone give a teaching just the pastor?

    Of course anyone can give a teaching. I love going to churches where that happens. Where those in leadership recognize that the authority and teaching comes from God and they are willing to let anyone God has given a message bring a message. But someone has to decide IF what the fellow that wants to talk is something that needs to be said. Someone or some group needs to apply discernment in who they allow to address the congregation. Nutcases lurk in the wings of fellowships that don’t exercise wisdom in this. There are lots of nutcases that would love the opportunity the get up in front of a group of people and tell what is loose in their minds.

    Does he need permission first?

    Feel free to let joe unknown take the mike. You’ll find out why it is not common soon enough.

    Can anyone sing a song? Or just the choir or worship team?

    Someone singing needs to have some reasonable level of gifting to sing, or they’d better have a really good message in that song (but better then just to read it).

    Does a solo act need permission first?

    Again, feel free to do it that way. You’ll find out soon enough why some amount of ‘preview’ and ‘permission’ works better.


    Can 2 or 3 speak out in a tongue if there is someone who has the gift of interpretation?

    Sure – at a time when the congregation/leadership agrees it makes sense. In Order. In turn. Not at random times based on the uncontrollable urges of those with no self-control.

    And then what of the guy who talks in a tongue and no-one interprets? Does anyone ever NOT ‘interpret’ … hmmm. Just sayin’.

    Can 2 or 3 prophets speak? Most of today’s services are planned out in advance who is going to teach and who is going to sing. If someone gets a prophecy on the spot or a revelation, can they speak it? Or does it need to be approved in advance?

    In advance – not necessarily. In a church open to the idea a person with a sense of the Holy Spirit’s leading should be able to approach those charged with maintaining oversight over the meeting and let them know. If everybody is listening to the Holy Spirit, then having to go through that channel will not hurt anything. But it can avoid the nasty when the crazy gets up and starts spouting nonsense.

    As for more traditional services. God can and does work through the structure, and they do miss, if they are married to their structure and don’t understand the leading of the Spirit, some of the ability to witness God working dynamically in the service.

    But totally random, uncontrolled, everybody is in charge is anarchy. Anarchy is fun till somebody gets hurt. And somebody always gets hurt. That’s just the way it is. Anarchy doesn’t work.

    But I know, you are talking about total Spirit leadership. And I’ve seen that. It’s really great. It’s powerful. But the average congregation can’t sustain it. Is devolves into disorder and chaos unless there is some form of leadership that can take corrective action when things miss the mark. And that is also just the way it is.

    Zeta

  159. Arce,

    Can you be more specific? What kinds of decisions need to be made, and by whom? My family is not an organization, and God’s family is never called an organization.

  160. Arce,

    For me I think that the elected eldership is one of the better models. There is a plurality – this keeps the ‘one man in charge’ thing from taking over, but also it recognizes that people that are gifted in an area are more likely to make better decisions. It also allows those charged with making the decisions the ability to focus more on that task. Realizing that for most of us the affairs of everyday life are, in fact, distracting and limit how effectively we can focus on the affairs of the church. It allows the congregation to recognize who among them has distinguished themselves and prayerfully bring them forward to the position.

    I’m not overly fond of a full democracy, and to be fair, most democracies are NOT, in fact, full democracies. There are many practical reason why this is so, both in the Church and outside it.

    For clarity, let me speack of the Church as BOTH the generalized body of Christ world wide AND the many expressions of that body as they meet together and fellowship together in various gatherings. For the most part when we speak of human authority in the church, we speak of those who guide and direct those local gatherings. Though many denominations have a hierarchy that extends beyond that. God can, and does, work with, and in spite of, all of it.

    Zeta

  161. C C Rider – David C

    Sounds like we’ve been drinking out of similar streams in the wilderness. 😉

    Jesus is the best “Teacher” and the best “Leader.” Yes?

    Seems most today are looking to mere fallible humans to teach them and lead them.

  162. Elected eldership? Verse please?

    If I meet at the local park with a group of Christians, and someone starts teaching false doctrine, then we can each gently correct him. Same with false prophecies or any other thing that is deemed to be out of order. We do not need to organize it. The body knows how to look out for it’s own. Wolves in sheep’s clothing will soon be weeded out and weirdos will be avoided. There is no need to organize anything except who is bringing the beer ans hot dogs.

  163. dee

    You were playing devils advocate with CC Rider on Fri, Nov 11 2011 at 09:35 am.

