What is a pastor, and what do they do?

Recently I have begun to wonder about this. Is a pastor simply someone who goes up once or twice a week and speaks? After having read the threa "What is a church", I have begun to wonder just what does a pastor do, if all have psalms, and all have teachings.My background is such that I went to "church" Wednesday, and Sunday to hear a man teach, and we all labelled him a pastor.Please do not turn this into a debate, I am just simply wondering as I have a small flock that God has entrusted to me, but I would never want to rob them because of my pride or arrogance.Blessings to you all,Pat

'pastor' is the Latin word for 'shepherd' and is only used once in the New Testament“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;” (Eph. 4:11, KJVS)However the Greek word for 'shepherd or shepherding' is used frequently. Can I suggest we start from the "bottom up" with this one? In other words rather than trying to attack or defend modern models of 'pastor' can we see how the scriptures use this term and build from there?Other than the description of Joseph's family as 'shepherds' one of the earliest references is clearly Messianic“But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)” (Gen. 49:24, KJVS)I can't help but note that the emphasis in this particular passage is not of the shepherd's gentler role but is an focus on the power of such. Consequently one of the first links to the word 'shepherd/pastor' concentrates on his ability to defend his flock. This will give us a link with 'kings' whose primary role was to be 'shepherd' of God's flock.To answer roaringlamb's particular question 'what is a pastor and what do they do?' I would suggest at the outset that 'what do they do' is by far the more important question.

Time for a little more to chew on?I thought it might be provoking to see the original ideas of 'shepherd' from the OT. The period of the Judges was a fascinating and dangerous time. This was the 'wild west' of the promised land. The recurring cycle was for the people to forget God and come under the control of other nations. When Israel recognized its need they cried to God who provided them with a Shaphat; the word translated "Judge' in the OT. This cycle went through many iterations;“And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed. Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.”(Judg. 2:13-16, KJVS)The Shaphat (Judge) is sometimes referred to by secular historians as 'charismatic'. This is their way of distinguishing between a settled and dynastic authority and the 'sudden' endowment of power and authority which set one man at the head of his contemporaries. The 'anointing' received by those 'shaphat' seemed to be sporadic. Samson is an example. When the period of the 'anointing' was over the 'judge' reverted to his previous pattern of life. There are however signs that the people of Israel did not like this pattern and some were ready to give them what they wanted. Abimelech, the illegitimate son of Gideon, is an example. (Judges 9ff) This follows on the heels of the people's clamour for Gideon to become a dynastic ruler and Gideon's refusal. “Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son also: for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian. And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the LORD shall rule over you.”(Judg. 8:22-23, KJVS)Although Gideon would not accept this role his illegitimate son was eager to do so. (Abimelech: means 'my father is king') This movement resulted in Abimelech becoming the first king over Israel. (Judges 9:22) In spite of Gideon's refusal to create a family dynasty we see this trend persisting and by the time of Samuel, the last judge, his sons are carrying on a clear dynastic pattern. “And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.”(1Sam. 8:1, KJVS) This is a sharp change of direction from what God had given to Israel and it may be that this 'hereditary shaphat' pattern was partly to blame for Israel's plea for a king. “Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.”(1Sam. 8:19-20, KJVS)This is an interesting verse in that the people of Israel wanted a 'king' (malak) who would function like a 'judge' (shaphat). This is a really odd mixture; they wanted the stability of a monarchy on the pattern of the nations around them but with the role of a genuine 'charismatic shaphat-judge).They got Saul and it is key to see the 'job-description' for a 'king of Israel'. The people had petitioned for a 'malak-king' but God's choice of Saul gives a different label. “Now the LORD had told Samuel in his ear a day before Saul came, saying, To morrow about this time I will send thee a man out of the land of Benjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain over my people Israel, that he may save my people out of the hand of the Philistines: for I have looked upon my people, because their cry is come unto me. And when Samuel saw Saul, the LORD said unto him, Behold the man whom I spake to thee of! this same shall reign over my people.”(1Sam. 9:15-17, KJVS)This passage has several important words.1. Saul was to be an 'anointed' man. Up until this time Israel had only known anointing for priests. This man was to be a 'God-ordained' 'God-authorised man'2. He was to be a 'captain' (KJV) As far as I can see this was the first use of the word 'nagid'. It is not the same word as 'king'. There had been many 'kings' in the Bible history until this time but this was the first 'nagid'. The word 'nagid' comes from a word meaning 'to be at the front' ie a leader. Young's Literal Translation translates this word as 'leader'. This is a very important distinction which we can see if we provide some prepositions to go with the word. The word 'king' is usually followed by the preposition 'over', but 'leaders' are not 'over' but 'in front of'. Can you see that distinction. It will become a vital distinction when we look at the pattern of authority in the church.3. This man's role was to 'save' or 'defend' them from the Philistines. Again, we are not looking at a typical eastern monarch here but a 'warrior leader'.4. The word 'reign' here too is interesting. This is the only time the KJV translates this word as 'reign' it usually translates it with a some word indicating 'restraint'. In fact, the meaning word could be seen in the action of a shepherd 'gathering' his sheep into a protective assembly. A fascinating picture of 'God's kind of king' is emerging. He is a shepherd warrior, equipped by God to protect and guide the flock. Whatever men may mean by the idea of 'king' this is God's. The emphasis is not upon monarchical control and privilege but upon solemn God-given responsibility. These are the roots of 'biblical rule and authority'.

Hi Ron,This just adds weight as to why God rejected Saul. Clearly He did not want a people 'led' into an attitude of disobedience.

Ron thank you so much for your insight into this. Recently I have been reading through Joshua, and Judges so it is of interest that you bring up that book. I think that for now, I am also wondering how to set things up as to not push the Spirit out but also instruct, and make disciples. Perhaps multiple meetings through the week. I really do not know, but I am realizing that when the Spirit is allowed to move it is wonderful, and you begin to sense the Body, not the individual.

The word 'king' is usually followed by the preposition 'over', but 'leaders' are not 'over' but 'in front of'. Can you see that distinction. It will become a vital distinction when we look at the pattern of authority in the church.Ah, yes, I see it! I never thought about that before. A fascinating picture of 'God's kind of king' is emerging. He is a shepherd warrior, equipped by God to protect and guide the flock.Philologos, what you have written so far is fascinating, and I am eager to read your next installment. In my church life, the institution has always been of utmost importance, and has taken a lot of time and energy from the pastor. Also, the "king" model has been generally the practise - because that has been the DESIRE of the people (I think). I'm not sure if I've really ever had a pastor in the sense of its real meaning - to protect and guide. However, I can honestly say that Christ has been a true Shepherd for me. Once I learned that I could trust Christ as my Shepherd, I could enjoy and appreciate my pastors as fellow pilgims on the same journey as me. Each one I have had has always contributed to my life in some way. God works regardless. Diane

Ron if you would give us some more to chew on that would be wonderful. :-)

