Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Paul Chappell - 12 Myths Of Pastoral Leadership


RSS Robot

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I have a fame and I raise sheep and goats, and as such, as a pastor who is a pastor, I have learned a lot about being the pastor of a church. The sheep I keep are not utimately my own-any good health they have, any growth, I have learned, even when giving good nutrition, it only by God's good grace, because they are His. Now, I am, as it were, master of the sheep and goats, BUT, as such, it means it is my responsibility to see that they are fed and watered and protected, that I spend time with them in felowship, of sorts, and sometimes, even to discipline them.

So it is for the pastor of a church: I may be an earthly shepherd/undershepherd, caring for the flock of God. I see to their feeding, to their watering, to their protection, ie, preaching against error and fae teachings and false prophets, (wolves), and so forth. They aren't mine-I am their servant, even while eading them, following the Shepherd of our souls.

The problem comes when pastors set themselves above the flock as unanswerable, as unavailable, as too important to be a servant. And yes, we see that very thing happen in IFB churches, though also in other churches, as well. Its wrong wherever it occurs.

BY the way, the church wasn't started by 12 elders, but by 12 disciples who were made apostles-that I recall, they are never called elders.The church was started by Jesus.

Act 15:4,6
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them...
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Sounds like the church began with elders, not "a pastor".

Not once will you find an example of a NT church with an "undershepherd", only with a plurality of bishops, apostles, elders.


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
You do realise that the main reason the word pastor is used is because of the negative association of the word bishop don't you? The Catholics etc have changed the meaning of the term so much that it is not helpful for a man to refer to himself as such. It immediately makes him seem self important. Elder also has with it an understanding that today is misunderstood, especially when associated with the old Presbyterian mob who in their traditional churches especially had ruling elders who ruled with an iron fist and actually dominated the people of their church (that is a generalisation and not so true today), and on more modern times the Mormons have changed it meaning. I know that most Australians now associate "elder" with mormons. That leaves pastor as the only "safe" option - that is primarily why the term is used. I normally tell people to call me anything they like just don't call me late for dinner. ;)
It's not the terms that are the problem, it is the false doctrine of setting up an earthly head in a local church, and building it on a word to with not one single shred of description as to its meaning, other than " flock feeder". Anishinaabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are indications of single pastors/bishops in churches, but no explicit statement that there must be one only, just as there are examples of multiple leaders but no explicit command of such.

In my opinion that means either is acceptable.

The kind of overbearing leadership that you are referring to has no relationship to single/multiple pastors, and everything to do with ungodly leadership full stop.

I know of "elder rule" churches where one of those elders is actually in control and in a controlling way, all the while proclaiming Presbyterian rule.

wherever you have a group leading an organisation there is always a boss.......
Even if he is not called the boss. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You do realise that the main reason the word pastor is used is because of the negative association of the word bishop don't you?
The Catholics etc have changed the meaning of the term so much that it is not helpful for a man to refer to himself as such. It immediately makes him seem self important.
Elder also has with it an understanding that today is misunderstood, especially when associated with the old Presbyterian mob who in their traditional churches especially had ruling elders who ruled with an iron fist and actually dominated the people of their church (that is a generalisation and not so true today), and on more modern times the Mormons have changed it meaning.
I know that most Australians now associate "elder" with mormons.

That leaves pastor as the only "safe" option - that is primarily why the term is used.
I normally tell people to call me anything they like just don't call me late for dinner. ;)

I wouldn't agree to change words around just because major cults like RC and Mormons misuse the words.

 

I witnessed to Mormon elders one time.  I ask them to take out their Bible (they always carry a small one just in case they need a bible verse to support their teaching when on visitation).  I had them read where it says and elder should be a husband of one wife.  They stopped and said so?  Then I asked if they were married and of course they said no.  Then I said how can you say your are followers of Jesus Christ when you disobey his rules?

 

I got a "well a our organization has a different meaning for an elder and besides the Bible is corrupt."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are indications of single pastors/bishops in churches, but no explicit statement that there must be one only, just as there are examples of multiple leaders but no explicit command of such.

