SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Church Governance

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: in time of need

Sam's

Quote:
I have no doubt that church government and administration will inevitably play a role as the church grows.



My comment
Quote:
This innocent little comment is dynamite; although I think you are quite right.



Keith
the reason I drew attention to Sam's comment above is that the 'growth' of a church will have a great effect on its need for structure/governance. By growth I mean both in size and maturity.

The Patriarchs had no organisation; they had a family. Their relationships were sufficient to maintain order and unity. When they descended to Egypt they had no elders; there was no need. However, while in Egypt they 'grew' and by the time Moses is sent as their deliverer his commission is to Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt: (Exo 3:16 KJV) A larger group of people need more than the simple structures of family. It is interesting that the earliest elders mentioned in the Bible are actually Egyptian elders (Gen 50:7) Incidentally it is amazing how frequently words for 'elders' have become part of necessary government; senator is latin for elder, alderman in Old English for elder.

The Jerusalem apostles acted as elders to the church in that city but when the need arose they appointed 7 men that we usually call 'deacons'.

The key to both these patterns is 'when the need arose'. This is why I said that Sam's comment which included the phrare 'as the church grows' is extremely important in the context of patterns of church government.

A church can be a church without elders or deacons, but as it grows there will be the need for some recognition of those who will fulfil these functions. And they are 'functions'; not titles but 'recognised functions'.

The church became fixated with titles and office by the end of the 1st century (see Ignatius) and the problems continues. The KJV uses the word 'office' 45 times. In every instance it is an imposition of the translators; the word and the concept is missing from the Scripture. Apostle is not a title or office it is a function. Pastor, evangelist, prophet, teacher are all the same. these 'job descriptions' were never 'job titles' in the Bible period, only later. Paul was never called 'the apostle Paul' he was Paul who was an apostle. Apostles were not part of a fixed structure they were necessary functions in the church.

BTW if want to use Paul's full title you will find in it 2 Peter 3:15. It is a title I would recommend to us all. It is difficult to criticise a brother if you put this full title before his name. :-D


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/7/12 8:56Profile
Agent001
Member



Joined: 2003/9/30
Posts: 386
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

 Re:

Quote:
Ron (Philologos) said:
The key to both these patterns is 'when the need arose'. This is why I said that Sam's comment which included the phrare 'as the church grows' is extremely important in the context of patterns of church government.



I fully agree. My opinion is that the biblical evidence did not present us with a rigid, fixed, and unchanging structure by which [b]all[/b] churches must [b]universally[/b] follow.

Any Christian group that attempts to advocate one single form of government and condemn all others run the risks of [b][i]elitism[/i][/b] and [b][i]exclusivism.[/b][/i] Those who know my church background will know that I am saying this out of personal experience from painful lessons learned in history.

I might also add that I believe those Christian groups who thought they have absolutely [b]no[/b] need for structure at all are probably overly idealistic.


_________________
Sam

 2004/7/12 15:33Profile
JCGarc55
Member



Joined: 2004/3/1
Posts: 103


 Re: sort of a tangent..

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1962&forum=42#12731[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1962&forum=42#12731]Invisible vs Visible Church thread..[/url]

Quote:
Any Christian group that attempts to advocate one single form of government and condemn all others run the risks of elitism and exclusivism



This is sort of similiar to my question on another thread. A church group I attended growing up claims to be part of the restoration of the True Church and that their church government is The Church. After studying it, I did get an uncomfortable feeling about this teaching. I do believe there needs to be a government in the church whereby we disfellowship members and recognized those that are in the church but its a stretch to say our way is the "true biblical way" and therefore makes us THE Bride.