Yes, there will be a little more...I thought I ought to just underline this shepherd-king theme first. The appointment of Joshua is another indication of the kind of role that God had in mind for Israel's leaders:“Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation, Which may go out before them, and which may go in before them, and which may lead them out, and which may bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD be not as sheep which have no shepherd.”(Num. 27:16-17, KJVS)There is also a strong contrast between the behaviour of Saul and that of David which is expressed in these 'shepherd' terms:“Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.”(2Sam. 5:2, KJVS) Three key words appear in this sentence:1. Saul was 'king': melek "king over us"2. David 'led them out and brought them in', 3. 'feed' - the word is shepherded, It is interesting that of 172 uses of the word 'shepherd' and 'to shepherd' in the KJV, 75 of them are translated 'feed' or something similar.4. and captain which is 'nagid'; the one at the frontThere are some famous rebukes to 'pastors' in the OT prophets, sometimes in contrast even to Gentile kings; God called Cyrus 'My Shepherd' (Is 44:20) more than 200 years before Cyrus was born! These anti-shepherd references are scattered throughout the prophets: Is. 56:11; Jer. 2:8; 10:21; 12:10; 23:1-2; 25:34; 50:6; Ezek. 34:2-3,5,7-8,10; Nah. 3:18; Zech. 10:3; 11:3,8. It is easy to forget that when the prophets bring their accusations and judgements against the shepherds they are talking about Israel's kings not their priests nor their prophets but against their 'leaders'. It is good too to remember that the 'teaching' role was really the responsibility of the 'priests' rather than the 'kings'. eg“For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.”(Mal. 2:7, KJVS)I was 26 years old when I was first inducted as a 'pastor' in a UK church. I remember well an older man putting his arm around my shoulder and saying 'the pastor's role is really very simple; lead, feed and bleed.'In many ways the concentration is on the 'shepherd disposition' rather than on great gifts. I think it was E M Bounds who said 'it is not so much great gifts that God uses, but great likeness to Jesus Christ'.

Thank you, Philologos. Again, some thought I was never aware of ex the role of Israel's kings. In another post you mentioned the miss-translation in the KJV of related words - "ruler" to justify eclesiastical control and hierarchy. Can you develop that here a bit? Diane

I was 26 years old when I was first inducted as a 'pastor' in a UK church. I remember well an older man putting his arm around my shoulder and saying 'the pastor's role is really very simple; lead, feed and bleed.'So is it safe to say that 'pastor' is not who one is, but what one does?In many ways the concentration is on the 'shepherd disposition' rather than on great giftsThis must be an 'attitude' of the heart towards God's children- as one would have for their own children. The old cliche' says that "folk don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care." Our Lord took it a step further when talking to Peter at the end of John's Gospel and essentially said, 'if you love me more than these, feed my sheep.' The question is what is meant by 'feed'? Would this be teaching or providing for their 'other' needs as well? We are used in the West to the sheep feeding the pastor's in one sense (in many cases); mainly materially or monitarily through tithe and offerings. Or we could look at it as the shepherds feed the sheep spiritual things and the sheep provide the wool (material things). What is causing the confusion for me is the whole 'body ministry' thing. If the body is ministering one to another as we find in Acts and I Corinthians; what would be left to 'feed' them?

If the body is ministering one to another as we find in Acts and I Corinthians; what would be left to 'feed' them?We will get onto this hopefully. I just wanted to root our thinking as firmly as possible into raw biblical concepts rather than looking at current practice and trying to decided how biblical it is.

I would just like to say that I have been so blessed thus far, and cannot wait to hear and chew on more. Blessings to you all!

OK, here's another hand-granade.;-)The only reference to the word 'pastor' which we have in our KJV's is “He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 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: 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; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 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.”(Eph. 4:10-16, KJVS)This passage gives us the source, the nature and the purpose of a New Testament pastor. The NKJV makes it clear that the sense is not a specific and limited number of such people ie some pastors, but he gave 'men' and some of those men were given to be 'pastors etc'.Let me say a little about the letter to the Ephesians. It may not be a specific letter to Ephesus but more in the nature of a circular. Very old manuscripts exist where instead of the word for 'Ephesus' there is a space as thought it were waiting to be 'addressed'. This may be a very early example of 'word-processing'. There are other features which make this more likely. Paul spent a considerable time in Ephesus and had many freinds there, but there are no personal greetings in the manner of the letters to Rome, Philippians, Colossians etc. But there is something which I think is much more in important and that is the way that Paul uses the word 'church'. Here are the references:Eph. 1:22 (KJVS) And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Eph. 3:10 (KJVS) To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, Eph. 3:21 (KJVS) Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. Eph. 5:23 (KJVS) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Eph. 5:24 (KJVS) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Eph. 5:25 (KJVS) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; Eph. 5:27 (KJVS) That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:29 (KJVS) For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: Eph. 5:32 (KJVS) This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. I have quoted them in full so that you can check what I am going to say... I don't think the 'local church' is in view in Ephesians; it is the universal church which is the continuing topic. Have a look at the list before you read more.Why is this significant? Well, if Paul has 'the church' in mind rather than 'a church' his teaching on the topic of 'apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers' is most likely to have to do with the universal church rather than a local church. This is why I wanted to examine the scriptures before trying to work out how well current 'pastors' are doing their jobs. If this next sentence is a new idea to you it may be shocking. There is no reference, in the New Testament, to a local church with its own 'pastor' in fact, the scriptural narrative that we have in the Acts and through the Epistles would suggest that 'apostles, prophets, and evangelists' were all itinerant rather than residential functions. The point I want to make is that, used in the New Testament sense, 'pastors and teachers' are gifts to the whole church not to a local gathering and that, more that likely, they were itinerant too. If that is not a new idea you will take it in your stride. If it is a new idea, take a while to digest it with its implications.While you're digesting that how about this? In some circles this little list from Ephesians is referred to as 'the fivefold ministry gifts'. But are there five in this list or four? Just a reading of the KJV might indicate what we are looking at “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;”(Eph. 4:11, KJVS)Notice that in the KJV there are only 4 uses of 'some' rather than 5. The Greek bears this out. I'm sorry about this bit of Greek but I need it to make my point.Eph. 4:11 kai autos edOke tous men apostolous, tous de prophEtas, tous de euaggelistas, tous de poimenas kai didaskalousThere are special 'conjunctions' used here which have a special sense. The Greek word 'men' in the above quotation warns you that something additional is on the way. It is the equivalent of the way we might say 'on the one hand...' This phrase would alert you to the fact that there was something more coming. The Greek word 'de' is the equivalent of saying 'on the other hand...' That gives us this kind of paraphrase "also, on the one hand, he gave some (as) apostles and, on the other hand, some (as) prophets and, on the other hand some (as) evangelists and on the other hand some (as) pastors and teachers"/We seem to be short of one 'on the other hand..." Surprize, the fivefold ministry gifts of Ephesians 4 are really the fourfold ministry gifts; the phrase 'pastors and teachers' is describing one group not two. At the very least this strongly associates 'pastoring and teaching'So what conclusions do I draw from this? I think the Biblical evidence shows that the 'function' of 'pastor/teacher' was not part of the hierarchy/organisation of the local church but was an itinerant function of the same kind as that exercised by 'apostles, prophets and evangelists'. The 'governing functions' in the local church are not in view in this Ephesians passage. If we want to learn more about the 'governing functions' we shall have to look at a different set of words...

