Paul Chappell - Are You A Servant Leader Or Simply A Ministry Manager?

[prophet1]

I don't need to read the whole thread. It is a pattern, prophet. Heed reproof rather than justifying...

Pro 18:13
13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it,
it is folly and shame unto him.


Anishinaabe

[DaveW]

I don't know.... How about you actually answer the ones I have already posted instead of just ignoring them.

Once you have bothered with those, i will post the next set.

[candlelight]

Yes....Scripturally we all are supposed to be:

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.


Anishinaabe

 

I know what the scriptures in the NT say, prophet1.  I am just finding it difficult to see you as a prophet.  I am not going to rehash things from other threads.  I am hoping you know what I am talking about. 

[HappyChristian]

Pro 18:13
13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it,
it is folly and shame unto him.


Anishinaabe

Prov. 1:7b: "...fools despise...instruction."  I can play that game, too.  As I said, I don't need to read the thread (nowhere did I say I hadn't read it).  There is a pattern.  "He is in the way of life that keepeth instruction: but he that refuseth reproof erreth." (Prov. 10:17)   

[prophet1]

I know what the scriptures in the NT say, prophet1. I am just finding it difficult to see you as a prophet. I am not going to rehash things from other threads. I am hoping you know what I am talking about.

We are all prophets. We have the revealed Word, and the indwelling Spirit.

Act 2:18
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:



Anishinaabe

[prophet1]

You love to put up this false argument.


ANY half decent student of language will simply not accept your twisting of this issue.

Is this acceptable, but what I have said isn't?

Anishinaabe

[prophet1]

Mar 6:7 7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; Rev 11:3 3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. Anishinaabe

[Ukulelemike]

I will say one thing on this.

 

  In Acts 15, we have Paul meeting with the Jerusalem church leaders, specifically the Apostles. Now, certainly, we see a group in leadership, all ordained of God, save Matthias, who was ordained by the other Apostles, (but that's for another post). Clearly we see a conversation occur, and peter speaks him mind, but it is James who gives the final word, in his own words, ""Therefore my sentence is..."  

 

While clearly the group acted as a whole, there was seen a need to have a single one who spoke for the whole, who, if you will, gave sentence, a final ruling.

 

I believe this is a good example of a single head under Christ, though still in proper persepctive as one of a group. The bishop, perhaps?

 

I don't know that any of the Apostles saw James as their leader, but he had clearly been given the authority to give the final word on such a subject. I am curious: how is this any difference from a church that calls and approves a pastor? The Pastor teaches and leads, give the final word, yet he himself is subject TO the church, as well as to the Lord as a servant.

 

I think the whole answer to this is, how does a church 'leader' view himself, and how does the church view him? If he is unquestionable, stands as lord and master, not to be challenged by the 'people', then this is certainly a nicolaitan example. But if he leads because he has been chosen to lead, by approval, and remains always answerable to the whole, then I see no prOBlem with it. And if the church decides to have more than one, co-leaders, that's good and biblical, or a senior leader with leaders under him, this is fine, as well.  But when a preacher becomes an almighty ruler, as we know does happen, then we are in dangerous territory.

[Steve Schwenke]

Mike, I like a lot of what you said.  Here is my take on it.

 

First, the word "bishop" means "overseer" so prophet was wrong all along.  That is the meaning of the word, like it or not.

Second, the word "elders" is sometimes used in reference to the office of the pastor, but not always.  A pastor IS an elder, but not all elders are pastors.  Thus, a church should have multiple "elders" but not necessarily multiple pastors.  All of this plays into what Mike said about the pastor being accountable to the church, and the church working as a whole making decisions together, with the leadership of the pastor.  The pastor does not dictate, but he leads, guides, corrects, and gives the church the information they need to make a decision.  However, the CHURCH makes the decision, not the pastor, unless they choose to delegate some areas of responsibility to him to make decisions on unilaterally.  But these should be spelled out very clearly, and even then, the church body has the right to govern those decisions.

