Are 'pastors' Biblical? (Modern as opposed to Biblical pastors)

[Scribe]

We have to be careful about thinking that there was some kind of perfect first church. It is obvious from reading the New Testament that there were many problems in every church right away.
We must not envision something that never existed except in our own minds and try to "recover" that.

They worked out their own salvation (Christian life, and church life) in the culture they found themselves in and as needs arose. The NT teaches reliance on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God to deal with things as they encountered them.

The fact that Timothy appointed elders at Ephesus means that he very much played the role of the head pastor at Ephesus and even much more authoritative than churches who choose by election. However I would not necessarily take a legalistic stand that we must do it exactly the way Timothy did it at that time, because we are not in that same setting and circumstances. We have to rely on the Holy Spirit and corporate prayer and use the scripture as our guide to deal with things as we encounter them in the body of Christ.

It may be that in a local church there are enough mature saints to elect elders. In another church plant in a community where all the church members are recent converts the pastor might appoint elders until such a time as the congregation grows into a more mature state. There is no legalistic model that one must adhere too. That is why it is not all spelled out exactly for us in the NT. God did not want people to replace the Holy Spirit with some model.

 

[posthuman]

pastors have quite a different role from teachers actually. I wouldnt mix them up, though people like to put them in the same category, God has callings for both in his church.
Peter was told by Jesus to feed my sheep and to feed my lambs. He didnt tell Peter to instruct the sheep to obey him as if they were being wayward goats. It was more important that the sheep be fed.

i think there's an important distinction between 'preaching' and 'teaching' yeah

 

[calibob]

An earned degree is not the same thing as a clerical title; not by a long shot. It is merely an acknowledgement that a person has put in the requisite study and, hopefully, has a sound understanding of the material covered. I agree that a degree is not a requirement for eldership, and is too often used in place of other qualifications, but it doesn't contradict Jesus' preclusion at all.

I've known pastors without degrees and Theologians that weren't pastors. Pastor simply means Sheppard. The leader of a flock. Some start their own churches. Some are over qualified some aren't qualified at all. Only God knows the true difference. He rejects the adoration of other persons. Paul even said he was the Disciple to the Gentiles. Not a Pastor or leader;

disciple
[dəˈsīpəl]

NOUN

1. a personal follower of Jesus during his life, especially one of the twelve Apostles.
   synonyms:
   apostle · follower
   • a follower or student of a teacher, leader, or philosopher.

 

[calibob]

There is no legalistic model that one must adhere too. That is why it is not all spelled out exactly for us in the NT. God did not want people to replace the Holy Spirit with some model.

Amen!

 

[posthuman]

The New Testament never says it is the job of one elder to preside over the church, the assembly of believers. Nowhere are they instructed to preach one long Sunday sermon. They are to be 'apt to teach,' but scripture does not say they are the only teachers in a church.

i do have a hard time reconciling what's described in the NT about meetings, with the modern concept of 'church service' where one man, or sometimes one woman, gives a 20-40 minute soliloquy while everyone sits silently in pews and basically spectates. it seems to me that the instructions Paul gave in 1 Corinthians indicate there was a lot more interaction and it was expected that more that there would be teaching, prophecy, encouragement and wisdom coming from the congregation as well, even if there might be a small number of elders who generally preached/taught. i have the impression it was more our modern mid-week Bible-study groups than our weekend-big-show. why do we have instructions about only a few people should speak in tongues or prophesy in a meeting if it's just one guy with a microphone behind an ornate podium and no one else is supposed to so much as cough?

similarly the way the Lord's supper is described in the Bible sounds a lot more like a pot-luck fellowship supper than a ritualized tiny sip & wee nibble of wine & bread while soft organ music plays. some of them were getting drunk and others were going hungry -- how does that situation arise unless there's enough wine around that a person could get drunk, and enough food around that people were able to be filled?

 

[calibob]

Since pastor means Sheppard and disciple means follower and Jesus is the one and only true Good Sheppard and the Disciples were true followers I think technically it unscriptural to issue the title Pastor to ant man. I close in peace.

 

[Scribe]

Since pastor means Sheppard and disciple means follower and Jesus is the one and only true Good Sheppard and the Disciples were true followers I think technically it unscriptural to issue the title Pastor to ant man. I close in peace.

I imagine what it would be like trying to tell people not to call you pastor. It would be an exhausting, never ending effort and cause more confusion and be more unedifying than just ignoring it and not letting it go to your head.

People are too used to doing it. It is the culture we find ourselves in.

I would think if someone was addressing you as pastor so and so in their conversation because they wanted you to pray for them, or wanting to tell you about their wife on her death bed, and you distracted them with a conversation about why they should not call you pastor, it would be unedifying, and cause too much confusion and make for a horrible bedside manner when praying for the sick.