BOOM (grenade goes off)I have wondered about these things for awhile, but how dp we implement this into "a church" as it seems it would be near impossible to do it in "the church"? :-o

So what conclusions do I draw from this? I think the Biblical evidence shows that the 'function' of 'pastor/teacher' was not part of the hierarchy/organisation of the local church but was an itinerant function of the same kind as that exercised by 'apostles, prophets and evangelistSo this answers why our Lord tells Peter that he is to 'feed' my sheep (as this is a 'pastor' or shepherd function); likewise Paul said that after his departure grievous wolves would come in not sparing the flock, as if he were functioning in the protective aspect of a shepherd (Acts 20:29). The 'governing functions' in the local church are not in view in this Ephesians passage. If we want to learn more about the 'governing functions' we shall have to look at a different set of words...I should wish to hear those words. :-D Likewise I am greatly enjoying this study.

Brother philologos,Perhaps you are headed in this direction already, but could you explain the difference then between a bishop, an overseer, and a pastor. Simply is there one(a difference) or or they one in the same? Since a bishop should be "apt to teach", and Paul also instructed Timothy to teach and do the work of an evangelist etc.

roaringlamb's could you explain the difference then between a bishop, an overseer, and a pastor.There are some passages of scripture which may help. btw I am not trying to create a 'first century organisation' but just to identify principles which I think have continuing relevance.“For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the Day of Pentecost. From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.” (Acts 20:16-17, NKJV) Just to set the scene; the people that Paul will be speaking to later in the chapter are 'the elders' of 'the church in Ephesus'. Note that he did not send for the 'pastor' but for 'the elders'. These are the beginnings of some of the words that RobertW wanted to hear more about. Let's begin with elders.elders.I hope I'm not going too slowly with this but I want to build from solid foundations. I am working on the assumption that there is enough evidence in the Book to establish identifiable principles. I'm not into methods, that's another issue.The first elders mentioned in the Bible are Egyptian! “And Joseph went up to bury his father: and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt,”(Gen. 50:7, KJVS) This is really a great place to start because it shows us that 'elders' is something of a relative term. The 'elders' of Pharoah's household would have been of a different 'order' to the 'elders' of the land of Egypt. Who are these people and what is their function? It would seem that these people had both recognized status and authority. I presume that everyone in Pharaoh's house knew who the 'elders' were, and that the people of Egypt knew who their 'elders' were.Sometimes folks say 'it doesn't matter about recognition, an elder will always be an elder whether he is recognized as such or not'. I think there is a truth in this but it omits another truth which is that 'eldership' really has to be recognized for it to function. Who are these men? I can see no evidence for their election but at some stage men who were obviously reckoned to be able to carry the responsibility were officially entrusted with the role. They were 'publicly' acknowledged as men with authority 'in Pharaoh's house' and in the 'land of Egypt'.I will make another point here which is that these men, when publicly acknowledged can carry a representative role. These men, attending Jacob's funeral were representing 'Pharaoh' and the 'land of Egypt'. This will have its relevance later in our thinking. So these men, of suitable qualification, have become the publicly recognized representatives of Pharaoh and of Egypt; there are two distinguishable groups.When the sons of Israel and their families migrated to Egypt they had no elders. Families don't need elders. The structure is much less formal and all authority within the family is really just delegated by the father. It is plain to see the authority that Israel has over his own family in the narrative of Joseph and Benjamin. The blood descendants (and wives etc) of Israel who migrated to Egypt are said to be 70. (Ex 1:5) However this may not be the total of all who migrated to Egypt at this time; this 70 are "out of the loins of Jacob" in other words his blood-relatives. The invitation from Pharaoh to Israel however was not just for the 'blood relatives' but for “...your father and your households, and come unto me: and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land.” (Gen. 45:18, KJVS)At an earlier period, Abraham's 'household' included 318 men who were able to bear arms. The 'migration' of the sons of Israel to Egypt may have been much larger than we usually think.However, the households were under the rule of the family heads; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah etc., and there is no need for a class of representatives or 'elders' in this context. The population grew and by the time of the Exodus we have 603550 adult males able to bear arms .(Numbers 1:44) This is not the only change. By this time the people of Israel also have 'elders'. Ex. 3:16 (KJVS) 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: Ex. 3:18 (KJVS) And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God. Ex. 4:29 (KJVS) And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel: Ex. 12:21 (KJVS) Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover. This is an enormous transition. Jacob's family clan has become a community and in the larger context there is now a need for 'organisation'. In such a group 'organisation' may be imposed or may just develop. Such a group will inevitably gain 'elders'.btw did you know that the Internet has 'elders'? This article traces the instinctive development of the Internet and identifies the Internet Elders; it is an interesting concept. I quote it here only to show how a community must develop an organisation. It may be good or bad, formal or informal, but the organisation must develop. Have you ever heard the phrase 'man is a political animal'? In its origins it doesn't really mean what you think it means. 'polis' is a Greek city state. This statement, in its origins, actually says that human beings create social organisations.Another point I would like to make. Eldership in Israel arose because of necessity rather than by divine imposition. The men that we usually refer to as 'deacons' in Acts 6 also arose because of necessity. Neither Israel of old, nor the Jerusalem church of the First Century were working to a blueprint. They were developing and God was at work in the development. This is why I want to point out again the danger of trying to create a blueprint for 'the New Testament Church'. There are 'New Testament Church' principles but not a strict 'pattern'. As a local church develops we ought not to be trying to outwork a pattern but following the Spirit's directions in our hearts and testing those developments against the principles that we can see at work in the First Century. I would like to suggest that Barnabas and Paul's action in 'ordaining elders in every city' was not as the result of following the perfect pattern for a church but was simply the God given provision for a need which arose with the growing numbers just as the 'deacons' of Acts 6 were God's provision for the need which arose with the growing numbers. Let's digest/talk about this before we move on.

Wonderful thoughts, shall we procede? :-)

Wonderful thoughts, shall we procede?Yes, verily! :-)

I had to wait in the car to collect someone earlier today and was looking at 'elders' on my PocketPC. I discovered some interesting data. I would encourage others to do this kind of thing, not to prove a point but simply to check and check. I was searching through the scriptures of the phrase "elders of". I wanted to see how many kinds of elders there are in the scriptures. I was really quite amazed. In addition to the Egyptian elders we have:elders of Israel: Ex. 3:16,18; 12:21; 17:5-6; 18:12; 19:7; 24:1,9; Lev. 9:1; Num. 11:16,24,30; 16:25; Deut. 27:1; 31:9; Josh. 7:6; 8:10; 24:1; 1Sam. 4:3; 8:4; 2Sam. 3:17; 5:3; 17:4,15; 1Kings 8:1,3; 1Chr. 11:3; 15:25; 21:16; 2Chr. 5:2,4; Ezek. 14:1; 20:1,3; Matt. 21:23; 26:3,47; 27:1; Luke 22:66; Acts 4:8but I was surprised to find elders of the priests: 2Kings 19:2; Is. 37:2although not so surprised to findelders of cities: Deut. 19:12; 21:3-4,6,19-20; 22:15,17-18; 25:8; Josh. 20:4; Judg. 8:16; Ruth 4:2; 1Kings 8:1; 2Chr. 5:2; Ezra 10:14Can you see why I find this curious? How many 'levels' of elders were operating in Israel? For example if I am a priest living in Anathoth do I have 3 levels of elders?eg national elderspriestly elders city elders.David had 'elders of his house': 2Sam. 12:17The clans seem to have had 'elders' too: 2Sam. 19:11, Ezek 8:1This has set me wondering whether or not the scriptures are using 'elders' as a generic term for 'recognised leaders' rather than as the label for an office called 'elders'. Can you see the implications this would have? We usually think of 'elders' as the "leaders", where the man who holds the label has the responsibility to 'lead'. But how does it play the other way about? ie is it really that a man who is a leader is publicly recognised as an 'elder'. Are leaders appointed or do they emerge? Is the recognition of an emerging 'leader' what causes him to be denominated as an 'elder'?What do you think?