    FYI – Here are most of the NT letters. I can find only one letter, Phillipians,
    addressed to “All” the saints, “with” bishops and deacons.

    Other then Phillipians, the letters are addressed to “All,” brethren, saints, strangers, elect,
    twelve tribes, them that have obtained like precious faith, them that are sanctified by God,
    the ekklesia of God, the Church of God. The letters are addressed to people, the called out on’es

    Not one letter is addressed to a “Poimen” Pastor or Shepherd. Or leader…

    Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle…
    v-7 To “all” that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be “saints.”

    1 Cor 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ…
    v-2 Unto “the church of God” which is at Corinth…

    2 Cor 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
    unto “the church of God” which is at Corinth, with all the “saints” which are in all Achaia…

    Gal 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ…
    v-2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto “the churches” of Galatia…

    Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ… to “the saints” which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus…

    Phil 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ,
    to “all the saints” in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons…

    Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
    v-2 To “the saints” and “faithful brethren” in Christ which are at Colosse…

    1 Thes 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto “the church” of the Thessalonians…

    2 Thes 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto “the church” of the Thessalonians…

    1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ…
    v-2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith:

    2 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God…
    v-2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son…

    Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ…
    v- 4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith…

    Philomen 1:1 Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother,
    unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,
    v-2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to “the church” in thy house…

    James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
    to “the twelve tribes” which are scattered abroad, greeting.

    1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
    to “the strangers” scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
    2 “Elect” according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…

    2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
    to “them that have obtained like precious faith” with us
    through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

    Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,
    to “them that are sanctified by God” the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

    So, I can not find one letter addressed to a “Poimen,” pastor or shepherd. Or leder…

    You also use, “Local Churches.” The Bible doesn’t use “Local.”

    Church/Ekklesia is not only “assembly.” It also can mean “called out one’s.”

    Jesus is the head of the body, (the ekklesia, The called out one’s), the Church.

    We don’t know how many “Aseemblies” are in these towns.
    Could be more then “one” assembly.

    So, when Paul writes…
    1 Cor 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ…
    v-2 Unto “the church of God” which is at Corinth…

    It could be translated…
    1 Cor 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ…
    v-2 Unto “the body of Christ” which is at Corinth…

    Or…
    1 Cor 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ…
    v-2 Unto “the called out one’s” which is at Corinth…

    The “Church” at Corinth was compossed of all the believers in that town
    and could have been meeting in more then one location.

    Isn’t Jesus present – Where two or three are gathered?

    Didn’t the ekklesia meet daily from house to house?
    Could have been many “assemblies” of two or three.

    Peace…

  164. In several churches we have been in, the bible study time (aka Sunday School) has usually had a designated “teacher” (very necessary for children and youth, btw). In most instances that person has actually be a convener of the class. In one instance, everyone in the class was encouraged to sign up for a Sunday to be the facilitator of the class, to try to keep the discussion generally related to the scripture passage for that day.

    I have not been in an adult class (except in one church for a short time) where the “teacher” was lecturing. Rather, there might be some sharing of some background material on a passage for a few minutes, but always a facilitated discussion where all of those present were encouraged to participate. This included when we have had very senior theologians in the class “teaching” (Charles Talbert, Roger Olson, David Garland) or equally capable but younger theologians (Andrew Arterbury, Dennis Tucker) or freshly minted ones (Jason Whitlark). That is because we really work to put into practice the concept of the priesthood of all believers and the idea that the Holy Spirit speaks to all of us.

    BTW, in our class we have a district court judge and spouse, an attorney and spouse, three religion professors and spouses, two seminary professors and spouses, two other seminary graduates. And the convener is a hospice nurse, and his spouse is usually coordinating another class and not with us except for social events.

  165. Arce
    Ever thought about putting your class discussion online for those who do not have such fellowship?

  166. David C:Elected eldership? Verse please?

    To elect is to chose. To show that elders are chosen from the members of the local congregations is fairly simple:

    Act 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in every church …

    Acts 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate the brethren determined that Paul and Barnablas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue ..

    Notice here the local elders where not good enough, they had to go to Jesusalem.

    Titus 1:5 For this reason I (Paul) left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.

    Notice here that Paul give Titus authority to appoint elders, again a recognition both of pauls authority and his ability to delegated it. It goes without saying that if everybody there was an elder, there would be no need to appoint them.

    But you are correct in the sense that it does appear the elders in the 1st century church were appointed by those already having high positions of authority (like Paul or the Apostles) over their associated congregations, not elected by the congregations themselves.