 2004/7/12 19:14Profile
JCGarc55
Member



Joined: 2004/3/1
Posts: 103


 Re:

One more thing.. my "uncomfortable feeling" was caused by the Word of God and not being able to reconcile verses like Ephesians 2:19 and many others in Colossians ch. 1-2 where its written that we are made into this One Body "in Christ" and "In Him". I might add that The Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets and Christ being the chief cornerstone (ephesian 2:20)

 2004/7/12 19:18Profile
TheophilusMD
Member



Joined: 2003/12/1
Posts: 124
New Jersey

 Re:

There is an aspect of church governance which is usually not focused on - walking under authority. The centurion saw and understood the glory of the authority of Jesus. For revival to come the Lordship of Jesus is not compromised both individually and corporately. Power in ministry and subsequent church growth is made manifest when the house is in order.
It is puzzling for me to see the board of elders, for example, kicking out a pastor from the church. Father Nash was booted out because the elders wanted a younger pastor. The same things are still happening today. Kind of off tangent but I believe this is still part of church governance.


_________________
Rey O.

 2004/7/12 20:21Profile
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Re:

Quote:

The Patriarchs had no organisation; they had a family. Their relationships were sufficient to maintain order and unity.



Ron, I agree 100%. That is one of the things that should mark a NT church. To maintain a sense of family, where…
44[i][b]All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.[/b][/i] 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.Acts 2:44-47

One of the hardest things I believe is to maintain that sense of family within a congregation of believers. We are going through a Church expansion here, and the Eldership team has been emphasising family. Without it we miss the true environment, where God the Father can manifest his care amongst the people. Maintaining that where you have a 1000 members takes effort, my mind boggles at 5000, 10 000. Phew. There are so many challenges when the lost are brought into our Churches, but one of them is restoring trust in the family model. Broken marriages, cause many folk to grow up with a tainted sense of family, from personal experience, relating to authority figures in this way can seem rather vulnerable.

There is a teaching by Bob Mumford on the Hebrew and Greek model of governance, which I found helpful in understanding Hebrew thought. I don’t have any information on that particular teaching, but seeing as the Jews were the ones who wrote most of the NT it is helpful in understanding what they wrote and why they wrote it. What I can remember is that the Jews thought in the concept of a Father exercising authority over his family, not as government exercising control over subjects.

Quote:

It is puzzling for me to see the board of elders, for example, kicking out a pastor from the church.



Accountability for those decisions is important to maintain credibility, I don’t know if those elders where making that decision on there own, or in relation to an external group. From reading the NT I see that Paul’s relationship to ‘his’ churches was one of relationship, and whatever happened in those Churches was based upon a trust that what Paul said must be true.

17Join with others [i][b]in following my example[/b][/i], brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern [i][b]we gave you.[/b][/i] Phil 3:17 Talking to the church in Philippi.

13What you heard [i][b]from me,[/b][/i] keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim 1:13

Paul with his team elected elders in those Churches. Not the board of elders within that church.

Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, 22strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. "We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God," they said. 23[i][b]Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church.[/b][/i] Acts 14:21-23

5The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and [i][b]appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.[/b][/i] Titus 1:5

So Paul spoke very directly into the lives of those churches, but in the local congregation the elders are they highest authority,

17[i][b]The elders who direct the affairs of the church[/b][/i] well are worthy of double honor…1 Tim 5:17

So what happens in that Church is up to them. It may seem contradictory, but friendship and love is what under girds it all.

The elder,

To [i][b]my dear friend[/b][/i] Gaius, [i][b]whom I love[/b][/i] in the truth. 3 John: 1

These are not concrete stones, that are immovable, but are frameworks of relationship. It certainly highlights the need for open, honest and transparent communication within the body and with those that our churches relate to.


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2004/7/13 16:18Profile
Delboy
Member



Joined: 2004/2/8
Posts: 199
Worthing UK

 Re: Paul's mission

Ron,You said

Quote:
That was why I made the comment. Paul had no strategy and structures, and the early church organisation was minimal.