Are leaders appointed or do they emerge? Is the recognition of an emerging 'leader' what causes him to be denominated as an 'elder'?I personally like this idea here the most, and think it is perhaps in the spirit of the New Testament. In the last two churches I have been involved with, there have been several individuals who just had a wonderful aroma about them in the Spirit, and it didn't take too long for them to be appointed as elders within the church too long after their joining it. In fact, knowing the history of these two men, it seems this is a natural pattern that emerges in whatever church they attend. It's just as if it naturally happens... or to better put it, supernaturally. One at my previous church has now moved on to a much larger church where he now attends, so this process might take a little longer to flesh itself out. However, it would not shock me at all if he found himself an elder at this church within a short period of time.

hi all, i attend a church that had no membership or elder/deacon structure for many years. it started with the pastor and his family in their home. we got to about600 attendees and the pastor said "if you're wonderung who the elders in this church are ask yourself who you would call if you were sick; they are your elders" we have 20,000 now and more structure. jimp

? Is the recognition of an emerging 'leader' what causes him to be denominated as an 'elder'?This would seem to make sense. The question that goes through my mind is: WHO is able to recognize the elders as such?I think of the play-ground setting - where the most dominant or popular tend to rise to the top and be the group "elders". Clearly, it requies spiritual maturity to recognize a truly mature elder verses one that seems to be a good leader, but may not be mature spiritually. In our culture where education, status, and charisma are valued we may miss the true elder. Diane

KingJimmy's One at my previous church has now moved on to a much larger church where he now attends, so this process might take a little longer to flesh itself out.This raises an interesting point that 'eldership' is a relative term. A man who has the 'leadership gifting' in one group may not have the necessary 'leadership gift' for another. A man who functions well as as 'elder' in a smaller, younger, group might need time to settle into a larger one.I shall have something to say about 'quick appointment' of elders later. ;-)

roadsign's This would seem to make sense. The question that goes through my mind is: WHO is able to recognize the elders as such?In a smaller group, I think it would be pretty obvious if the group were a real community and not just a 'church plant'; that's not to disparage 'church plants' but I am thinking relationships rather than projects.In a larger group, the current 'oversight' would need to recognise the quality of any who were to be joined to their number.

Well, I am ready for more if everyone else is. I have really been chewing and praying, and praying and chewing, this is good !!!!

In another post you mentioned the miss-translation in the KJV of related words - "ruler" to justify eclesiastical control and hierarchy. roadsignsorry I missed this one. In a sense I don't really want to abolish the word 'rule' as to redefine it. Jesus saidMatt. 6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. Matt. 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. My point in quoting these two verses is to remind us that we are not supposed to be behaving like the 'Gentiles'. The last of these two quotations is very important. It says that 'Gentile power structures' are not the way the church will operate. A 'gentile power structure' is the kind we might get in the military or in a business setting. It can be set out as a schematic or organisation chart in which 'power' comes from those 'exercising dominion over' them. The NT Greek word has 'katakurieuO" which in turn derives from 'kurios' meaning 'Lord'. The 'kata' prefix means 'downwards' or thoroughly. The ordinary way we would say this would be 'lording it over them'. This kind of 'power structure' or 'rule' is not the kind we find in the scriptures which relate to God's people, but because we spend our lives in 'gentile power structures' it is almost impossible to use the word 'rule' without contaminating the Biblical concept. egRev. 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. Rev. 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. I wonder what our general impression is in reading these passages. Would it alter if we knew that the word translated 'rule' in both these instances is the Greek word 'poimainO' which actually means to 'tend like a shepherd'. (the Greek word for 'pastor/shepherd' is "poimEn") I have watched shepherds in Romania; they carry huge clubs and you might think 'they would rule with a rod of iron' but they never use those 'clubs' on the sheep. The shepherd-kings of Israel were to be warrior defenders of the flock who carried both 'rod and staff'; (Ps 23) A man who uses the 'club' on the sheep has not begun to understand the way the Bible uses the word 'rule'.We can go back much further than this. Gen. 3:16 (KJVS) Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Gen. 4:7 (KJVS) If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. What kind of 'rule' does this bring to mind? In the minds of most people this would create a 'gentile power structure' model with one person greater than another. But the word 'rule' has been used earlier in Genesis“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.”(Gen. 1:16-18, KJVS)Now in what way would you see the role of the Sun and the Moon towards the earth, because these are first steps to understanding the way that 'authority' operates in God's kingdoms. The Sun and the Moon 'rule' our earth by providing it with light and warmth... changes the picture of 'rule' a bit doesn't it. There is a link between the first two verses I quoted too. The Gentiles go scratching about for their sustenance because they have no consciousness of a 'heavenly Father'. The consciousness of a 'heavenly Father' and his care changes everything. The 'gentile' has no-one looking out for him so has to resort to 'power structures' to defend him. Only those who are aware of a heavenly Father's continuing provision and protection are 'safe' outside 'gentile power structures'.So this is part of what I was wanting to do. Not to 'abolish' the word but to be sure than when we use the word 'rule' we are not thinking about Eastern potentates, military command structures or the way the office is run. ;-)

This is all very amazing - the way you draw out truth from the wider context of scripture. I know that you are not done with this concept: "rule" I look forward to more. I trust that this will also naturally lead to the issue of women leading in churches. (I read your article on your site, and look to see how you will weave it in here) Diane

Now in what way would you see the role of the Sun and the Moon towards the earth, because these are first steps to understanding the way that 'authority' operates in God's kingdoms. The Sun and the Moon 'rule' our earth by providing it with light and warmth... changes the picture of 'rule' a bit doesn't it. I was just talking about the Sun this AM and commented to a young man that plants convert the 'light' energy from the Sun into carbohydrates for our survival. The Sun is ultimately what makes our food chain possible. In this way the Sun 'feeds' the earth with its energy.

I was just talking about the Sun this AM and commented to a young man that plants convert the 'light' energy from the Sun into carbohydrates for our survival. The Sun is ultimately what makes our food chain possible. In this way the Sun 'feeds' the earth with its energy. I like it! :-D

Isn't it amazing that God would give revelation into His version of leadership by the 19th verse of the Bible! It is clearly one of the FIRST things He wanted us to understand. Talk about dealing a blow to the 'pride of life' and the worship of Molech.

Brother Ron,If the next course is ready, I think we are as well.