    While I’m at it, that elders had authority over others in the congregation is also fairly easy to establish:

    First noting from acts 14 and 15, which I quote some from above, not only were there elders, there where the elders in Jerusalem, the ones that hung around with the Apostles. And these folks issued decrees about the necessity of circumcision and the Jewish Law for new believers. And the idea one can dismiss this as an exception because this was ‘early in the church’ is circular and illogical. Why? – You are appealing what was done in the early church to justify the position there need be no official authority in the church.

    1 Timothy 5:17 “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of a double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

    “rule” here in the greek is to ‘to put before, to set over, to rule’.

    In the next verse Paul gives a special reminder, singling the elder out:

    1 Timothy 5:19 “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.”

    1 Peter 5:2 (to the ‘elders’) shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God, and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.

    Does it make sense for such an admonition to even exist if the elders had no special authority over the congregation?

    Not also that in describing the appointment of elders in Titus pauls uses a synonym for them, for their function, translated here ‘overseer’ (bishop in some tranlations)

    Titus 1:7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed , not quick -tempered … (9) … so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict.

    Paul knew their needed to be oversight, and authority structure to help keep things going the right direction. And he appointed men, elders/overseers to do that job. They were part of the early church, and they even had relative ranks, with those nearest the apostles in Jerusalem having even greater authority in the church universal.


    If I meet at the local park with a group of Christians, and someone starts teaching false doctrine, then we can each gently correct him. Same with false prophecies or any other thing that is deemed to be out of order. We do not need to organize it. The body knows how to look out for it’s own. Wolves in sheep’s clothing will soon be weeded out and weirdos will be avoided. There is no need to organize anything except who is bringing the beer ans hot dogs.

    In the broader picture of the entire church, I don’t think so. And apparently neither did Paul. Or The Apostles.

    In the park meeting above, you need to specify if this is a regular gathering of believers that participates in all the various functions of the church, or is it just a one off. Further, by what authority do YOU rebuke the false prophet above? Why can’t he just turn around and rebuke you? And why would the congregation so gathered recognize your authority to rebuke and not the crazy false prophet?

    My experience with this sort of thing is that you have a misconception both of the early church and of what is actually going on, even in a so called house church that exists with a minimal explicit authoritative structure. First of all, there IS an authority structure there, even if it is not explicitly stated. And secondarily, as I have pointed out, the Early church had a hierarchical structure from its very earliest time. This structure became more elaborate as time progressed, but it was always there.

    Zeta

  167. I apologize for my mistakes in the previous post concerning italics. I repost it here with corrections, hopefully. We need a preview function.

    David C:Elected eldership? Verse please?

    To elect is to chose. To show that elders are chosen from the members of the local congregations is fairly simple:

    Act 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in every church …

    Acts 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate the brethren determined that Paul and Barnablas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue ..

    Notice here the local elders where not good enough, they had to go to Jesusalem.

    Titus 1:5 For this reason I (Paul) left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.

    Notice here that Paul give Titus authority to appoint elders, again a recognition both of pauls authority and his ability to delegated it. It goes without saying that if everybody there was an elder, there would be no need to appoint them.

    But you are correct in the sense that it does appear the elders in the 1st century church were appointed by those already having high positions of authority (like Paul or the Apostles) over their associated congregations, not elected by the congregations themselves.

    While I’m at it, that elders had authority over others in the congregation is also fairly easy to establish:

    First noting from acts 14 and 15, which I quote some from above, not only were there elders, there where the elders in Jerusalem, the ones that hung around with the Apostles. And these folks issued decrees about the necessity of circumcision and the Jewish Law for new believers. And the idea one can dismiss this as an exception because this was ‘early in the church’ is circular and illogical. Why? – You are appealing what was done in the early church to justify the position there need be no official authority in the church.

    1 Timothy 5:17 “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of a double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

    “rule” here in the greek is to ‘to put before, to set over, to rule’.

    In the next verse Paul gives a special reminder, singling the elder out:

    1 Timothy 5:19 “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.”

    1 Peter 5:2 (to the ‘elders’) shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God, and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.

    Does it make sense for such an admonition to even exist if the elders had no special authority over the congregation?

    Not also that in describing the appointment of elders in Titus Paul’s uses a synonym for them, for their function, translated here ‘overseer’ (bishop in some translations)

    Titus 1:7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed , not quick -tempered … (9) … so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict.

    Paul knew their needed to be oversight, and authority structure to help keep things going the right direction. And he appointed men, elders/overseers to do that job. They were part of the early church, and they even had relative ranks, with those nearest the apostles in Jerusalem having even greater authority in the church universal.