In my opinion that means either is acceptable.

The kind of overbearing leadership that you are referring to has no relationship to single/multiple pastors, and everything to do with ungodly leadership full stop.

I know of "elder rule" churches where one of those elders is actually in control and in a controlling way, all the while proclaiming Presbyterian rule.

wherever you have a group leading an organisation there is always a boss.......
Even if he is not called the boss. ;)

Show me the " indications" of a church with a single leader in the Scriptures.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Is Jesus Christ the Spiritual leader of the church, the Body of Christ?

 

Are men the head of organizations that call themselves "churches"?

 

Are there multiple spiritual bodies of Christ or just one spiritual body of Christ?

 

Once gathering places for the Body yoke together with government for the purpose of "Money and Property" i.e. tax deductible giving which is a covetous way to give, or for not paying building tax on the gathering place, then these organizations will have to conform to govt guideline and have board of directors and a board of trustees which is the unbilical leadership of the church, the body of Christ.

 

then these church organizations are actually Businesses, and as such have to maintain a constant inflow of Money to operate which in turn they have to change and conform to their audience via entertainment and experiences so that they can continue to have the inflow of money to their organization.

 

the real myth is "Pastorial Leadership" itself.  Not one place in the Writings to the church by Paul does he once command that anyone or even himself appoint pastors in every church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The church was started by Jesus.

Act 15:4,6
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them...
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Sounds like the church began with elders, not "a pastor".

Not once will you find an example of a NT church with an "undershepherd", only with a plurality of bishops, apostles, elders.


Anishinaabe

Sorry-misspoke answering what you said-Jesus started the church, He is the head of the church, it is His body-but the 12 He used were apostles, not elders. There were elders there, too, yes, and I have ot disputed that fact. BUT, even among the 12, James seemed to be the leader.

 

When Paul came to speak with them at Jerusalem concerning the Judaizers, it was discussed, Peter spoke specifically, but it was James who gave the final declaration of what few parts of the law the churches should adhere to, (no eating blood or things strangled, no fornication, et al). Notice James' own words:

   "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:19, 20).  Obviously they spoke together, and made a decision, and the letter was even sent by them all, BUT, James clearly is the one who gave the sentence. James was in charge, (much to the conternation of any honest Catholic that it wasn't Peter).

 

But again, I am in no way saying that a pastor, or elder or bishop, whatever you want to call them, is master and overlord, (though bishop DOES mean overseer, which certainly implies some authority)They are, as the term Pastor implies, a shepherd, or an undershepherd, if you will, who leads, through life, teaching and example, the local flock of God.Which, again is why eders were ordined in every city-churches needed ordained leaders then as they do today, but they must, indeed, follow the biblical pattern.

 

NOw, personally, I am beginning to lean a bit closer to a 1Cr 14 pattern for a church, which is where more than one person would speak and the others would discuss what was spoken, or judge it, as the Bible says, for scriptural accuracy. Not just one guy standing and blah-blahing for 45 minutes, (that would be me blah-blahing, by the way). This is something that has been on my heart for a while, and I just brought it up to the men in my church last Thursday. They seemed to like the idea, but, like myself, there is the reservation that some might be put-off when visiting, as, even though it is biblical, it is rarely done anymore. And of course, it probably would not work in some of the larger churches-too many to speak. There would have to be some serious logisitcs done to make it work there.   So we thought we would try it in the evening service first, for a while, and see how it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

NOw, personally, I am beginning to lean a bit closer to a 1Cr 14 pattern for a church, which is where more than one person would speak and the others would discuss what was spoken, or judge it, as the Bible says, for scriptural accuracy. Not just one guy standing and blah-blahing for 45 minutes, (that would be me blah-blahing, by the way). This is something that has been on my heart for a while, and I just brought it up to the men in my church last Thursday. They seemed to like the idea, but, like myself, there is the reservation that some might be put-off when visiting, as, even though it is biblical, it is rarely done anymore. And of course, it probably would not work in some of the larger churches-too many to speak. There would have to be some serious logisitcs done to make it work there.   So we thought we would try it in the evening service first, for a while, and see how it goes.

Are you of the opinion then Mike that Church should be more of a Sunday school setting rather than the preaching for 45 min.? I have heard this on other forums, thats why i ask....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Are you of the opinion then Mike that Church should be more of a Sunday school setting rather than the preaching for 45 min.? I have heard this on other forums, thats why i ask....

Acts 15:35  Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. Apparently there is a difference between the two.

Preaching is a commandment given by God to all his people to spread the Gospel of God's salvation.

Teaching is a gift that God has bestow on some of his people to instruct others on living the Christian Life.  :twocents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry-misspoke answering what you said-Jesus started the church, He is the head of the church, it is His body-but the 12 He used were apostles, not elders. There were elders there, too, yes, and I have ot disputed that fact. BUT, even among the 12, James seemed to be the leader.

When Paul came to speak with them at Jerusalem concerning the Judaizers, it was discussed, Peter spoke specifically, but it was James who gave the final declaration of what few parts of the law the churches should adhere to, (no eating blood or things strangled, no fornication, et al). Notice James' own words:
"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:19, 20). Obviously they spoke together, and made a decision, and the letter was even sent by them all, BUT, James clearly is the one who gave the sentence. James was in charge, (much to the conternation of any honest Catholic that it wasn't Peter).

But again, I am in no way saying that a pastor, or elder or bishop, whatever you want to call them, is master and overlord, (though bishop DOES mean overseer, which certainly implies some authority)They are, as the term Pastor implies, a shepherd, or an undershepherd, if you will, who leads, through life, teaching and example, the local flock of God.Which, again is why eders were ordined in every city-churches needed ordained leaders then as they do today, but they must, indeed, follow the biblical pattern.

NOw, personally, I am beginning to lean a bit closer to a 1Cr 14 pattern for a church, which is where more than one person would speak and the others would discuss what was spoken, or judge it, as the Bible says, for scriptural accuracy. Not just one guy standing and blah-blahing for 45 minutes, (that would be me blah-blahing, by the way). This is something that has been on my heart for a while, and I just brought it up to the men in my church last Thursday. They seemed to like the idea, but, like myself, there is the reservation that some might be put-off when visiting, as, even though it is biblical, it is rarely done anymore. And of course, it probably would not work in some of the larger churches-too many to speak. There would have to be some serious logisitcs done to make it work there. So we thought we would try it in the evening service first, for a while, and see how it goes.

Well, since it is a command, that you seek to obey, may God bless you tremendously, and give you influence to others as well, that we may turn back the tide of disobedience and Nicolaitans.

1Co 14:29-31
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

1Co 14:37
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Well, since it is a command, that you seek to obey, may God bless you tremendously, and give you influence to others as well, that we may turn back the tide of disobedience and Nicolaitans.

1Co 14:29-31
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

1Co 14:37
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.


Anishinaabe

But here is where we need to decide something important: what is a prophet? Is a prophet someone today to whom the Lord gives unrevealed information? Are they foretellers of future events? Is God still giving direct revelation, as verse 30 above, points to? Or today, is a prophet someone who declares God's revealed word? In which case, it could be considered any preacher or pastor teaching from the Bible, for is that not God's revealed word? )r does it apply only direct, new reveation, as the verse would seem to attest?

 

If it is new revelation, than we need to decide, is God still giving new revelation, and if so, should we not be adding that to the Bible as it occurs? Or has prophecy closed, and all revelation is given in the Bible?  Because to properly follow this, we must have a clear understanding. If it is new revelation and prophecy, then this could only apply to true modern prophets. And if there are none in a given local church, who, then, is to speak?

 

If, on the other hand, a prophet is to be understood as a preacher/elder/pastor declaring forth the word of God from scripture, then is a 'prophet' then, anyone man at all who wishes to preach and teach? Or do we seek out those who have the gift of a pastor or teacher or preacher? If so, how do we judge such?