If the next course is ready, I think we are as wellDitto

Just a comment on elders. I was reading in Hebrews 11 and the verse "by it the elders received a good report", struck me. In light of the recent discussion on this thread could 'elder' be someone that is looked up to?Lyndon

My apologies, it have taken half a dozen attempts to get back to this topic...There was another thought that came to mind and can be introduced here and developed later. It has to do with the notion of 'overseer'. The Greek word for 'overseer' or 'watcher-over' is 'episkopos'. If you drop some letters from the original Greek episkopos and try to pronounce the word from just the bold letters you may 'hear' a familiar word. It is the word 'piskop' or 'bishop' and is where we get the word from. The problem is that what we now call 'bishops' and what the Greek word 'episkopos' really means are miles apart!The word 'episkopos' is the word used in... “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28, KJVS) Do you remember these guys? This is the group of 'elders' that Paul called from Ephesus to Miletus. In Acts 20:17,18. So the men called 'elders' in v 17 are told to act as 'overseers'. This is Wycliffe's Translation from 1395Take ye tente to you, and to al the flocke, in which the Hooli Goost hath set you bischops, to reule the chirche of God, which he purchaside with his blood. There's the old English word for 'bishop' and you can see its link with 'episkopos' more clearly perhaps. But what does it mean? From its etymology we can get some clues. 'epi' means 'upon, or over as in 'epidermis' and skopeO which means a 'careful examination'. So "episkopos" would be someone who 'maintained a careful watch' over something. Sounds as though we are back to shepherds! These are all descriptive terms primarily rather than 'titles'. 'Elders' is who they are; 'shepherds' is what they do. BUT it is the same people we are talking about.Let's do a little more detective word.“But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:” (Heb. 2:6-7, KJVS) This speaks of God 'visiting' the human race; the word is the verb form of 'episkopos' (episkeptomai). So, apparently, God is an Overseer.The OT word, which is very common, has a wide variety of translations in the KJV. Strongs 6485 (Please Click) The prevailing feel to the word, and this goes for its NT equivalent of 'episkopeO' is of a careful examination with the purpose of approving or disapproving. The word can be with loving or hostile intent. I think there is something of the idea of "who the Lord loveth, he chasteneth'. This is the mood of “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”(Psa 8:4 KJVS)I've tried to examine this at length because this word carries so many important ideas of 'pastoral' love, attention, and discipline. There is a testimony of Paul's which often comes to mind “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.” (Phil 1:6-7 KJVS) Paul's 'ability' to 'prophesy' encouragement into their midst came because of his heart state towards the Philippians. This is not hierarchy nor gentile power structure but a sense of responsibility born of a steady state of heart affection for them. An old 'protest' song from Graham Kendrick has the words "the tears that earned the right to speak'. I always think about Paul when I hear these words. This verse has a link with the wonderful statement later in PhilippiansPhil. 4:19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. We need to notice how beautifully this statement is framed... 'not' your God shall supply all your need' but my God. This statement is not an evangeli-tude (a peculariarly evangelical platitude) but a conviction that has arisen in his heart. The 'heart' in which he held the Philippians constantly.I''ll pause to allow digestion... and then I want to say a little more about 1 Tim 3:1.

Ron, if you could bless us with some further insight it would be wonderful. Also I think the question coming to mind now is How does this work practically? How does one oversee, but not overbear? How does one lead but also let others participate?

Well, this has been a very interesting thread. I would agree with all the Biblical observations by philologos concerning leadership and leadership authority.If I may I would like to add the history of how churches in the first couple centuries played all this teaching out.If your looking for a form of church govenement in Scripture -- good luck -- you will not find it. The main issue of the Biblical writers and leadership is character not form of govenment. What I am giving you is the product of my own historical studies and education. By the end of the first century two main forms surface. 1) In congregations that are Jewish dominated have a council of elders as the main governing body. In a sense this is what the apostles were for the whole church in the book of Acts.2) Gentile churches had the single bishop with a council of presbyters to help advise the bishop. Much like the Roman civil govenment but not corrupted. Deacons were in both types to handle stuff involveing money, benevolence, visitation and by the second century seem to be handling personal desputes between members of the church of a legal nature. Seems they took Paul's advice in Corinthians.I believe the first type of govenment began to die for one very simple reason -- Jewish believers began to return to Judism. The second type simply prevailed because only Gentle churches remained and that form also survived. The rest of history and the rise of the Roman bishopric over others follows.The concept of 'pastor' is definitely a modern one as the Scripture rarely uses the word in the first place and does not give us a job description either. More fitting for the modern 'pastor' is this concept of 'overseer' that is mentioned by Paul a couple times. Even here we can only surmise --based on the qualifications -- what they did but in short they simply oversaw the activities of the church and lead by example. They were teachers, preachers and men of prayer for the most part. Business matters were almost exclusively the property of deacons so they did not deal with them. Hard concept considering the modern pastor is exepcted to be CEO -- a concept completely foreign to the Biblical overseer. As a 'pastor' I see my role biblically as a guide and to lead like my Shepherd -- from the front. I expect nothing from them that I am not willing to do myself and I concern myself with the word and prayer more than budgets and bottom lines. Like Paul I simply say -- 'follow me as I follow Christ -- you don't have to follow me because I demand it. I simple look around to make sure everyone -- including myself -- is following Christ. My authority is not my own but his and I take authority only in the Word of God. I let it guide me and the flock God has called me to oversee.I would like people to keep this discussion alive -- it is very good for a pastor who is trying to clairfy and remake himself from a corporate CEO I have been taught to the Biblical 'overseer'. Thanks to all for you insights.Blessings.

Sir Edward (what a fascinating nickname!)1) In congregations that are Jewish dominated have a council of elders as the main governing body. In a sense this is what the apostles were for the whole church in the book of Acts.2) Gentile churches had the single bishop with a council of presbyters to help advise the bishop. Much like the Roman civil govenment but not corrupted. While the first of these statements is certainly true, I would challenge the second. The trend is there, certainly but Ignatius' constant hammering (in his letters) on the theme of 'there is no authority without the bishop' suggests that he was hard at work to arguing his case, for which he provides no evidence other than his own intended martyrdom.The trend is there from the time of... “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.” (3John 1:9 KJVS)... the pattern however seems to be the multi-personed 'oversight' rather than the single congregation 'bishop'. Sometimes the postscripts to 2 Timonthy and Titus which were added by the translators of the KJV seep into our thinking and our language. Neither Timothy nor Titus were functioning as congregational elders/oversees but as apostolic delegates.