Can you be so sure that Paul had no statategy and did not introduce organisation?
ZekeO's post shows organiseation in the epsitles.
Dropping in this thought for response..What works best elders,leadership group,no leadership group or one leader
As Sam implied, body governance is it to idealistic?
:-o


_________________
derek Eyre

 2004/7/13 16:31Profile
Zenas
Member



Joined: 2004/6/22
Posts: 5
British Columbia, Canada

 Re:

If I may weigh in on this issue, it seems clear from reading Acts that Paul did have a pattern (an organic one to be sure, but a pattern nonetheless). It primarily involved apostles on a trans-local level in relationship to local churches run by elders and deacons. The elders, however, were not hired or elected by the local body but, rather, were appointed by the apostles who laid the foundations of the church.

Somehow we've managed to get things all backwards. Instead of apostles from without appointing leaders from within, the churches I grew up in would rely on deacon boards from within to hire a pastor from without - not unlike the way a Board of Directors hires a President or CEO. It's a business model ill-suited for the church, in my view. And it probably has a lot to do with why so many pastors experience forced exits from churches.

ZekeO, judging from what you've written on this thread and the fact that you're from South Africa, I'm thinking you must be from an NCMI church. Am I right?

-A Canadian NCMI'er

 2004/7/13 21:36Profile
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Re:

Quote:

ZekeO, judging from what you've written on this thread and the fact that you're from South Africa, I'm thinking you must be from an NCMI church. Am I right?



Did I make it that easy:-D. NCF Church to be precise.

Its been great coming here to this site and fueling ones passion for God by the material on it. I think as much as you have the pattern, without the Spirit of God pulsating through everything we do, it can become pointless.

Quote:

-A Canadian NCMI'er



May we all embrace the call to the nations.

Zeke
p.s. British Columbia, who on the team do you guys relate to?


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2004/7/14 6:57Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Zenas

Quote:
If I may weigh in on this issue, it seems clear from reading Acts that Paul did have a pattern (an organic one to be sure, but a pattern nonetheless). It primarily involved apostles on a trans-local level in relationship to local churches run by elders and deacons. The elders, however, were not hired or elected by the local body but, rather, were appointed by the apostles who laid the foundations of the church.



The difference between organism and organisation was the point of my posting. The addressing of Paul's letters are interesting; Elders and deacons in Philippi and an interesting reference to an unnamed individual who was the recipient of the letter; I beseach thee, true yokefellow (4:3 note the singular)but no reference to such in Ephesus, Colosse, Thessalonica, Rome, Corinth etc. The apostles function as elders in Jerusalem supplemented later by the Seven. No reference to elders in Antioch. Timothy and Titus have no designated titles but they do have 'projects' delegated by Paul and clearly are his agents in the localities where we find them. But these roles were not necessarily transferable to other locations; even Paul did not press his 'apostling' on all (1Cor 9:2)

Life develops and as it does structure develops with it. Structure, however, cannot guarantee life. I see a the amazing diversity of 'life' in the record of the early churches, not the pattern of an organisation.

I believe in elders functioning corporately as an oversight. I I can see no biblical justification for the office of pastor in a local setting; the function of pastor-ing was fulfilled by the oversight. The pattern of delegating the material care functions to 'deacons' has no real biblical authority. The Acts 6 instance appointed the Seven 'over this business' ie the organised support of the Hellenist widows. This did not put the 'deacons' in charge of the 'funds' but gave to the Seven a carefully designated area of responsibility that the 'elders' were unable to administer without neglecting their primary responsibilities of prayer and the word. It is significant that when the 'relief' was sent from Antioch to Jerusalem it was sent 'to the elders' and not to the 'deacons' in Jerusalem. (Acts 11)

The hierarchical structure adopted by some of layers of submission from saint to elder to pastor to apostle, has no basis in the scripture. And as I mentioned in an earlier post there is no use of functions like apostle, prophets, evangelist, pastor-teacher as titles or offices in the scriptures. There was noone who was 'the pastor' or 'the apostle' in the way we often use the term today.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/7/15 4:06Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy