"It appears likely that there was no normative pattern of church government in the apostolic age, and that the organizational structure of the church is no essential element in the theology of the church." – George Eldon Ladd link.
Some of the authority celebrities
The Deebs need your help. We want to look at that oft bandied about term *authority* which is greatly beloved by obedience driven ministries such as 9 Marks, The Gospel™ Coalition, a number of Reformed Baptist groups, etc. As I have been reviewing our posts on church discipline, I have found that the ill defined *authority* word is what often leads to abuse or mistreatment of church members.
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines authority as:
:the power to give orders or make decisions : the power or right to direct or control someone or something
: the confident quality of someone who knows a lot about something or who is respected or obeyed by other people
: a quality that makes something seem true or real
When I googled church authority, I was directed to *church government* within Theopedia, a resource that I find quite helpful in getting me started on a theological subject. It is apparent that the phrase "church authority" immediately raises the question of "who* is in charge within a particular church setting. Theopedia breaks down the issue of authority by denomination or function.
This is supposed to be how these churches function. However, this blog is living proof that what is touted is not what is really happening. First let's look at the basics. The following is from the Theopedia article on church government.
Episcopal
The episcopal form of government has been the polity of the Church catholic as early as Ignatius of Antioch, all the way down to the time of the Reformation. Advocates for an episcopal form of church government argue that the sheer fact that it went virtually uncontested until the time of the Reformation testifies to its claims of apostolicity,
Theopedia devotes another page to this form of governance.
Episcopal refers to a form of church government in which the office of Bishop is a key authoritative role. The word episcopal is from the Greek word for bishop. In this system, the local church is part of a hierarchy of clergy who oversee and govern the church denomination. This usually involves regional (diocese) bishops headed up by an Archbishop. Denominations which operate with this form of polity include Eastern Orthodoxy, the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicanism, Methodism, and Lutheranism.
Presbyterian
Common in Presbyterian and Reformed churches, this form of church government is commonly described as "Elder-run" or "Presbyter-run".
Typically, original authority–that is the authority that the church believes Christ gave to it–is said to reside at the local elder level in this model of polity. Thus the "highest" authority in a Presbyterian or reformed church (after Christ) is said to be the Elders of the church.
Those who are elected to office serve their terms as the spiritual/theological/moral/visionary leaders of the congregation. They also then participate in the governance of the regional body of churches (sometimes called a "classis") by sending delegates to a classis meeting on a regular basis. The "classical" level of church governance, in the Presbyterian model, is not a higher authority, but rather is seen as a "delegated" authority–one that only derives it's power from the acquiescence of the Elders at the local level.
Congregational
Congregational polity draws its name from the independence of local congregations from the authority and control of other religious bodies. Paige Patterson has summarized congregational polity as follows:
"The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines "congregationalism" as "that form of Church polity which rests on the independence and autonomy of each local church." According to this source, the principles of democracy in church government rest on the belief that Christ is the sole head of his church, the members are all priests unto God, and these units are regarded each as an outcrop and representative of the church universal."
Single Elder/Pastor Led
This designation is of particular interest to me since it is my contention that, no matter the denomination or system of governance, most authority based churches are, in essence, single pastor led. Read the rationale as presented on Theopedia.
Paige Patterson argues that, despite biblical evidence undeniably exists in support of a plurality of elders, several factors support the ascendancy of a principal elder as the singular leader of the congregation. Those factors include:
1) the general pattern in the Old and New Testaments (e.g. Moses, the judges, Peter, James the brother of Jesus);
2) the pattern of the early church (e.g. John Chrysostom in Antioch and at Saint Sophia's in Constantinople, Augustine in Hippo, Jonathan Edwards in Northampton);
3) influence of the synagogue on the church, including adoption by the church of the "president of the synagogue" in the form of the "pastor/elder/overseer"; and
4) the psychology of human leadership. ( Who Runs the Church, pp. 150-52)
There seems to be some understanding that such governance will lead to autocracy.
Patterson's position addresses common practices by Baptist churches in America. It does not address single-elder congregational polity structures common in Pentecostal, Charismatic and congregations from other traditions. Though experience has brought about modification of the more extreme manifestations, single-elder congregationalism in some of these traditions consolidated authority to the point of autocracy.
Democratic Congregational
In a congregational church led by a democratically elected leadership board or council, final authority for all decisions and doctrinal determinations are vested in a plurality of representative leaders selected by the congregation. The titles of the individual leaders and the structure of the leadership board or council varies.
One common use of this structure involves the election of "elders" to an "elder board". The "elders" make business and spiritual decisions for the congregation by committee and serve individually as examples and mentors to the rest of the congregation. Often "deacons" are also elected to provide leadership within specific committees, ministries or administrative functions.
Plural elder led
In a congregational church led by a plurality of elders, final authority for all decisions and doctrinal determinations are vested in a plurality of elders acting in committee.
In some congregations, elders are appointed by someone or some entity respected by the congregation and allows this authority.
This structure is very similar to the "elder board" approach to the democratic congregational structure, often differing only in the method used to select the elders and/or in the term of service of each elder.
Pastorcentricity is the key to governance in reality.
Today's churches are pastorcentric churches and I don't give a hoot how many elders and deacons they have. In theory, the type of elders and deacons who should be serving are those who are not "yes men" who rubber stamp the pastor's agenda. The congregation should function as another stop gap, providing checks and balances to the canned vision of the visionary™ also known as the pastor. However, it does not function in this manner in many churches and maybe not in most churches.
I plan to carry on with a series of articles on authority, especially authority gone wrong. For now, I leave you with some examples of the baloney we have seen in today's churches which are examples of epic fails in the authority department.
The Karen Hinkley debacle at The Village Church
There is one aspect of this situation that continues to deeply affect me. There were numerous campus pastors and elders involved from start to finish in the church discipline process of Karen Hinkley. Also, this involved labeling a confessed abuser of child internet pornography as one who was "walking in repentance" and not deserving of discipline. This situation was so clear cut that an average person with little theological background would realize that Karen was the one who was being wronged.
Now, Matt Chandler is considered one of the hottest celebrity pastors of the gospel™ set. One would assume that he would make sure he had excellent pastors and thoughtful elders. Instead, he had neither.All of the elders and pastors involved were abusing Karen by the process. Not one of those pastors and elders stopped this ridiculous example of church discipline from spinning out of control. ALL of them were on board.
It is patently obvious to me that the system for the selection of leaders at The Village Church is seriously flawed. And, if it is flawed there, you can bet it is flawed in many other Acts 29 churches who are closely tied to 9 Marks and great supporters of CJ Mahaney.
The inexcusable punishment of Todd Wilhelm at UCCDubai (a 9 Marks church)
Todd was being vetted to be a leader at UCCD. He soon discovered that the bookstore at UCCD carried books by CJ Mahaney. Todd objected, on moral grounds, to the sale of those books. When the church refused to stop selling them. Todd decided to quit the church. He was boldly standing up for the former SGM child victims of sex abuse- a worthy cause that most people with half a brain would understand.
But not UCCD, no sirree. This Hotel California of church discipline said that Todd would be added to their *care list* which is a ridiculous name for "man, are you in trouble and we might have to spank you." He wanted to think about the next church that he might attend. But that isn't allowed in 9 Marks. They think Satan might get you if you don't join an 9 Marks approved church immediately.
Once again, the elders and the pastors were all onboard with this form of punishment. No apologies were offered.
The firing of elders by Mark Driscoll
These elders disagreed with some of the changes made by Driscoll. So he fired them. That's right. He fired the elders who were supposed to provide checks and balances. These elders had no authority whatsoever within this system. Also, all the other pastors and elders kept their mouths shut.
James Macdonald excommunicates his elders.
Former Elders Scott Phelps and Barry Slabaugh are publicly ex-communicated by HBC and release a statement. Once again, who is really running the show? And where were the other pastors and elders.
My former pastor who said his elders always agreed with him.
In 2007, my former pastor, a good Gospel™ Coalition council sort of guy, told me that his elders had only disagreed with him twice in 28 years. This pastor obviously found the yes men that he wanted and made sure they stayed appointed to yes him until his retirement.
Steven Furtick and his rather bizarre ministry.
We wrote The “Madcap" World 0f Steven Furtick and Elevation Church in which Elevation Church produced a coloring book for children which featured a page in which it states that "we are all united under our visionary."
In the end, I believe that the men that the pastor wants to be elders will be the elders. The current elders might take a list of suggestions from the congregation and pretend they care but they will do whatever the pastor says. In the end, celebrity pastors are the authority and the elders and congregation will do anything to keep their famous pastor happy. This is the beginning of the problem and I will be discuss further problems in another post.
they claim to be the high priest so how can you not follow them. makes one pretty ill.
we attended a small church in new england where I normally attended the wednesday eve bible study. it was at that meeting when looking at the book of hebrews for our study that the young pastor declared to be the called high priest of that church and no one should question him. it was my last time in attendance and we withdrew from fellowship from some very close friends. i can say it was one of our hardest times ever since being a christian.
Great summary. I am a PhD student whose research focus is ecclesiology and pastoral theology. I am nearly finished with my dissertation over the evolution of pastoral leadership and authority among the 19th century American Quaker church. I have dedicated my scholarly life to studying pastoral theology, specifically pastoral leadership and authority, and I am in complete agreement with you regarding a pastor-centric ecclesiology.
What makes the pastor-centric model so dangerous is that it brings the worst excesses of former ecclesiological systems without any of the checks or balances. For example, while the episcopal system could place an unhealthy amount of authority (both de factor and de jure) in the hands of the local priests (especially in the Middle Ages), there were measures to check the power. Not only could the bishop step in, but also the Abbots of the monasteries regularly spoke out and fought against extreme excesses. While it was not a perfect system, checks on power did occur.
The pastor-centric model has all the potential for abuse of the episcopal system, but with none of the checks and balances. If the pastor believes his authority is God-given (monarchical ministry!), then who can oppose him? The only check on power is the eventual scandal or misstep that brings down the ministry, usually at great cost to the faithful worshippers attending the church.
While I do not want to sound hyperbolic, I believe the pastor-centric model is the most dangerous ecclesiological innovation of the modern Christian era. After spending ten days in Israel with forty Calvary Chapel pastors, I realized that I needed to focus on promoting healthier models of church governance, and enrolled in a PHD program soon after.
Once again, great article.
First? That would be a first for me.
I’ve been in Southern Baptist churches of various sizes since I was three weeks old, and each had a slightly different take on congregational leadership. In some, the congregation truly set the agenda and direction. In others, it was obvious that everyone served at the pastor’s discretion. Between growing up with a father who was an excellent minister of education (a teacher/administrator staff person) and my own experiences as an adult, I feel like I’ve seen a bit of every kind of leadership shenanigans possible.
However – the current young pastor at my church is leaving us for a nearby elder led, reformed, tightly controlled church. They’ve only had one pastor, the founder, and apparently he’s sticking around in an “advisory” position of some type after he retires next month. Even though I’m pretty glad to see our pastor go, as he’s not a good fit for our congregation, I’m afraid this new place is going to eat him up and spit him out. Just reading their idea of “biblical authority” on their website give me the cold chills.
It is unBaptist for sure, and should be considered unAmerican. And should not be rewarded with a tax exemption as it is a business with an entrepreneur at the head of it.
Don’t you just love reference books? How about Vine’s complete expository Dictionary of Old and New testament words? Words such as authority eg acting under ones OWN authority. Head, Lawless, lead, leader, Lord, Lordship,Rule, ruler. There are scriptures listed that will give you some thoughts on this from a slightly different angle.
“There is only one mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus”
Derek wrote:
I hope you tell the story, it sound interesting.
I recently was told by someone with experience in China that authority in their churches comes from below compared to here in the West where it comes from the top down, and by the top I mean another man or group of men, not Christ.
So where authority comes from is a very relevant question to me. I’ll leave it to the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics to argue between themselves apostolic succession, but for the Evangelical world there is no such thing that can be argued with a straight face.
Per chance on the leadership question too many are putting the cart before the horse. Instead of seeking leadership they should be seeking to be a servant. Both may have followers, both can have many followers, but I’m done following those who seek to lead, to have authority. I’m looking for those who seek to serve and I’ll join them in that endeavor, no more CEO types.
If some “authority” parachutes in a 30 year old kid to lead a group of 200 people it shows they are promoting a system emphasizing leadership and authority from above and not one of a servant. It takes time to build trust and to determine if the character of a person is that of a servant. A few years in seminary and passing some doctrinal standards does not a servant make.
I fear the system we see only encourages the emergence of those seeking leadership and thwarts those seeking to serve. For those seeking to serve, if they are quickly put in a pastorship, the process of maturing as a servant is short circuited, it stops developing. The opportunity to serve in the trenches for a decade will permanently alter your viewpoint and allow you to build the trust both of and for your fellow laborers.
“Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands”
Derek wrote:
“it sound interesting”? (proofread numerous times and still missed it, typos yeesh)
Seriously, it sounds interesting and would love to hear the story even if you have to change the date and names to protect the innocent.
I’ve recently spent some time in 1st Corinthians reading about the leadership problem in that church, which sounds more like the congregation was caught up in a cult of personality adoration and division over the ancient celebrities, it’s not a helpful passage for dealing with abuse of authority or the structure of church leadership. Neither is there a blueprint for building churches or instructions for a typical service. I think that’s because he understood that the point isn’t to be legalistic about doing everything the one true way but to give the church the ability to change to the needs of the culture it served. We’ve seen many elders and deacons have been put through a few years worth of training so that most will never say no. With so many pastors idolizing the mega church pastors, we are lucky that we don’t hear about more discipline gone wrong. It probably happens more than we think. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and spiritual power corrupts spiritually.
I have recently said to husband that it doesn’t matter what evangelical church we attend locally, they are all the same these days regardless of denomination: leadership leadership and small groups small groups. I don’t have an issue with either necessarily, but again, it’s same old same old whether SBC or Assemblies of God. Very interesting, no?
Having spent considerable church leadership time in a congregational democracy, a presbyterian, an episcopal, democratic congregational and (less time) in an elder led church….I’ve seen potential for abuse in all of these forms of government but most markedly in the Pastor/Elder led churches.
In all of the churches except the Pastor/Elder model, women were accepted as pastors, elders, deacons and on the congregational church board. The churches which had women in leadership were uniformly more even-handed & less autocratic.
The relationship is somewhat chicken/egg in terms of results and causes; those with more “liberal” theology or tend to be more egalitarian…which is a very good thing IMO.
I recently left a church where the pastor became more and more enamored with his authority. This coincided with the board of elders increasing dismay at sin in the pastor's life. Right as they were about to push for him to step down, Mark Tubbs, part of the NAR leadership stepped in to counsel the pastor. The next thing, the pastor announced that the elder board didn't have the authority to tell him what to do as he is an apostle (only apostles can discipline other apostles, according to the NAR). The entire board stepped down and left the church, as did most of the ministry leaders, but that pastor is still running the show with his new board. This is a man who admitted his use of pornography to me after I confronted him and has also admitted to being unfaithful to his wife. But, hey, he's repented and even better, he's an apostle, whom God has given all this authority that the congregation best submit to. The New Apostolic Reformation loves and perpetuates the idea of the pastor at the top, except they call him apostle. Ché Ahn, another grand Poobah in the NAR, has an interview on YouTube where he discusses the high priest status of the "apostle". I find it all disgusting. I predict within the next decade, many leaders in the NAR will fall because of sin. Their movement is the perfect Petri dish for it to grow.
Moderator's Note: I have added a '2' to this moniker since we have another commenter who identities as 'Anonymous'.
“Matt Chandler is considered one of the hottest celebrity pastors of the gospel™ set. One would assume that he would make sure he had excellent pastors and thoughtful elders. Instead, he had neither. All of the elders and pastors involved were abusing Karen by the process. Not one of those pastors and elders stopped this ridiculous example of church discipline from spinning out of control. ALL of them were on board.
It is patently obvious to me that the system for the selection of leaders at The Village Church is seriously flawed.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steve Hardin, Matt Younger, Richard Brindley:
Your deliberate actions based on your choices were devastating Ms. Hinkley, and disillusioning to so many. Your destructive choices have been very public and very hurtful.
Where is your public apology? To the watching public who wonders where-in-the-sam-hill it is, you remain gelded yes-men, pandering to the institution that owns you & signs your paycheck.
aren’t you tired of it? it’s not too late to come clean, take a stand, be your own man.
@ Melody:
“….they are all the same these days regardless of denomination: leadership leadership and small groups small groups. I don’t have an issue with either necessarily, but again, it’s same old same old whether SBC or Assemblies of God. Very interesting, no?”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“interesting”, if your use of the word was polite for disturbing, insulting, revolting, claustrophobia-inducing…. we could go on. in fact, we could have a contest for the most apt word.
they are all the same. it’s as if church leadership across denominations has all intermarried and by some immaculate miracle of breathing each other’s exhales and a steady diet of consuming each other’s “content”, have somehow inbred and given birth to simpleton sameness.
I have seen both my previous AOG pastor & his associate emulate MD’s body language, facial expressions, and word choice to a tee, having ripped off or used tithe money to purchase his sermons. can’t tell you how disappointed I was. they are MUCH better people than that. I can’t fathom what possessed them to stoop so low…. I chalk it up to their brains being deprived of oxygen as they breath their peer’s exhales floating around together in the professional Christian balloon.
All these things – and more – are reasons for my going back to the ELCA. In this area, there is an organizational structure as well as congregational emphasis. We hire candidates by congregational vote; they can also, in bad circumstances, be fired that way, though i honestly cannot forsee thst becoming necessary, in this area, anyway.
On this page: photos of Mark Driscoll‘s new church:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2016/01/18/mark-driscolls-new-church-in-a-p-o-box/
I hope nobody is sending him any donations.
@ Bill M:
“I’m done following those who seek to lead, to have authority. I’m looking for those who seek to serve and I’ll join them in that endeavor, no more CEO types.”
+++++++++++++
how many times has their tummy been pressed and out come the words “servant leadership…. servant leadership….”. they’ve said it so many times they honestly believe they are the living example of the term (contrived as it is).
elastigirl wrote:
Yes that one shouldn’t be used anymore. The emphasis is still on leader, the servant part is just a diminished modifier that soon gets discarded. We are called to be servants, not servant leaders. Too bad it took me 40 years as a believer to figure out what Christ said so simply.
@ Bill M:
servant leader…. slick sales technique, using manipulative ‘gospel’ words to close the deal on maintaining control — of the wife, the women, & the masses (& job & paycheck preservation).
if money were removed from the equation, how things would change (for the better…. just dreaming here…. any cons?)
it would be an interesting blog conversation. for another time.
I can’t sleep, you see.
The root of the problem is that many people go to churches based on their wanting a high-profile pastor. Without that pastor, those churches would likely fold up shop. That kind of set-up by definition is going to give that pastor a lot of power and influence, because who wants to naysay the guy who’s putting all the butts in the pews (and therefore the donations on the offering plates)?
The idea of first among equals is one I’ve heard misused in Baptist circles to support this sort of “pastorocracy.” Perhaps it’s used elsewhere as well. The notion is one of leadership (okay, say what is really is: rulership) by a group, but with the lead pastor actually being the authority.
Former Mars Hill member Rob Smith addressed these two jargon terms in this post:
https://musingsfromunderthebus.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/mars-hill-church-please-drop-the-religious-talk/
He also addresses “Jesus is our Senior Pastor,” and I’ve heard some similar sentiments used to suggest that the “lead pastor” is an undershepherd for Jesus.
Such euphemisms sound like autocrats provide us an “umbrella of protection,” but in reality are used as a “shield of deflection.”
In a Warren Throckmorton post about the post-Mars Hill monopology break-up, someone asked in the comments about the now-conventional vision-casting leadership model. That led to a discussion of authority issues and the “first among equals” argument some use to shift from group authority to personal autonomy.
Commenter Clay Tablet had read the Rob Smith article I noted earlier, and said:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/11/03/mars-hill-everett-leaders-want-to-go-independent-will-hold-vision-meeting-november-10/#comment-1675317234
Definition of authority given in the above article:
“the power to give orders or make decisions : the power or right to direct or control someone or something”
List of the Fruit of the Spirit:
Galatians 5: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, SELF-CONTROL; against such things there is no law. (emphasis mine)
The Bible never gives men/women the authority to control another. But it does point us in the direction of growing the Fruit of the Spirit in our lives.
We are to control ourselves, not one another.
These pastors are little control freaks who have build religions around their own egos while giving lip service to God and the Bible.
I wish more people could see through this and stop giving their money to these false pastors.
In the FWIW category.
I just came from a pastor center/celebrity type congregation. As an elder, there was no communication with us. I always made joke that all the decisions were made in “the bunker” at one of other campus’s. I could go on here but out of respect… I’m not.