Better to just ignore it and stick to the important things.

Do you know how many people are calling any preacher a pastor today? If you are a licensed minister and an itinerant preacher people call you pastor. Trying to correct them and say, I don't pastor a church therefore I am not a pastor gets tiresome so many get to the point that they just ignore it.

Eph 4
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

 

[Lanolin]

i think there's an important distinction between 'preaching' and 'teaching' yeah

yea true and also, when Jesus was telling Peter to feed my sheep and to feed my lambs, Peter had just hauled in a netload of fish, and they had a big fry up. Jesus asked him to eat with him.

He aint talking about Peter going and making a huge lecture.

 

[Scribe]

yea true and also, when Jesus was telling Peter to feed my sheep and to feed my lambs, Peter had just hauled in a netload of fish, and they had a big fry up. Jesus asked him to eat with him.

He aint talking about Peter going and making a huge lecture.

It was a call to feed the sheep the Word of God. We know this because Peter said "desire the sincere milk of the Word that you may grow thereby"

Yes, they did remember the poor, and made sure people in the church were cared for. Not sure that I would say that Jesus had this in mind when he said "feed my sheep". But I can see why you might think so, because of them eating when he said it.
He also says some other things at this time that are somewhat esoteric, like "remain until I come" and that are misunderstood. This would suggest that "feed my sheep" is more than the fish concept as well.

 

[presidente]

i do have a hard time reconciling what's described in the NT about meetings, with the modern concept of 'church service' where one man, or sometimes one woman, gives a 20-40 minute soliloquy while everyone sits silently in pews and basically spectates. it seems to me that the instructions Paul gave in 1 Corinthians indicate there was a lot more interaction and it was expected that more that there would be teaching, prophecy, encouragement and wisdom coming from the congregation as well, even if there might be a small number of elders who generally preached/taught. i have the impression it was more our modern mid-week Bible-study groups than our weekend-big-show. why do we have instructions about only a few people should speak in tongues or prophesy in a meeting if it's just one guy with a microphone behind an ornate podium and no one else is supposed to so much as cough?

similarly the way the Lord's supper is described in the Bible sounds a lot more like a pot-luck fellowship supper than a ritualized tiny sip & wee nibble of wine & bread while soft organ music plays. some of them were getting drunk and others were going hungry -- how does that situation arise unless there's enough wine around that a person could get drunk, and enough food around that people were able to be filled?

Some groups have seen the difference between scripture and contemporary practice. To some extent, the Quakers did, though they ended up with rather peculiar silent meetings over time. George Fox cited, 'for ye may all prophesy' when he wrote about church meetings, and apparently they had 'mutual participation' type meetings with silence at times until the silence thing became predominant. Some of their practice is not very orthodox, though, like no water baptism. The Plymouth Brethren, the Little Flock Movement in China, and the modern house church movement also moved toward more interactive type meetings.

The Azusa Street revival apparently had more interactive type meetings though it did not 'stick' as the norm of practice in Pentecostal churches. There are some exceptions. These churches, at least in the US, have historically allowed for more of an interactive meeting in that they allow tongues and interpretation. Some churches have testimony time, also.

Some of the house churches also believe in having the Lord's Supper as a full meal. The part later known as the eucharist is based on something Jesus did at the end of the meal.

 

[presidente]

I imagine what it would be like trying to tell people not to call you pastor. It would be an exhausting, never ending effort and cause more confusion and be more unedifying than just ignoring it and not letting it go to your head.

If you plant a new church and do not tell them to call you that, it does not have to be an issue. When I grew up, they called the pastor 'Brother' so and so, and did so with the men in the church, too. On the other hand, I've been in environments where people seem to think you are showing disrespect if you do not say 'pastor.'

Jesus forbade the apostles from being called 'rabbi' or calling them 'father.' Is there a principle here that applies more broadly, or is it just about those titles?

 

[presidente]

i think there's an important distinction between 'preaching' and 'teaching' yeah

Usually, in our translations, 'preaching' is used in reference to proclaiming-- as in scenarios where someone is proclaiming the Gospel to those who have not heard it yet.

Many American evangelicals seem to think 'preach' means to speak on Sunday morning from behind a pulpit, or to talk behind a pulpit with a very loud speaking style. Reading that concept back into scripture can lead to confusion. Some people think the fact that 'preach' is used in scripture justifies recent traditions of how church meetings are to be conducted, because they read the pulpit-sermon idea into the word 'preach.'

Many seminaries teach preachers to give three point sermons. I cannot find an example of a three point sermon in scripture... or even that style of writing. This was the style the ancient Greeks used. They also used it for speeches. An Athenian who wanted to be prominent in public life might hire a philosopher or some other kind of public speaking instructor to teach him to speak, who would them teach him to give a three point intro, make three points, then sum them up in his conclusion. This was used for writing, of course, and Aristotle wrote about this method. This is one method used for preaching sermons, but the pattern is not taught or even modeled in scripture as far as I know. I'm not against speaking this way, but I am against the idea that it has to be THE way to speak in church.