    If I meet at the local park with a group of Christians, and someone starts teaching false doctrine, then we can each gently correct him. Same with false prophecies or any other thing that is deemed to be out of order. We do not need to organize it. The body knows how to look out for it’s own. Wolves in sheep’s clothing will soon be weeded out and weirdos will be avoided. There is no need to organize anything except who is bringing the beer ans hot dogs.

    In the broader picture of the entire church, I don’t think so. And apparently neither did Paul. Or The Apostles.

    In the park meeting above, you need to specify if this is a regular gathering of believers that participates in all the various functions of the church, or is it just a one off. Further, by what authority do YOU rebuke the false prophet above? Why can’t he just turn around and rebuke you? And why would the congregation so gathered recognize your authority to rebuke and not the crazy false prophet?

    My experience with this sort of thing is that you have a misconception both of the early church and of what is actually going on, even in a so called house church that exists with a minimal explicit authoritative structure. First of all, there IS an authority structure there, even if it is not explicitly stated. And secondarily, as I have pointed out, the Early church had a hierarchical structure from its very earliest time. This structure became more elaborate as time progressed, but it was always there.

    Zeta

  168. All of the mean-spirited posts questioning the spiritual authority of the professional clergy caste need to repent and be more humble and submitted. Don’t you realize that if you do not become an official tithing member, you are nothing more than a consumer who probably is not saved, or you are in sinful rebellion against authority and in danger of “sinful complacency”?

    “That is, a constant feeling of uneasiness that should exist in you knowing you and your family are not in covenant fellowship with a local church and are not under the authority of undershepherds caring for your souls. The freedom and absence of accountability many experience in the search for a new church can cause a sinful complacency.”

    http://practicalshepherding.com/2011/11/02/how-long-should-you-attend-a-church-before-pursuing-membership/

    Oh, the guilt trip and shame you will not have to suffer under anymore!
    Just sign the membership agreement and humbly pay your tithe!

  169. Zeta,

    Look at the way we all fellowship right here on this website. People respond to one another. People correct one another. People encourage and exhort one another. What if we all got together next Tuesday at the beach with our spouses and children for fellowship. Will we need to appoint elders? Does someone need to be in authority? We have all kinds of doctrines and opinions on this site. Are we in some kind of grave danger for allowing everyone an equal opportunity to speak their minds? Is this site out of order?

    I personally think these discussions bring glory to God, even when they get a little heated. This is a great way to fellowship and discuss God’s word. We are all discussing Christ and the word of God. Isn’t it wonderful? Not much organization going on here, thank God. Organization can quench the Holy Spirit.

  170. David C

    Well sure, of course we don’t need some kind of special leader on this website. I would never suppose we would. Why do you suppose that what I have said so far in this conversation would cause me to think we would need some kind of leader on this website?

    Beyond, of course, the Ultimate Blog Overlord and QUEEN, Dee, by whose grace we converse freely 🙂

    Zeta

  171. David C
    If you would like to send us a valid email address, we might consider allowing you to continue this discussion. I think we have met before.

  172. Zeta:

    Beyond, of course, the Ultimate Blog Overlord and QUEEN, Dee, by whose grace we converse freely 🙂

    Dee:

    David C
    If you would like to send us a valid email address, we might consider allowing you to continue this discussion. I think we have met before.

    Oh Drat, that must really be awkward. There IS after all a need for leadership and authority on this Blog.

    🙂

    Zeta

  173. Zeta
    You should see what I am being called behind the scenes! Such are the slings and arrows of authority!

  174. Jerry
    It depends on how you define the terms and under what circumstances. We have more people reading here than attend most mega-churches. If we were the pastors of a mega, we would be getting a raise.

  175. Church is about relationships with people. Unfortunately, many of our churches do a pretty good job of preventing that to happen. One friend told me that going to a church is like “a single person going to a singles bar.” You aren’t there to own the bar, you are there to meet other people.

    My wife and I treated church like this for a while, but became so frustrated with the infrastructure of the institution that we had to leave. We are now part of small organic church that meets in our home. We are also able to get out and build relationships with people who would never set foot into a church building. We’ve found Sunday mornings to be good times to build these relationships, since our small group of believers gathers on Thursday nights.

    Good post.

  176. I learned some time ago that when I move/relocate the family for whatever reason (nearly 30 years military) that my question should be “Lord, where do want me to serve you in this place?”