NOW I go to what “I think” comes closer to what church governess should be more like. There is a elder/pastor board, with 41 members that includes all the pastors. And in the by-laws 60% of them are to be voluntary and non-paid positions. I have not met all the elders, but I can say the ones I have spoken with fit scriptural guidelines. The church growth movement pastors could not survive in this type of environment.
I know some here will disagree…I’ve been on the other side of the fence. I’ll take this anytime.
Excellent article. There are numerous examples of leadership gone wrong. It crosses denominational lines. It knows no boundaries of gender (e.g., I’ve seen husband/wife pastor teams who are undisputed king and queen of the church). It is not a matter of doctrine. It is not a matter of size. Leadership goes wrong when leaders become self-focused rather than focused on God and those they serve.
Leadership exists in the Bible. God appoints leaders, there are people to whom the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the church in the New Testament look for guidance and ministry. But leadership in the Bible is quite different from the entrepreneurial, money-driven, self-important local churches of today. I believe a key difference between the Bible’s ideals and our present reality is that we tend to focus on and promote the local church without much regard to the kingdom of God. In my Bible Belt culture, the question “where do you go to church?” is not uncommon. Our spiritual discussions tend to revolve around the nature of our local churches; where is it, how many attend, do you like the pastor, any problems, are you growing, are you on social media, what do you do for kids and teens, and the like. The focus seems all wrong and this is across all kinds of evangelical churches. A lack of focus on the kingdom tends to cause us to see those in other churches or denominations not as brothers and sisters but as competitors or even adversaries.
@ Anonymous2:
Yikes. The whole “I was caught in a sexual sin, but I’m an apostle – so there” thing is such an evil attitude. If you know the history of IHOP or Bethel (and Bethel’s spin-off Jesus Culture), you know that their “prophets” not only tell untruths, but once asked women to undress so he could prophecy in front of them. Their music is all over the church these days and on KLOVE/Air1 nearly every hour. It makes Ed Cash like Fanny Crosby.
And cessionist churches can remove “Apostle” and replace it with Best-Selling Author, Good Speaker, Influential Pastor..whatever. Those in authority are held to HIGHER standards, not lower. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
I have never been in a church where the pastor held all power. I have been in churches with an actual congregational form of government and in churches with an episcopal form of government. Back in the day before baptist churches were adopting the presbyterian model there was the board of deacons which was not just a pack of ‘servants’ as some are now saying but which also held real ‘power’ and ability to get things done in the church including being sure that the concerns of the congregation were addressed and including jerking a knot in the preacher if he got too far off track for that congregation. There was no board of elders and no such thing as ‘teaching elder’ or ‘ruling elder.’ But there was the board of deacons. I had a grandfather, an uncle and a father who were deacons and heard some tales about the board of deacons having to basically ‘seize the reins’ (take the lead) in some issue, up to and including having the chairman of the board of deacons make the official proposal at a church business meeting to ‘withdraw the call’ from the pastor (fire him.) Yes, I was there at the meeting where they did that. In Louisville no less, where I assume such a thing would be unheard of today.
Early on Jerry Falwell addressed this issue and preached/taught that a pastor must be certain that whoever was on the board of deacons agreed with the pastor. He put out a series of tapes on how to be a pastor, and I listened to the tapes. This was one of the things he emphasized. I say this to authenticate that this was an ‘issue’ back in the day and since some who read and comment here were not in the baptist tradition when it was waaay more congregational than it is now, as a whole.
I think that perhaps an actual congregational form of government could possibly work under some circumstances. At least the baptists in the old days built quite a conference (specifically not a denomination) and co-operated on a lot of big projects like schools and hospitals and missions. But not if the ‘board’ was hand picked by the pastor instead of freely elected by the congregation.
I do question however how a congregation could hold its own against a ‘big guy’ like Falwell or Criswell or Spurgeon or Calvin, or any number of their imitators.
Before someone says ‘so based on what you have said why are you not in a congregational style church if you think it might work’ and the answer is that my reasons are mostly doctrinal and most of the doctrinal issues do not pertain to how the church functions.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Excellent! I wholeheartedly agree! Do they think we don’t see that?
Catholics have ‘informed moral conscience’ as a guide which can in some rare cases ‘trump’ (sorry) the authority of the Church in a personal decision . . . although a person is asked to consider the Church’s guidance before making that decision.
A person is also asked to consider the reality of their own situation as well, and to pray before making a moral decision . . . in the end, the person’s informed moral conscience has real weight in decision-making.
I don’t know if a Calvinist organization recognizes informed moral conscience as having ‘authority’ in decision-making, but if not, it might lead to real abuses like what happened to Karen. Without respect for the ‘dignity of the human person’ and for the weight of ‘informed moral conscience’ in the decision-making process, I can see how a Church might get caught up in abusive controlling treatment, if it insists that a person’s moral conscience is not to be honored if it is not in alignment with the pastor’s viewpoint.
okrapod wrote:
That’s how our small, rural church is.
But, decisions on what will be brought before the church for a vote at the business meetings are determined during the “men’s meetings” ~~~~ no gurlz allowed. If some women want to, say take some of the children on a church sponsored outing, one of the women has to present the idea to a man. The man then presents the idea to the other men at the no-gurlz-allowed meeting. Then, at the formal business meetings, women are not allowed to speak.
Nancy2 wrote:
That is despicable.
okrapod wrote:
I did not know this.
@ js:
Great comment. Thank you.
Pingback: Linkathon! | PhoenixPreacher
@ Christiane:
Two things were the greatest surprise to me when I was in RCIA: (1) that the RCC is as user friendly as it is (re your comment on ‘informed moral conscience’ and re how relatively easy it is to be forgiven and allowed to start over as it were) and (2) how much reference to biblical teaching there was in that they quoted scripture at every turn. I had not expected either of those things.
Of course the episcopal church also makes allowance for individual conscience and forgives easily. Some would say they take it too far. Just thought I would throw that into the mix of ideas.
dee wrote:
Yes, I think so, too. On paper, women are “members” of the church; when, in reality, we are only quasi-members. I wish they would change the church by-laws to make that fact known before those of us who are testosterone-deficient join the church.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
I’ve seen this bandied about also and was surprised when I first saw it considering it is associated it with Roman emperors. Octavian Caesar Augustus referred to himself as first among equals, Cicero an opponent was executed because of his noted opposition to authoritarian regimes. That Cicero was not only an equal to Octavian but also his elder exposed the “first among equals” as a lie. In that context maybe pastor’s usage of first among equals is fitting.
@ Anonymous2:
You know what I don’t understand? Why some of these men want to be pastors and leaders. This pastor is flawed through pornography and adultery. I am also flawed in my own ways, and have my own demons and issues. I would never want to be an Elder or a Pastor. The last thing I want to do is hurt someone. I just don’t get how someone wants to be a pastor or an Elder with all these issues. With my all life and mistakes and fear of mistakes and current life I would never seek out a position of leadership. Never… I’m kind of like Dee’s Sunday School teacher. I feel the same way.