Our method of having church goes back to the Reformation. Through history, the practices of believers prophesying in church meetings, like we see alluded to as late as Hermas in the 2nd century at least, was apparently shut down as an emphasis was placed on liturgy. The Lord's Supper was treated as the central thing and clergy was central to it all. Liturgy was in Latin, which probably made sense at first in the west among Latin speakers, but did not make as much sense 1000 years later when the common language had evolved from Latin into something else and when Germans were having mass in Latin. The Protestants re-did liturgies making 'preaching' a very central part of the church meeting. But, again, it was very clergy-centered.

 

[Scribe]

If you plant a new church and do not tell them to call you that, it does not have to be an issue. When I grew up, they called the pastor 'Brother' so and so, and did so with the men in the church, too. On the other hand, I've been in environments where people seem to think you are showing disrespect if you do not say 'pastor.'

Jesus forbade the apostles from being called 'rabbi' or calling them 'father.' Is there a principle here that applies more broadly, or is it just about those titles?

I think it is a principle. I am uncomfortable with titles in the church. I would prefer my name but realistically I know that they will call me pastor or reverend and I am not going to correct them all the time. I am more uncomfortable with the concept of constantly trying to correct people over it than I am ignoring it. If I were to make it a point to correct them as a legalistic attempt to prove to God that I am not proud I could easily be guilty of being proud that I am not proud. Like a false humility trying to make a point that I am too humble to accept being called pastor. It could result in people losing confidence in your leadership. As if you have a self image problem. A need to let everyone know how humble you are all the time can backfire on you.

I haven't worked it out yet. I expect to receive a license in April that will say Reverend on it and I am just going to ignore that title. I don't want anyone to call me reverend. LOL. I need to research the history behind why we use that word. Probably an American legal thing from our history.

 

[HillsboroMom]

I belonged to a church that functioned very much like I believe the first-century Christians did. There were about 20 members. About half of the members lived communally in a large house together. They had daily worship every morning and evening, consisting of some Scripture, some songs, and some prayers, and then weekly worship on Sunday evenings that included Communion and a sermon. All worship was in the living room of the house, or outside, weather-permitting. Members took turns preaching and officiating over communion. It was technically a member of the United Methodist Church, as the senior pastor was an ordained pastor in that denomination. However, the pastor did not follow all the rules. I guess the UMC looked the other way, because they recognized what he was doing was basically good. I really loved that church, and sometimes I'm sorry I left.

 

[Scribe]

I belonged to a church that functioned very much like I believe the first-century Christians did. There were about 20 members. About half of the members lived communally in a large house together. They had daily worship every morning and evening, consisting of some Scripture, some songs, and some prayers, and then weekly worship on Sunday evenings that included Communion and a sermon. All worship was in the living room of the house, or outside, weather-permitting. Members took turns preaching and officiating over communion. It was technically a member of the United Methodist Church, as the senior pastor was an ordained pastor in that denomination. However, the pastor did not follow all the rules. I guess the UMC looked the other way, because they recognized what he was doing was basically good. I really loved that church, and sometimes I'm sorry I left.

That would be more like the Essenes and not what the first church was like. There were 120 praying in the upper room. 3000 joined them. That's a mega church.
House churches were large courtyards and also there were houses with ground floor shops and upper floor for living. The shops would be like a storefront church today. They called them houses because that is what they were but we have to close the 2000 year cultural gap and not think living room church.

 

[Godcares]

Some observations about the elders Paul and Barnabas appointed in Acts 14 and instructions about elders/bishops I Timothy 3, and Titus 1..

- They appointed 'elders' not 'youngers.' The word translated 'elders' can be translated as 'older men' or 'older ones.'
- They ordained elders from among the very same congregation of which they were a part before their appointment. They did not bring in a Bible college graduate from out of town.
- There was more than one elder in a given church. (And the church as treated as one congregation per city.)
- A seminary degree was not a qualification listed.
- Elders had to meet certain criteria related to family life and living a godly lifestyle.

Hello Presidente

You have presented a lot of insight regarding the pastors and leadership of today.

What stood out for me in your post is the observations about elders. To add to what you have said. The other issue that I have also observed in some churches, other than in appointing ‘youngsters’, is appointing new converts in leadership positions.

I have observed where a person becomes a Christian today and in 8 months’ time they are appointed as an elder or a deacon. This is detrimental not only to the church because the appointed person does not have sufficient experience and Christian maturity to lead the church; it is also detrimental to the new convert himself.