As a 'pastor' I see my role biblically as a guide to lead like my Shepherd -- from the front. I expect nothing from them that I am not willing to do myself and I concern myself with the word and prayer more than budgets and bottom lines. Like Paul I simply say -- 'follow me as I follow Christ -- you don't have to follow me because I demand it. I simple look around to make sure everyone -- including myself -- is following Christ. My authority is not my own but his and I take authority only in the Word of God. I let it guide me and the flock God has called me to oversee.These words bless me! People follow by imitating their role models. Sheep follow their shepherd. But goats get herded from behind. May the Spirit always be your guide as you follow after your Shepherd. Diane

philologos,Yes I see your point but remember they were also following your understanding of leadership. The single bishop developed very early in Gentle churches. Timothy for instance is called the Bishop of Ephesus later in his life. I do not think the bishopric in the early church was anything like what developed in the third centuries and following. The single bishop was more of a leader in the manner you described. The Bishop was more of a chairman or representative of the council presbyters not the Lord of it. Not a Lord but a guide by example and he very much took input from others and if the will of the council was against him he would follow that it seems. The form was simply the way it was because the church would need a single spokesman from that area from time to time and it was something that Gentile beleives were familiar with. Later the people themselves begin to give more power to the central figure. Remember Ignatius is very early in the second century (125 AD) and talks of the single bishopric as if it is already very developed, but not completely. He is one bishop writing to other bishops (singular in all cases) He definitely pushed it over the edge into more authoritarian control for which we all can now grieve very much. I think in the early going the chruch really had no issues with form of govenment and that is my point -- their main concern was that their leaders have good character and be filled with the Holy Spirit. They figured -- rightly -- that if this were the case it would not really matter what form they followed because the men running the church would be guided by Christ and that is what mattered to them. This seems to be Paul's main concern with Timothy in his letter to him as well. There definitely were two forms of government that develop very early but as to which one is 'right' was not an issue. I don't think it was the concern of most what form it was as long as it allowed for the kingdom of God to grow and the gospel to be preached. Blessings.P.S. Sir Edward -- this has been my nickname for some time now online. It started with my second forum I belonged too -- "The Knights of the Theological Roundtable". It was a free discussion board like this one but everyone had to follow a code of conduct to be called a knight and have certain privledges. Otherwise you could be shut down. It also fits my love of Medevial history and my personality so I kept it.

Hi Sir EdwardTimothy for instance is called the Bishop of Ephesus later in his life. where and by whom? :-) Remember Ignatius is very early in the second century (125 AD) and talks of the single bishopric as if it is already very developed, but not completely. He is one bishop writing to other bishops (singular in all cases)Yes, but I think he works 'so hard' at this in his letters that it gives me the impression that he was still battling for his own view of things. His letter to Polycarp is more circumspect to my mind.

philologos,where and by whom?The church's martyology says this is so. I realize this is a questionalble source, but there is no evidence to say it was not so. In any case the way Ignatious writes indicates that there were single bishops by his time which is not to removed from the first century. I too feel he was pushing things a bit as well for a more authoritarian bishop not for the bishop form of govenemnt itself which did apparently already exist the way some of his language goes.'Hence you should act in accord with your bishop's (singular) mind, as you surely do. Your presbytry , which deserves its name and is a credit to God, is as closely tied to the bishop as the strings to a harp." -- Letter to the EphesiansThis does not even seem to indicate that he is trying to establish the single bishop, it seems he already knew it existed. It also shows the bishop as seperate but coexisting with the presbytry in a very close relationship.Blessings.

Perhaps what took place was that once men saw that there could be a profit(financial or popularity) they went for it. Rather than being called of GOD, they sought vain glory for themselves. So then you have the early Roman Catholic Church exacting taxes, and teaching that only the priests could interpret the Word of GOD, as well as the Church of England doing away with any that dare speak outside of its structure.So you have hirelings who have made themselves the standard, so that the shepherd is an abnormality. Now fast forward to today, people look to men to teach them, they look to men to be their spirituality as well, and so as long as there is profit in it these men go along with the flow, yet once again the hireling becomes the norm while the shepherd called by GOD is an abnormality.Just some thoughts. Correct me if I am off. :-)

Neither Timothy nor Titus were functioning as congregational elders/oversees but as apostolic delegates.Indeed. It would be more proper to call the "Pastoral Epistles" the "Apostolic Epistles." Of all the ministries we have the most detail of in Scripture, it would be the apostolic ministry, as Timothy and Titus are functioning as apostles in their respective locals.

Roaringlamb,Perhaps what took place was that once men saw that there could be a profit(financial or popularity) they went for it.Actually that was a problem almost right away -- thus Paul's language and Peter's as well about making sure people in leadership were not lovers of money. Why -- because people were given soem money to take care of their needs as leaders in the church and as such some people found it an easy ride. But I tihnk you have the progression pretty well. One of the great trageties of the faith was the early loss of the Jewish Chrsitians in the second century -- they would have been staunch fighters for the council govenment which I feel is better and it would lead to a lot less -- 'pastor burnout' as it would require many to do the work of what is now usually done by one. 'many hands make light work' and that is no less true in church leadership.In the first century you see both government develop. In the second you see the Jewish Christians depart and a rise in the single bishop form of govenement thanx to Ignatius of Antioch and other bishops. In the third the council government is all but dead and there are about four main bishops fighting for dominannce. Through it all you see the fall of the presbyters and elders into lesser roles.It is simply a 'corruption' over time.You make a valid point about people looking ot men too -- the main opposition I have had by my choice to become a biblical pastor in function has come from the congregation and the board. They have come to view the pastor's role as -- feed me pastor and do for me so I do not have ot do for myself. It is the biggest headache at times becasue people have now come to expect 'professional ministry'.Blessings.

It should be noted that in the early church, that the Didache, the writings of Clement, Polycarp to Philippi, and others show that a single bishop presiding over a congregation was not yet a universal feature in the Church. This form of government was not installed by the apostles. I firmly believe the apostles would never have appointed a single bishop over any congregation, nor thought of themselves as such, for they recognized Christ alone as the head of the Church both locally and universally. Thus, no Pope, Bishop, or "Sr Pastor" type figure. For this would be in contrast to Peter calling Christ the Chief Shepherd, or the apostle Paul calling Christ the head. Yes the church needs a head figure to represent it, as does any other organization. However, the apostles recognized this head as Christ alone. Christ alone was to be the single head of the church.

In the first century you see both government develop. The Didache knows nothing of a Sr Pastor type figure, and this was a second century document. I wrote a paper you might be interested in that I wrote on this topic in BIble college. I updated it at my masters level, but don't have it in HTML format right now:http://www.christiansteps.com/doctrine/paper-chh323.html

The Didache is indeed a second century document and as such really is no help at all about a single bishop form of govenement existence in the first century as Ignatius does say in the second century they both existed. the Didache is silent and Ignatius is not. My point is simply that Ignatius assumes the single bishop exists when he writes at times and as such indicates a possiblity that it also existed in the first century. I too once thought as you but then I could reconcile the fact that Ignatius seems to indicate in some places his govenment as he presentes it already exists. The only way to do this was to look at the possiblity that both existed or multiple types existed depending on the needs of the congregation and thier particular ministry. I agree that the fear is one man in power that is why I also say that there was definite checks and balances o nthis bishops power nad a very different understanding of leadership back then. I understand everybody these days once to slam the single pastor form of govenemnt but here is one stubborn fact -- the Bible does not give us a form at all. Biblically it is impossible to maintain any form of govenement. The only issue for the NT writers is character of leadership not form. In a sense then any form will work as long as their are men of godly charracter at the helm. I haven't read your paper yet so bear with me at this time. I will get back to you.Blessings.