@ elastigirl:
This is one of my most read posts. I wrote it to Matt Younger. It sticks to his church page. I guess you could call it a drive by blogging! 😛
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/an-open-letter-to-matt-younger-of-the-village-church-dallas-northway-campus/
elastigirl wrote:
If it weren’t so sad (the reference to inbred human populations), it would almost be funny.
For those who know I’m a research writer, it might surprise you that I’ve only written two Amazon book reviews. I first I wrote was for a book on leadership by Lance Ford: UnLeader: Reimagining Leadership … and Why We Must. If we’re going to hash through the definitions and practical outworkings of “authority” — as we absolutely must, to understand dynamics of toxic systems — then I believe we’ll find his book particularly helpful.
I titled my review, “A hope-filled, realistic, redemptive guidebook that can change the course of both the Church’s and our church’s future …” Lance critiques the hierarchical, business-model leader pyramid from one who used to be an insider in that system. He also gives constructive counterpoints and missional alternatives to the inherent flaws in that system.
It is truly worth a read, and if you’re interested in my take on his book, check out the review on my blog, where I give additional intro info that isn’t in the Amazon review.
https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/review-of-unleader-by-lance-ford/
My latest post…
If you are an atheist/agnostic and were once a Christian I would love to give you a platform to tell your story.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/wanted-de-conversion-stories-from-former-christians-who-became-atheistagnostic/
If all goes well on Wednesday I will get up a post analyzing the Will Smith movie Concussion and write about how religion can act like the NFL and (spiritually) kill people.
Friday I am either going to tackle John Piper and his topic of guns and write about how the celebrity pastor is harmful.
Or….
There is some juicy stuff in the 9 Marks mail bag that begs a response. Eric Cartman may make an appearance and say “respect my authoritah!” 😛
Derek wrote:
I got reeled into the Calvary Chapel cult as a young Army vet back during the Vietnam Era. I survived it for almost two decades before the cognitive dissonance and the black-and-white authoritarianism got to be too much. I am sooooo glad to free and emancipated from all that horse poo-poo.
Dee,
You did not list the leadership style that Mars Hill was pitching before it crashed: the leadership was to the members their “Prophet, Priest, and King”!!
Lol! Not to minimize seriousness of reality, but good wisecrack. 😉 Sums it up well.
@ elastigirl:
Exactly. And do they mean the communications theory servant leadership? Or the “biblical” term as defined differently by every single local church? It’s very confusing when they use servant leadership yet rely on charisma. @ Bill M:
Continuing to locate the links for articles and books I’ve benefited from in considering leadership systems. This one comes from the U.S. wing of Fresh Expressions — originally a U.K.-based missional movement. I have friends in the U.K. who work with them, and I hear many good things. Especially important to keep an eye on the U.K. and Continental Europe, as they are at least one or two generations ahead when it comes to dealing with the cultural realities of the modern-to-postmodern shift and the resulting post-Christendom society.
Chris Backert is National Director of Fresh Expressions U.S., and his article — “Structured for Decline? Understanding the Strengths and Weaknesses of Denominational Systems” — looks at the three major ecclesiastic authority systems that Dee did in her post.
http://freshexpressionsus.org/2015/12/02/structured-decline-understanding-strengths-weaknesses-denominational-systems/
As I skimmed through his Chris’ post again, it occurs to me that we probably need to consider at least a fourth system or hybrid that accounts for the kinds of virtual-based authority that have arisen in the techno-digital era. Just brainstorming some for instances:
* Multi-campus systems (whether they broadcast the “lead pastor” to other campuses, or have local teachers) that could be local, regional, national, or international.
* Pseudo-franchise associations and networks (like 9Marks, TGC, OPEN/Converge, Acts 29) that can create cross-denonimational systems of influence and/or authority. A sort of “Christendom Industrial Complex” oligarchy.
The presence of virtual authorities in a decentralized system is different perhaps from the Episcopal or Presbyterian systems only in that the authority figures don’t have to show up; it’s a “posthuman” approach that leans more heavily on techno-presence than on personal presence.
Okay, end of brainstorming on virtual-edge “authority” for the moment.
Nancy2 wrote:
Heck, if you want to get down to it, women in the SBC are quasi- members. No ministers, aren’t called on to pray in church, no deacons, actually they’re sort of like ” junior members.” But buddy, they are expected to tithe the same 10% as men…
One last link for the moment. This is the latest version of an at-a-glance “Denominational Chart” that’s been made available by Gordon-Conwell Seminary. (Eagle alerted me to an earlier edition from 2011/2012 — thanks Eagle!)
It covers main American denominations and has columns that summarize their: polity/authority system, theological distinctives, whether they are egalitarian or complementarian, view of baptism, other distinctives, and contact info.
It includes two church-planting associations (Acts 29 and Redeemer City-to-City) and the Willow Creek Association, which are examples of the virtual/franchise type polity I wondered about in an earlier comment on this thread.
Here’s the link:
http://www.gordonconwell.edu/mentored-ministry/documents/DENOMINATIONALCHART2015.pdf
Nancy2 wrote:
You start by saying a very polite…no. The women in the church should find that offensive and insulting, because it is. And no includes no money in the plate…or assistance with services..or potlucks..or child care..or coffee…or anything.
I believe this problem in the evangelical church can be traced back to Billy Graham.
Billy Graham was able to draw huge numbers of people and soon took an ecumenical approach to evangelism, at first his style of preaching was rejected by church leaders but overtime, impressed, with the huge numbers he continued to attract, church leaders (inside and outside of evangelicalism) began to embrace and even participate in and with his crusades even if they did not necessarily agree with his theology. Soon they saw this as an opportunity to funnel numbers into their congregations where they could teach them their ‘correct’ theology.
This is where I believe the evangelical church became more interested in numbers than theology and with numbers being of primary importance, personalities and publicity (now marketing), became part of the system. The neo-calvinist was very successful adding social media to market their brand of the *gospel* and has earned the respect of those who value the size of a congregation as a sign of blessing from God and the supposed authority that comes with it (this is why Some Calvary Chapel pastors were fascinated with Mark Driscoll, they wanted to learn how to use social media to attract and grow their congregations and was impressed with the authoritarian style he seemed to be getting away with).
With personalities needed to attract and keep large numbers, power has shifted to those personalities (many times corky or narcissistic personalities) leading to other problems like authoritarianism.
Number focused ‘churches’ also lead to other unbiblical churches i.e., seeker friendly, market driven, and business model churches e.g., Hybels, Warren, Furtick et al.
I would like to hear more of what Derek observed with Calvary Chapel pastors also.
Note: Calvary Chapel has been a big supporter of Billy Graham.
@ Derek:
I would like to hear more of what Derek observed with Calvary Chapel pastors also.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
In thinking some more about this, I wonder how many of recent years’ publicized situations of alleged abuse takes place in these sorts of self-sustaining “Christendom Industrial Complex” systems.
IBLP/Bill Gothard comes to mind first — a non-profit with key celebrity figures and a governing board and publishing divisions and speaking-blogging-conventions etc.
Christ Church (Moscow, ID) and the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals/Douglas Wilson has that same sort of Industrial Complex grid, with church, campus ministries, publishing, blogging, etc.