Thus, in our church, I am the pastor.  But when it comes to difficult issues that arise, I have found it best to consult with spiritually minded men who have a different perspective than I do.  They see things I don't see.  So I will speak to two or three different men individually, cull their minds, pray, and then either make a decision based on their counsel, or call for a church wide meeting to settle the matter.  That is what the "elders" are for.

 

Therefore, there is merit in the argument prophet1 is making regarding the totalitarian nature of many modern day IFB "pastors."  However, he, as others, have swung to the opposite extreme demanding multiple "pastors" when the Bible makes no such call.  The office of the Bishop is a special calling from God Himself, and the duties upon the pastor include LEADING the church.  However, the Scriptures are clear in all of the NT passages regarding this office that the pastor is NOT to rule unilaterally as a dictator, but under the guidance and counsel of the church body, particularly the deacons (who are also "elders") and anyone else considered an elder.

 

For what its worth, I personally think that the term elders in the plural could be a reference to the combined offices of the pastor and deacon(s).  Thus, the passage in Acts 20 where Paul called for the "elders" of Ephesus, he was not necessarily calling for multiple "pastors" but rather the pastor of the church in addition to anyone else in a leadership position in that church, serving under the pastor.

 

Hopefully, that makes cents....er, sense.

 

In Christ,

[prophet1]

Mike, I like a lot of what you said. Here is my take on it.

First, the word "bishop" means "overseer" so prophet was wrong all along. That is the meaning of the word, like it or not.
Second, the word "elders" is sometimes used in reference to the office of the pastor, but not always. A pastor IS an elder, but not all elders are pastors. Thus, a church should have multiple "elders" but not necessarily multiple pastors. All of this plays into what Mike said about the pastor being accountable to the church, and the church working as a whole making decisions together, with the leadership of the pastor. The pastor does not dictate, but he leads, guides, corrects, and gives the church the information they need to make a decision. However, the CHURCH makes the decision, not the pastor, unless they choose to delegate some areas of responsibility to him to make decisions on unilaterally. But these should be spelled out very clearly, and even then, the church body has the right to govern those decisions.
Thus, in our church, I am the pastor. But when it comes to difficult issues that arise, I have found it best to consult with spiritually minded men who have a different perspective than I do. They see things I don't see. So I will speak to two or three different men individually, cull their minds, pray, and then either make a decision based on their counsel, or call for a church wide meeting to settle the matter. That is what the "elders" are for.

Therefore, there is merit in the argument prophet1 is making regarding the totalitarian nature of many modern day IFB "pastors." However, he, as others, have swung to the opposite extreme demanding multiple "pastors" when the Bible makes no such call. The office of the Bishop is a special calling from God Himself, and the duties upon the pastor include LEADING the church. However, the Scriptures are clear in all of the NT passages regarding this office that the pastor is NOT to rule unilaterally as a dictator, but under the guidance and counsel of the church body, particularly the deacons (who are also "elders") and anyone else considered an elder.

For what its worth, I personally think that the term elders in the plural could be a reference to the combined offices of the pastor and deacon(s). Thus, the passage in Acts 20 where Paul called for the "elders" of Ephesus, he was not necessarily calling for multiple "pastors" but rather the pastor of the church in addition to anyone else in a leadership position in that church, serving under the pastor.

Hopefully, that makes cents....er, sense.

In Christ,

Phi 1:1

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:

[prophet1]

I'm always amazed at the KJV supporters who misquote it, when it exposes their false doctrine.

The Bible says :"the office of a bishop", not :"the office of the bishop".....but who in this generation is really paying attention, anyway?

[Ukulelemike]

However, "The office of a bishop" does not of necessity denote either a single bishop, nor a plurality of bishops. It just says "a bishop".

 

As has been said by some before, no one is arguing the benefits and scripurality of multiple leaders-just the scripturality that it must ALWAYS be so, or that all leaders MUST be equal in authority. Even Jesus placed Himself under His father in Authority and position, though He is certainly God-in this order that is found in Father, Son, Husband, Wife/man, woman, it makes sense that it would show an order within the church. As such, a husband and wife both are leadership positions within a family, particularly when there are children involved, but the father, though he may be no BETTER than the mother, yet has authority over her.

 

So in a church situation, multiple leaders is find and good, but there is nothing unscriptural in having one in authority over the others, though he is answerable to the others, and indeed, to the (local) church as a whole.

 

Sadly, while the Bible certainly gives the offices, as it were, it doesn't specifically lay out how they are organized, maybe because that was to be an issue for each church to decide according to their needs.

[Steve Schwenke]

One thing the "multiple elder" people always forget is that no matter how much they beat that drum, somebody in that group is going to rise to the top and start leading the group.  Always.  Without fail. 

The result is that they end up with the same scenario but just under a different color.  Somebody must lead.  A group cannot lead another group without having somebody running both groups.  It never works. 

[ThePilgrim]

A group of elders is after all no more than a commitee.

 

A committee is a group of people who individually can do nothing, but who, as a group, can meet and decide that nothing can be done.

The minute somebody joins a committee... they immediately suffer from committee brain. They become wildly over-enthusiastic, over-optimistic, over-pessimistic. Committees turn people into idiots, and everything becomes political.

A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary.

If Columbus had an advisory committee he would prOBably still be at the dock.

If you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee working on it. 

 

All this to say: Steve is right.

 

God bless,

Larry
 

[Ukulelemike]

One thing the "multiple elder" people always forget is that no matter how much they beat that drum, somebody in that group is going to rise to the top and start leading the group.  Always.  Without fail. 

The result is that they end up with the same scenario but just under a different color.  Somebody must lead.  A group cannot lead another group without having somebody running both groups.  It never works.

Ageeed

 

I had a friend who left our church and joined with a group who had left the mennonites, though they still held to some of the things that they did, (headcoverings, and such). I was sorry to see him go, but I knew the group and they were pretty sound in doctrine.  So, after he had been meeting with them for a little while, I asked him who was going to lead. He said, no, no leader, we are just a bunch joined together in Christ's name as a church.

  So I told him that a church must have some sort of leadership or it isn't a church, there must be some kind of organization, (not BE an organization). He said, Well, I'll talk to the others and see what they think. So later he asked me to come and present to the church why I thought they ought to have leadership of some sort, so I did.

 

stay with me, now

 

Of course, first I reminded them that I was in no way seeking to control or otherwise direct what they did: they were before the Lord and answerable only to Him, it was just my counsel as it was requested, and I proceeded to show how much emphasis the scripture puts upon bishops, elders, leadership in general, (ie, Paul directing Titus to ordain elders in all the cities, as it was lacking, and such). I presented a pretty solid case. Mind you, it was not for A PASTOR, but for leadership, that a church MUST have some sort of leadership.

 

A week or so later, my firned advised me that the men as a whole disagreed with me, that they were content to just all share the duties of teaching and have no head but Christ. So I told him to wish them all good luck with it.

 

Not 6 months went by, but that they had disbanded. Why? because one man clearly began to press his authority over the others, wanting to make the decisions, but not as 'leader' or anything-though he acted that way, and it bugged everyone and they separated. And i told my wife that was what would happen.

 

It was sad, but see, you are right, Steve-someone just HAD to fill the clearly, glaringly empty spot of leadership. A flock is made to have a shepherd, and most shepherds have undershepherds as well. A church is a flock under The Shepherd and below Him, His undershepherds. Our Shepherd cannot be present physically, but we are flesh and need a leader, or leaders of flesh, so He appoints bishops, pastors, elders, preachers, teachers to do that, with each church putting in place what they percieve the need to be.