Hi Sir Edward, In a sense then any form will work as long as their are men of godly charracter at the helm.I have watched this thread with much interest and that interest spiked when you mentioned the loss of the Jewish Christians after the first Century. When you consider the fact that the Sanhedrin (Bet Din), Saducees, and later a host of false Messiah's (especially Bar Kochba) were all vying for power in their times, it seems clear to me that indeed the emphasis was on 'godly' men in leadership; but more excellently, leaders that were led of the Holy Spirit. But before we all just say, "of coarse that is true", I ought to define my terms.This is where I think our conversations on these topics may break down. Surely the qualifications (so-called) for leaders listed in the pastoral epistles includes being led of the Spirit? It was 'the' qualification for being a child of God according to Romans 8:14:For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of GodBecause we live in times where leadership and authority are hotly debated, we need to ask what is at the 'root' of the issue when it comes to authority. The struggle has always been for authority. Men in the first and second century went to extraordinary lengths to gain or maintain their authority; and the Pharisees at Jamnia (Yavneh) demonstrate that like few others. As the cliche' goes, history teaches us that we learn nothing from history. Here we are again.I have known a lot of 'godly' men; but few who were interested in simply allowing the Holy Spirit to take charge as we read in the Book of Acts. To me, this is what is missing and no amount of changing procedures or structures is going to breathe life into the 'carcas'. The Holy Spirit is front and center in Acts and we have found many ways to replace Him. God Bless,-Robert

'Hence you should act in accord with your bishop's (singular) mind, as you surely do. Your presbytry , which deserves its name and is a credit to God, is as closely tied to the bishop as the strings to a harp." -- Letter to the EphesiansI suppose I should come out into the open and say I deeply distrust Ignatius for his posturing masochism and his episcopalianism. To me his writings are a tragic comment on how far the church had fallen in such a short time.

Kingjimmy It should be noted that in the early church, that the Didache, the writings of Clement, Polycarp to Philippi, and others show that a single bishop presiding over a congregation was not yet a universal feature in the Church. This form of government was not installed by the apostles. I am interested in this little grouping. I see these as much more authentic representations of post-apostolic Christianity. Some time ago RobertW asked me something about the angels of the Revelation; I intend to say something about Clement in that light when we get to it.

A very good book on this entire topic is from Roman Catholic scholar Francis A. Sullivan, "From Apostles To Bishops" which very carefully documents the transition from a plurality of elders overseeing a congregation to the strict monarachical bishop ruling a congregation. What is most interesting about the book is that although he ultimately affirms Rome's authority and such, he teaches this was an evolution that occured over several centuries in the development of church government. He thinks the final product was guided by the Holy Spirit. I disagree with him on this point. However, he documents quite nicely the development of the bishops office over time. It was quite a shocking book to me, as he denies very strongly the common RCC argument that "this is the way things have always been since Peter was appointed pope by Christ." In fact, he denies Peter was ever appointed such, though he ultiamtely affirms the bishop of Rome as the Pope. Very interesting read, well worth it. However, he does seem to have some liberal leanings when it comes to textual issues e.g. if Paul really wrote Timothy, etc.

It is often said that the NT teaches no form of church government. It is often also taught that the NT gives creedence to the existance of several types of church government. It is my conviction that this is crazy talk that is often more concerned with status quo maintenance, or theological laziness. Not always of course, but sometimes I believe it is such.Christ did actually setup a form of church governance, though very much organic in nature, and dependent upon godly leadership. I believe the NT teaches very much a form of church governance. Just because the church is organic and relational in nature, doesn't mean there isn't some sort of structure. As evident, all living things have structure. In fact, all things that exist have structure. If this were not so, it would fail to exist. For that matter, it could not even begin to exist. It is evident from the Scriptures this is true concerning the church as well. The church isn't strictly just relational nor organic, though these things are important to understand. It's relational in that in order to partake of it, we must partake of Christ, as 1 John teaches, that because we have fellowship with Christ, we therefore have fellowship with eachother. It's organic in the sense that it depends upon us having the life of Christ flowing through us, causing us to grow.It also has a definite structure. This is evident when Paul in Corinthians and Ephesians likens the church to the body of Christ. A body has a certain shape and behaves a very certain way. It is built upon a definite frame. If the church had no structure to it, then the body of Christ would not be dependent upon its other members, functioning as they were designed to function. But because body parts in the church do act in a malfunctioning manner, this also shows a structure. For if it had no structure or definite design, then there would could not say it was malfunctioning. But this structure is not very rigid. Sadly though in conversations about this topic, people start talk about ecclesiology immediately from a pastoral or congregational point of view and stance. The NT doesn't start with apostles and move on to pastors, deacons, etc. Rather, the NT starts with the headship of Christ, which is center. Yet in most of our doctrines regarding the church, Christ as head is only given theoretical lip serivce. In reality, the three most common forms of government, episcopalian, presbyterian, and congregationalism, know little to nothing of the headship of Christ. They all acknowledge Christ as head in some way, but in actual practice, they know nothing of the Christ functioning as head of the Church. The proof of this is evident that the church machine can continue to function even without the guidance of Christ, and often does function without any governance to Christ.Christ alone is head of the church. He is King of kings, Lord of lords. No pope, apostle, no bishop, no pastor... nobody else serves as head. He has no substitute that functions as head in His "absence" here on earth, as a representitive head that acts as if he were actually head. With that said, each member of the body of Christ is called into some sort of ministry, that is to function through the leading of Christ through the Holy Spirit. Each member is giving various ministries. Some are apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastor-teachers, etc. Some have the gift of tongues, some have the gift of interpretation. Some have the gifts of words of wisdom and knowledge.Each of these is to function as Christ leads. To some degree, this creates a sort of "autonomy" for each minister. For it is to Christ that each person must answer to, as a steward of the gift given to him. However, this also creates a reliance and accountability to others within the body, whose ministry concerns others. As the old saying goes, no man is an island. There are no lone-ranger Christians in the body of Christ, with each just doing their own thing in total disregard to others.In each assembly, since everybody is given a gift from Christ by the Holy Spirit, everybody is given the chance through the leading of the Spirit to express this gift to the congregation for the purpose of edification through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Each assembly is very much in one sense an "open-forum," where Christ presides over the meeting giving it direction. Each assembly is not to be dominated by a chosen few individuals who hold tight reigns on "the order of serivce." Although, depending on one's giftings, it might indeed appear some people seem to stick out in meetings more than others. However, in this scenario it's not that one person or group of people are actually dominating the meeting, rather it is Christ that is.This by far is something that I believe the Scriptures clearly teach, and that each and every single congregation ought to look like, no matter what ministers it might have. This might make some people from less Pentecostal/Charismatic backgrounds a bit nervous, but this is the most basic shape of the church Christ has set forth in the Scriptures.