Mars Hill Church system/Mark Driscoll et al before the cash, crash, and dash issues led to its implosion.
Sovereign Grace Ministries.
Vision Forum/Doug Phillips.
Emergent-Progressive/T.Jones et al.
Look at how many of these have ended up either imploding or leaking … and how “survivor blogs” have offered substantial documentation to turn the spotlight onto the allegations of victimization. The people in the Industrial Complex are the ones who implanted the fatal faultlines into their own systems; others have simply removed the camouflage layers and warned others of the dangers.
Q wrote:
The shift in some things did start or perhaps gain speed about that time, early Billy Graham. There was some opposition to Billy Graham and his ecumenical approach and opposition to some of his theology. I heard it in my family as a child. But, when I mentioned this before on this blog there were commenters who basically denied that and said that the only opposition to BG was racist. Not so, though there was probably that also. However, this was post war and the nation was changing and people were ready for things to be different and I can see how people would relate to the BG approach to evangelism.
The crusades did produce a lot of decision cards which could be directed to the churches, and the churches did load people up on buses for the crusades so this fit right in with church activities and aims. After a while I did not hear so much opposition any more to his ecumenism but only some pessimism as to how much long term effect there would be in people’s lives. That is odd, because now we are talking about long term effects on churches.
While we are on the topic, not everybody was thrilled with his political involvement. I would like to see some research on whether his political involvement influenced any of the changing ideas about whether or not the church should be doing that.
I have no case for or against BG (well, maybe some of his theology) but I do think that he should not be some untouchable icon when people consider what factors influenced some of the changes we see in the church today, be it for better or for worse. I do think that William Randolph Heart may have succeeded in taking BG out of the tent, but nobody succeeded in taking the tent out of BG, and now some churches seem to have redesigned themselves as permanent tent revivals. Only now some churches have added a touch of the carnival atmosphere, and I don’t think that BG ever did that.
okrapod wrote:
Yes, and on Christianity as a whole.
okrapod wrote:
By its very nature, ecumenism, requires setting aside theological differences and working on common beliefs and goals.
The things that become common are moral issues or defeating large scale suffering. This seems to automatically lead to wanting secular government to legislate morals and and stop evil, which leads to political involvement.
History seems to revolve around who directs who, the state directing the church or the church directing the state. I think the “women who rides the beast” is a picture of the ‘church’ directing the state. Well until…
Nancy2 wrote:
That’s how our small, rural church is.
But, decisions on what will be brought before the church for a vote at the business meetings are determined during the “men’s meetings” ~~~~ no gurlz allowed. If some women want to, say take some of the children on a church sponsored outing, one of the women has to present the idea to a man. The man then presents the idea to the other men at the no-gurlz-allowed meeting. Then, at the formal business meetings, women are not allowed to speak.
Get out of that church, Nancy. Why stay there when you realize you have no part in the decision-making that affects the direction of the church? As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I’ve already heard some non-Orthodox folks say they think we are male driven and controlled. But the truth is, women have a great deal of input in the local parishes. Women are permitted to publicly read/chant Scripture, to lead the choir, to chant the Liturgy, to be on the church council, as members to vote with the males as to the direction of the local parish, and much more. In fact, women are permitted to teach theology at the Orthodox seminaries. I think these Calvinist churches have become sexist and paranoia toward women is alive and well. And I think it is motivated by the Fear of Feminism, which they see as one of the greatest threats in our society.
Whoops, something happened with my comment above. The second paragraph is my response to Nancy’s comment – which is the first paragraph without quotes.
Nancy2 wrote:
Yes, the separate-but-equal belief system.
Muff Potter wrote:
Lately, I’ve read references to Calvary Chapel in the comment section here on this blog. I would really appreciate if someone would write about their experience in this group. I’ve heard quite a bit of negativity associated with them. Hey Deebs – perhaps y’all could write a piece about Calvary Chapel. If it really is a place where authoritarianism has gone amok, Christians need to be warned. I think this blog would do an excellent job in such an endeavor.
K.D. wrote:
Why would a woman give money for support to a church in which she has no part in the decision making? She’s been hood-winked into thinking she’s an equal when in reality her gifts and talents are not wanted – unless of course she can work in the church kitchen or children’s nursery. There she is no threat to the male ego.
nathan priddis wrote:
Actually, no should be voting with your feet and leaving that place. Nancy2, I think you could send them a message by leaving that church. How does it benefit you in any by staying? Knowing the m.o. of this kind of church, they could *discipline* you publicly. Is this what you are concerned about?
The problem with insisting on authority is that when abused authority is exposed then others will say, “Yes, but you see theirs was not the proper type of authority. Ours is.” I’m not saying there is no place at all for authority in the body of Christ, but it is an authority that comes in the form of a servant, not leadership.
Tim wrote:
Ah…yes, it becomes the No True Scotsman fallacy.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Thanks for the denominational chart.
Nancy2,
I believe in the past few days you mentioned that you have health problems and were wondering if your church is making them worse. I too have chronic health conditions and they didn’t start getting any better until after we left our patriarchal church. I have friends still stuck in a church with many of the same people and beliefs and I believe it is making the chronic health issues of both the mom and especially the daughter worse.
Darlene wrote:
Ppossibly. But leaving can be complex. I can get realy weird if she is in a small town.
nathan priddis wrote:
I have a noticable lisp..and I just noticed it.
nathan priddis wrote:
I’m in a rural area, between small towns – 10 miles north of one town and 16 miles south of the other. So, it is, without a doubt, a complex situation. It could have serious repercussions for my husband, but,with each passing week, I inch ever closer to damning the torpedoes and plowing full steam ahead!
And Nathan, that is not a lisp. It’s a ststutter. : )
Anonymous2 wrote:
When I started hearing all the apostle this and apostle that was during the time of the charismatic laughing movement (I was not a part of that but I did know people who were) The soon to be apostles got together and (appointed each other)announced that God had appointed them apostles. Now I know there is more than one meaning to apostle(such as spreading and teaching the gospel) but from what I gathered they took the meaning to be as in Paul’s case. The whole thing sounded to be like a another scam from the big scammers then and I stayed clear away from any of it.
We really do need to think this authority thing through. Why would a person voluntarily surrender and place themselves under another human being?
Even joining the Army limits the authority the officers over you have. Where is the Biblical mandate giving anyone now apostolic authority?
@ Nancy2:
Just to balance out the conversation as to what people are saying to you I am going to take the opposite position. I am not trying to be offensive but merely trying to round out the conversation. Personally I would think long and hard before tearing up an otherwise good marriage just in order to be able to participate in some church at a decision making level of attending meetings and voting. This church is not being fair or biblical, but I don’t see any biblical grounds for divorce over the issue should it come to that.