 

And then there is the issue of "Let the other judge". Who is "the other"? Not "The otherS", but singular.  Who is qualified to judge the truth of prophecies and revelations, or even doctrine?

 

Just some things for us to chew on as we seek to move forward on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But here is where we need to decide something important: what is a prophet? Is a prophet someone today to whom the Lord gives unrevealed information? Are they foretellers of future events? Is God still giving direct revelation, as verse 30 above, points to? Or today, is a prophet someone who declares God's revealed word? In which case, it could be considered any preacher or pastor teaching from the Bible, for is that not God's revealed word? )r does it apply only direct, new reveation, as the verse would seem to attest?

 

If it is new revelation, than we need to decide, is God still giving new revelation, and if so, should we not be adding that to the Bible as it occurs? Or has prophecy closed, and all revelation is given in the Bible?  Because to properly follow this, we must have a clear understanding. If it is new revelation and prophecy, then this could only apply to true modern prophets. And if there are none in a given local church, who, then, is to speak?

 

If, on the other hand, a prophet is to be understood as a preacher/elder/pastor declaring forth the word of God from scripture, then is a 'prophet' then, anyone man at all who wishes to preach and teach? Or do we seek out those who have the gift of a pastor or teacher or preacher? If so, how do we judge such?

 

And then there is the issue of "Let the other judge". Who is "the other"? Not "The otherS", but singular.  Who is qualified to judge the truth of prophecies and revelations, or even doctrine?

 

Just some things for us to chew on as we seek to move forward on this topic.

Every time I preach the gospel and of Christ's soon return I am prophesying.  Both forth telling the word of God and foretelling a future event.  so I am a prophet.

 

But getting new information I don't think so the Bible is complete and it is all we need for life and godliness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But here is where we need to decide something important: what is a prophet? Is a prophet someone today to whom the Lord gives unrevealed information? Are they foretellers of future events? Is God still giving direct revelation, as verse 30 above, points to? Or today, is a prophet someone who declares God's revealed word? In which case, it could be considered any preacher or pastor teaching from the Bible, for is that not God's revealed word? )r does it apply only direct, new reveation, as the verse would seem to attest?

If it is new revelation, than we need to decide, is God still giving new revelation, and if so, should we not be adding that to the Bible as it occurs? Or has prophecy closed, and all revelation is given in the Bible? Because to properly follow this, we must have a clear understanding. If it is new revelation and prophecy, then this could only apply to true modern prophets. And if there are none in a given local church, who, then, is to speak?

If, on the other hand, a prophet is to be understood as a preacher/elder/pastor declaring forth the word of God from scripture, then is a 'prophet' then, anyone man at all who wishes to preach and teach? Or do we seek out those who have the gift of a pastor or teacher or preacher? If so, how do we judge such?

And then there is the issue of "Let the other judge". Who is "the other"? Not "The otherS", but singular. Who is qualified to judge the truth of prophecies and revelations, or even doctrine?

Just some things for us to chew on as we seek to move forward on this topic.

1Co 12:29-31
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts:and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

1Co 14:39-40
39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Every time I preach the gospel and of Christ's soon return I am prophesying.  Both forth telling the word of God and foretelling a future event.  so I am a prophet.

 

But getting new information I don't think so the Bible is complete and it is all we need for life and godliness.

I would agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

1Co 12:29-31
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts:and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

1Co 14:39-40
39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Anishinaabe

While I appreciate you turning to scripture, it doesn't really answer my question. Should we consider ALL who wish to speak, prophets? Do we just trust that the Lord is directing someone to speak, if he wants to speak? Or is this where the judging occurs, and if they are found wanting, they don't speak again?

 

Again again, who is the 'other' who is to judge? Sounds suspiciously like someone with some authority to judge? Like maybe someone in a position of leadership, like James when he made his judgment? But can this be, if no one man is over the others in position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...