Hi KingJimmy,Rather, the NT starts with the headship of Christ, which is center. Yet in most of our doctrines regarding the church, Christ as head is only given theoretical lip serivce. In my experience this is absolutely true. From the decision making processes of 'boards' to the decisions as to when a service begins, what is sung, preached, and the whole lot. The sad reality is that men end up userping the whole of God's authority. Each assembly is very much in one sense an "open-forum," where Christ presides over the meeting giving it direction. Each assembly is not to be dominated by a chosen few individuals who hold tight reigns on "the order of serivce." Although, depending on one's giftings, it might indeed appear some people seem to stick out in meetings more than others. However, in this scenario it's not that one person or group of people are actually dominating the meeting, rather it is Christ that is.I was in a meeting once in which one minister suggested that we need to allow the Holy Spirit to speak 'prophetically' through the preacher behind the pulpit. In other words, if the Lord gives a word of wisdom, knowledge, etc., we should allow that to go forth. The elder minister then gave a rank list of times in which something was said that was 'off' and he had to "clean up the mess" after that minister left town. The elder ministers 'policy' is that it is better to shut it all down than to suffer the consequences of an occasional 'off' utterance. Now, imagine the fallout from this. That means that no-one is allowed to speak prophetically but the person who feels they can 'hear from God' in such a way as to give such utterances; and that 'person' is the senior pastor. The whole congregation is shut down at this point and the whole of the service become a spectator sport. This is why I think 'experiences' are a two edged sword. The older a minister is- the more cautious they are. I am for wisdom, don't misunderstand me, but I am NOT for shutting things down out of fear- based on previous fiascos. This is why I believe that God has often used a young person to work through to bring revival; they don't have the baggage that a person with a mile long list of failures and 'what'if's and wherefore's has.Moreover, this is dangerously close to what the Rabbi's have done and it has happened almost unnoticed.And this is why I believe this topic is so utterly important. Any revival that God sends must involve a restoration of Him to His rightful place as HEAD. Not a 'lip-service' Headship, but book of Acts style, book of Revelation chapters 2-4, walking in the midst of the Golden Candlestick position. God Bless,-Robert

Something I wonder about as well is the fact that the Acts church met more than once a week thus allowing the Spirit to do different things within the body. So perhaps on Monday there is a prophecy given, Tuesday a tongue & interpretation, I think you get the gist. But we show up on Sunday, and sometimes Wednesday, and expect God to do all of that in one hour. Not that He cannot, but why would HE?Our brethren in other countries meet for hours, and have no problem allowing the Spirit to work.Sadly, Christ cannot have the headship of those who will not allow Him to, so within the body there are some who simply want their agenda put forth, or they want all eyes on them, so they speak.I know that as we have discussed this, God has been dealing wiht me.Last Sunday morning we opened with prayer, and as I prayed I wept, and a brother read a wonderful passage that was right in line with the teaching that GOD had given me. Once I opened my bible to teach, I was overcome and wept more before I could even speak. At the close we had more prayer, and the Lord told me I needed to apologize to some of the youth in attendance as I had at one time been their youth pastor but left, and probably wounded them in some way. I asked them to come to the front, and I asked for their forgivemess with tears.Yet after all of this, one brother said that we are not allowing the Spirit to move among us. I love him dearly, but I do not see his point. Perhaps you may have some suggestions?

It was quite a shocking book to me, as he denies very strongly the common RCC argument that "this is the way things have always been since Peter was appointed pope by Christ."This thinking is foundational to episcopalian church doctrine. The idea is that the Holy Spirit has continued to inspire the Catholic church in its development, and hence the Church is the ultimate authority for life and doctrine rather than the Scripture.

Something I wonder about as well is the fact that the Acts church met more than once a week thus allowing the Spirit to do different things within the body. So perhaps on Monday there is a prophecy given, Tuesday a tongue & interpretation, I think you get the gist. But we show up on Sunday, and sometimes Wednesday, and expect God to do all of that in one hour. Not that He cannot, but why would HE?I wonder whether this is how things were? Many were slaves and meetings were probably conducted late at night, hence Paul at Troas and his sleepy listener. I have oftne wondered whether the phrase 'if... the whole church be come together into one place' (1 Cor 14:23) is an indication that at other times 'parts of the church' might be 'come together'?I think our every-other-night-a-meeting is very much an urban model of ordinary church life. I recall preaching once in India where part of the congregation had travelled more that 5 hours to get to the 11 am Sunday morning meeting; and they did this regularly every Sunday.

Philologos, I think that makes more sense. I have often wondered what that passage in 1 Corinthians was talking about. When the whole church is together, as if they could not always be togehter, and thus it was a wonderful time when all could come together to use their gifts. It is also interesting to me that Paul does not seem to lay out this structure to any of the other churches he writes to. Why is that?Also I think that 1 Corinthians 13 comes before 1 Corinthians 14 to show that love is the key. Hence at the end of chapter 12 Paul say "but I show you a more excellent way"

It is also interesting to me that Paul does not seem to lay out this structure to any of the other churches he writes to. Why is that?It is crucial to understand about Paul's epistles is that he's not writing academic sytematic theologies. He's writing letters as the occasion demanded it. Thus, we don't see Paul give a discourse on tongues and interpretation in his other letters, because the disorder in the Corinthian church doesn't seem to have existed in the other churches. Some use this lack of mentioning of tongues in other epistles to somehow discredit the importance of speaking in tongues, but if they were to be fair, he doesn't talk about communion either. Paul does to some degree however, mention church life in another epistles, but never to the detail he does in 1 Cor. A key concept you see runing throughout is the idea of "one another." Next time you read through his epistles, see how many times and places you pickup this phrase or concept.

Earlier in this thread it was pointed out the one of the roles of the spiritual leader - the shepherd was to protect the sheep from enemies. I haven't seen too many comments on that. Back in Bible days people didn't have near the outside influences they have today - TV, cellular phones, internet, in addition to schools, peers, etc. Actually we are under constant bonbardment from enemy influence which can lure us away from truth and defile our minds. Even "Christian" TV is dangerous. Clearly today pastors are not the most influencial people in the lives of their parishoners. How can they fulfill their role in protecting the sheep when they are competing with so many very influencial "shepherds"?Diane

How indeed?It seems that many people have been wounded by other people(shepherds or other) and thus it becomes very difficult to trust anyone with any kind of authority or leadership in their life. I know that at times I even struggle with this to a degree. But what if there is a truly Christ like leader before us, who can say "follow me as I follow Christ." I believe that this would change so many peoples' hearts, and break down many of those walls. The hard part is that when someone is wounded, it is not always as easy as saying "get over it" to them. I think that a shepherd is kind, and compassionate to the sheep that are injured so that they eventually trust him enough to eat from his hand, knowing that he has only their best intentions in mind. Then again though this requires vulnerability, which is hard to come by.

t seems that many people have been wounded by other people(shepherds or other) and thus it becomes very difficult to trust anyone with any kind of authority or leadership in their life. I know that at times I even struggle with this to a degree. But what if there is a truly Christ like leader before us, who can say "follow me as I follow Christ." I believe that this would change so many peoples' hearts, and break down many of those walls. The hard part is that when someone is wounded, it is not always as easy as saying "get over it" to them. I think that a shepherd is kind, and compassionate to the sheep that are injured so that they eventually trust him enough to eat from his hand, knowing that he has only their best intentions in mind. Then again though this requires vulnerability, which is hard to come by.Well said! It's an issue of trust and relationship. No wonder Jesus used the foot-washing example. He got down on the level of the needy person and ministered on that level. It is easy to miss the "dirty feet" if our noses are too high in the air.Clearly today pastors are not the most influencial people in the lives of their parishoners. I think I can answer my own question re the pastors role in PROTECTING the sheep. The best offense is a good defence: Knowlege, discernment, and insight make a good defence. Eph. 4: 11-16 answers my concerns. 11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. 14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. The sheep are protected from wolves by being taught and modelled "truth in love" (vs. 14)- not just warning the flock of all the evils out there - all the bad denominations, the bad movies, the bad drugs, alcohol etc - but of arming them with truth. Slothfulness among leaders is a terrible plague in the church. One cannot merely blame the sheep for desiring the things in this world. If the church doesn't have the goods, then where do the sheep go for food. Scraps are better than nothing.Diane