The idea that the lead pastor’s “vote” in critical doctrinal or personnel issues (and many times on any and every issue) is anything less than utterly binding is simply naive. If this leader gets very much static with regard to his initiatives, SOMEONE is going to hit the road. That’s just the way it is and anyone who says otherwise just doesn’t have wide enough experience to see the truth. The wisest and most forthcoming leaders will explain to the church during the selection process that if they don’t want to be led, don’t call him! It makes a fair show in the flesh to say that the elders/deacons are always very supportive. The ones who choose NOT to be always supportive are run off in short order. And the bigger the church, the more this holds true, exponentially! Once the leader gets up in that six-figure (let alone the $250K+) territory, he quickly decides that it is up to him to protect the cushy situation he now finds himself in. It is very often done with a lot of polish and a bare minimum of (thoroughly spun) details available to the great unwashed, but it is done, none the less. The worm has turned in a very, VERY big kind of way with regard to the balance of power between the congregation and the principal leader and the new trend is highly favored by the leading elite. Hence, it is copied by the up and comers and the wannabes and the hangers-on in varying degrees as their situation allows. Under a Spirit-led man, it can work out pretty nicely for all involved. Notwithstanding, I contend that “Spirit-ledness” gets exponentially harder to maintain as the income swirls ever upward.
Each of us is different when it comes how much abuse we can tolerate at a church before we say “no more.” Having once been a member of an abusive Christian cult, I am less tolerant these days. If I attended a church where women were treated as second class citizens, I couldn’t remain silent for long. However, that may be because I already experienced misogyny in that Christian cult and now my attitude is: Never Again. Had I stayed there, I have no doubt I would have suffered severe mental and physical distress.
okrapod wrote:
That’s the only thing that’s stopping me from leaving this church.
But, I can’t help but wonder what my husband’s opinion of me is since he has gotten so deeply involved in ministry and attended an SBC approved Bible college. We’ve only been at this church for two years.
@ BC:
The NAR, seriously?
@ Darlene:
Calvary Chapels come in ALL varieties. There are several hundred of them and there is wide variance with regard to leadership style, worship style and doctrinal focus.
Derek wrote:
Quaker governance is a whole nother category and well worth a look, though it depends on a certain culture to make it work. It’s often described as consensus-driven, though this is an exaggeration.
Democracy would be another form of governance which many Protestant churches (and not only the liberal ones) practice in some form. This generally involves regular congregational elections to some sort of church board (or multiple committees). Even in ancient times, a bishop was not supposed to be installed unless “the people” approved him by shouting “Axios!” (“Worthy!”).
“Congregational” simply means that a given congregation is independent of other congregations, as opposed to being subject to a wider polity such as a denomination. Baptists are traditionally congregational (and argue about cooperative programs between churches, such as missions boards). So are the Churches of Christ and well, the Congregationalists. Churches with multiple campuses or offshoots are a new wrinkle in this old debate.
So, your categories above are neither mutually exclusive (many congregational churches also have boards of elders) not exhaustive (church democracy). Anyway, the style of authority is affected at least as much by the prevailing church culture as these formal structures. For example, in some churches, but not others, it is routine for the priest or minister’s suggestions to be overruled by some church committee.
PS. In mainline denominations in the USA, church boards (like other non-profit groups) have historically tended to consist of influential members of the community, and would make a special effort to attract lawyers, bankers, accountants, and businessmen (whose skills were useful to the group, and whose good reputations would tend to instill confidence that everything–especially the handling of money–was being done honestly and professionally).
BC wrote:
This. Can someone out there who is knowingly and willing placing themselves under an authoritarian structure please provide reasoning?
HoppyTheToad wrote:
Looking back I find for 20 years I was fighting a losing battle, losing ground to an authoritarian system, each year getting worse. This is the odd part, I was unable to disengage even as it became more and more difficult. While I may have rounded off a few sharp edges while there my time and money also helped maintain the system. It was only when my health could not stand the stress that I had to back away. Once I disengaged it then took just months to see it was fruitless.
I attended there forty years and it was only the last decade or two that I started seeing problems though not clearly identifying them. I consider myself fairly rational and analytical but ten or more years? It takes that long to identify a bad system? I can make a few excuses, it became more authoritarian gradually, but it also seems that when you’re in the middle of it you can’t see it.
Alan House wrote:
Not quite. There is well over a thousand Calvary Chapels and they are world wide. The Vineyard and CCM came from them.
They say they are not a denomination but they have influenced Christianity greatly.
imo they should have been on Gordon-Conwell’s list of denominations –
http://www.gordonconwell.edu/mentored-ministry/documents/DENOMINATIONALCHART2015.pdf
Alan House wrote:
No, not really. They are by far pastor driven in leadership.
I was there when they were in a tent and beyond.
here in Hong Kong we have had women pastors since WW2 – and guess what the sky hasn`t yet fallen.
and for now I am attending an Anglican church (Shatin Anglican Church Hong Kong) so could very easily not only have a woman pastor next time round but even a woman Bishop!
and for some reason no one here is complaining or leaving the church.
odd ‘innit’.
K.D. wrote:
All about the Benjamins, baby.
Furtick Mansions are expensive.
on a more serious note – it would seem that we as humans will never get church leadership question completely right – and I expect that many of us are initially drawn to certain types of churches with particular leadership styles as much as by personality as by the Holy Spirit. however that should not mean that we are not called to be wise; and seriously if a pastor (male or female) of one’s church is becoming a bully – or too in love with their own fame – then it is time to pray for change – either a change of church or of leadership.
believe me both options can really, really hurt!
An interesting article regarding Trump supporters and a characteristic that a recent poll identified, “authoritarianism.” Not posting to enter a political discussion but thought it was interesting in light of the subject we have been discussing.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533
Alan House wrote:
Alan, excellent summary of what is taking place amongst the professional pulpiteers. I would guess you have been one of the “SOMEONE’s” who have had to hit the road!
The Presbyterian Church of Australia is similar to what is written above however there are four levels of governance. The first is the Sessions which consists of the teaching elder (minister) and ruling elders (men only and can be as young as 21). Then there are the Presbyteries, these consist of the ministers within the borders of the Presbytery plus a commissioned elder from each congregation. Then there is the State Assembly,(Victoria is the State in which I live) which meets each year, and this is where all the ministers and commissioned elders, within the state, come together. The General Assembly of Australia, which meets every three years, this consists of commissioned ministers and elders. These levels are also called ‘Courts of Appeal’ similar to the Civil Courts (here in Australia). The General Assembly of Australia is the Supreme Court of the Presbyterian Church of Australia and is the only court that can rule on Doctrine and Discipline of its Ministers.
It seems such a perfect form of Government with precise Codes and Regulations spelling out how to bring complaints before the Courts and how to appeal decisions handed-down. A clerk of courts advises anyone wishing to bring business to the court or to make a complaint to the court. However, when you have a clause that states: ‘………………………………In all circumstances a court seeks to uphold the reputation of the church’ you can end up with a situation where integrity is replaced by cronyism and the complainant becomes the wrong-doer. Which is what I believed happened when I (as a board member) tried to bring a complaint against the leadership of a local church. What compounded this is that fact that many state level churches (Presbyterian Church of Victoria) have male (as young as 21) only eldership and I as a women have little or no voice in their court system of government even though for a time I was a board member at a local Presbyterian Church.
fear
desire to control
pride
power
Mara wrote:
I totally agree. Its an outrage to see the amount of money people throw at guys whose only qualification is a mysterious “anointing” that nobody knows about until they announce that they are “apostles”.