The individual although mature in age, is a child in their knowledge of God. There have little understanding of the bible and Christianity as a whole and are then quickly plunged into church politics in a short space of time. They are supposed to be like Mary sitting at the foot of Jesus learning of Him, instead they are expected to be like Martha working and serving without a relationship with the Lord.

Some of these new converts end up leaving the church in a short space of time after their conversion or fall into a grievous sin and everyone wonders why. The answer is obvious. They did not have an understanding of Christianity and did not have a relationship with the Lord. The problem of appointing new converts is repeated every year in some churches. In one of the churches I attended, the pastor complained that he appoints people and they run away. For some odd reason it has never occurred to him that he keeps appointing the wrong people.

The other problem that I have observed is appointing an elder because he contributes a lot of money for tithe and offering. In some churches, none of the elders are poor and are either part of the upper middle class or upper class.

 

[Apostol2013]

mmm but he was still told to feed the sheep and lambs. You got to focus on what Jesus is actually telling Peter to do, not just assume things and then go back and assume well its so they can be taught and the roles are all combined in one person.

Anybody who teaches knows that people don't learn as well if they are starving. People also don't work if they don't have enough to eat. Nobody is going to work or even obey if they can't eat or don't have enough to eat.

Now go back to the passage and read it. Did Jesus say Peter you got to do this because the sheep need to obey you? Or even the word of God? NOPE.
What did he say? Jesus first asked Peter to do this because he asked Peter 'do you love me more than these?'
He asked Peter if he loved him three times.

See, Jesus was asking about love, not obedience. He was saying in essence, Do You really love me? Show it by feeding my sheep.

Is it about obedience? Is it even about teaching? Well not really. It's about love. Looking after the sheep.

Chapter 21:15

I just wanted to make that distinction, because there are many teachers and many pastors and both can work together but to say its all on one person is a misnomer. In most ministries it's actually not just one person teaching and pastoring everybody.

Question ? Where is the thread going what is the purpose of this thread , i see this causing a unclarity so thats why i ask what is the purpose of the thread and where do you intend going to?

 

[presidente]

I have observed where a person becomes a Christian today and in 8 months’ time they are appointed as an elder or a deacon. This is detrimental not only to the church because the appointed person does not have sufficient experience and Christian maturity to lead the church; it is also detrimental to the new convert himself.

If a church has a lot of long-time mature Christians who have born fruit, I think that is a valid observation. But I have also seen estimates (e.g. at the top of the Bible map) that the 'first missionary journey' took two years. If those estimates are right a half or a quarter of that were on Cyprus, then some of those elders Paul and Barnabas appointed would have been Christians for less than two years, maybe even 2 months, 6 months, 8 months, etc. depending on the city and how long Paul and Barnabas travelled.

These men probably had some experience being solid members of their communities prior to conversion, though, probably, either as Jewish men active in the synagogue or as Gentile God-fearers. Converts from the synagogue made up the core group of most of these early churches.

 

[calibob]

I imagine what it would be like trying to tell people not to call you pastor. It would be an exhausting, never ending effort and cause more confusion and be more unedifying than just ignoring it and not letting it go to your head.

People are too used to doing it. It is the culture we find ourselves in.

I would think if someone was addressing you as pastor so and so in their conversation because they wanted you to pray for them, or wanting to tell you about their wife on her death bed, and you distracted them with a conversation about why they should not call you pastor, it would be unedifying, and cause too much confusion and make for a horrible bedside manner when praying for the sick.

Better to just ignore it and stick to the important things.

Do you know how many people are calling any preacher a pastor today? If you are a licensed minister and an itinerant preacher people call you pastor. Trying to correct them and say, I don't pastor a church therefore I am not a pastor gets tiresome so many get to the point that they just ignore it.

Eph 4
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

I was just going by the meaning of the word as opposed what people think that it means. Through all of this stay at home, lockdown and having only virtual friends & family. Plus reading Kingdom of the Cults. I've been thinking alot about how common words in our language change definition devolve or get twisted into different meanings. Like take for example narcotic. In the strict definition it means, 'sleep inducing' thus technically, Cocaine, meth, marijuana and LSD aren't really narcotics but stimulants, hypnotics and hallucinogens'. Alcohol is a psychoactive, addictive, narcotic! However it isn't considered as such by most people, law makers or police.

I hate the word evolution, so I use devolution. Besides it dosn't improve the language a bit. Some other more modern examples are; retarded has become; challenged. Manic-depressive has become bi-polar. We used to consider hermits as being antisocial. Now the word means psycho or sociopathic. I've even heard the word, relationship substituted for the term 'Sexual affair'.

If someone asks about a word I'll usually respond to what the word is supposed to mean rather than what it has become to mean. I retrospect. I should have learned Greek.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

.