🙁
Tim wrote:
Or worse: it doesn’t matter that they abused their authority, indeed it’s none of your business even to make such a claim. They’re God’s anointed and you’re not.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Wasn’t pulling rank through Priestcraft one of the Reformers’ big beefs against Romish Popery?
Guess “Reformation” means “Now *I* Get To Sit On The Iron Throne of Peter, and Anything *I* Decree is Dogma Ex Cathedra! bURN THE HERETICS!”
clarissa wrote:
Clarissa, “I’ll Pray About It(TM)” is Christianese for Doing Nothing.
You need to put some money where your mouth is and DO something or these Anointed Apostles will just go on grifting and abusing.
Q wrote:
Papa Chuck and The Moses Model, i.e. Pastor/Dictator by Divine Right.
And (at least until Papa Chuck died) Plausible Deniability from the Iron Throne in Costa Mesa.
P.S. Costa Mesa is a fairly-upscale city in The OC. It’s local nickname is “Costa Lotta”.
Bill M wrote:
Months for the Charm Person spell to wear off.
Regarding Paige Patterson’s stuff as quoted in the post: I think that Paige is almost correct. There is biblical evidence for a plurality of elders, and there is biblical evidence for singular ‘ascendancy’ but I think he has the designation of who does what in that scheme incorrect.
Neither the ascendancy nor the plurality are clearly defined as one autonomous local congregation in scripture. So we have people who think the church is one local autonomous congregation, and some people think the church is everybody in the same geographic area, and some people think the church is those who agree on certain key doctrines, and some who think that the ‘true’ church is defined by it’s apostolic succession. All these people can reason from scripture for their position, but IMO some reasons are a lot better than others.
In the episcopal form of church governance the ‘ascendancy’ at the local level is not the pastor of some autonomous congregation but rather the bishop of that diocese. And the plurality when it comes to matters of dogma/doctrine are the plurality of bishops of multiple dioceses (archbishops and possibly primates) meeting in conference (councils) for decision making. This may or may not include the RCC dogmas regarding the papacy, but it is a hierarchical system dealing with a wide plurality.
Of course this varies somewhat as to whether and to what extent lay persons can be at various decision making levels, but it also guarantees that the local pastor is not the sole authority in the life of the local church. The pastor becomes a team player, to use my own words, and has limited freedom and limited authority in what he does while still maintaining a leadership and authoritative function, especially in spiritual matters.
This is a trade off. IMO one cannot have total independence from some such system without running the risk of being at the mercy of some power-driven person run amok, but one also relinquishes a degree of freedom at the same time. But, I think with Paige, that there is biblical evidence for both plurality and ascendancy, to use his terms. In the bible.
This is one of the things that I have come to value since transitioning from a congregational style of church governance to an episcopal style of church governance, and this is one of the things (among quite a few) that I thought I saw in scripture and which sent me looking elsewhere early on. It was only one thing, but it was one thing.
In 2007 I wrote a story to illustrate the condition of “church”. It’s even worse now. I invite you to read it at http://wayneharmon.org/2013/10/25/the-broken-bus/.
@ Uncle Dad:
Great story. Here is a song to go with it: “Singin’ For The Bus” with Kevin Williams (a Gaither guy)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQIKYi3IoQA
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
And seriously, when is the last time you’ve heard a sermon on the ” evils of money?” If ever?
Two things to consider.
1. Catholics, all stripes of Orthodox, Anglicans, certain Lutherans, AME, and Methodists, (I’m sure that I’m missing a group or two) worship in churches that are episcopal in polity. Far and away the two largest groups, the Catholic and Orthodox Church have been for nearly 2000 years. The episcopal tradition of governance encompasses the vast majority of church universal.
2. Perhaps if enough folks who are unhappy with their current situation would vote with their feet or their checkbooks…? But where would you go?
Bill M wrote:
I would add manipulation and intimidation … unfortunate characteristics of too many cult-personalities in churches today. The pastor-driven model is open to various forms of abuse. The early church had two offices: pastor and deacon. Deacons were appointed not to rule, but to serve the Body of Christ … while the pastor dedicated himself to prayer and study of the Word. Other offices of itinerant evangelist and prophet would come alongside local church leadership, as needed, to help equip the saints to do the work of the ministry. Whose job is the ministry? Every believer has a part! The 21st century church would do well to return to that model … it’s Biblical, you know.
Nancy2 wrote:
Yah it was a sstutter. It happens when I type while nervous.
Sounds even more complex if your husband is on board with the church program.
Can I ask what sort of Church?
The other women are silent on this?
Hmmm? “Authority?”
If, as one of His Disciples, WE, His Kings and Priests…
Are NOT to “Exercise Authority?”
Why would anyone want “Authority?”
What benefit is there to having “Authority?”
When you can NOT “Exercise Authority?
———-
Mark 10:42-44 NASB
Calling them to Himself, (His Disciples)
Jesus said to them,
“You know that those who are recognized as
rulers of the Gentiles **Lord It Over Them;**
and their great men **Exercise Authority Over Them.**
**But it is NOT this way among you,** (His Disciples)
but whoever wishes to become great among you
shall be your Servant;
and whoever wishes to be first among you
shall be Slave of all.
———–
If someone with a “Title,” pastor/leader/reverend…
Tells you they are your “Authority?”
Are they one of His Disciples? 😉
Why isn’t what Jesus said important? 😉
@ Q:
I was very enamoured with the CC Movement even though not part of it. It has been a huge surprise to believe that it is horribly corrupt. I would have said it plateaued by the nineties but never the corruption that has come out surrounding the GFA scandal.
The situation has left me a little confused. Was this something there all the time and observers like me missed it?
Where you actively involved or more of an attender in the beginning? SoCal area?
@ js:
js
Really liked your comment on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:24 AM…
I do have a challenge when you write…
“Leadership exists in the Bible. God appoints leaders…”
I believed that at one time. When I was in “leadership.” 😉
When I was part of “Today’s Abusive Religious System.”
The 501 (c) 3, Non-Profit, Tax Deductible, Religious Corporation,
That the IRS calls church.
Should one of His Disciples call an IRS corporation, The Church of God?
Seems Jesus has a unique take on leaders for His Disciples – “ONE”
And Jesus taught His Disciples NOT to call themselves leaders. Go figure…
Mat 23:10-12 NASB
Do NOT be called leaders; for “ONE” is your Leader, that is, Christ.
But the greatest among you shall be your “Servant”.
Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled;
and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
Mat 23:10-12 – The Message
And don’t let people maneuver you into taking charge of them.
There is only “ONE” Life-Leader for you and them—Christ.
**Do you want to stand out? – Then step down. – Be a servant.**
If you puff yourself up, you’ll get the wind knocked out of you.
But if you’re content to simply be yourself, your life will count for plenty.
And, in the Bible, NOT one of His Disciples called them self “leader.”
Or, “church leader.” Or, “christian leader.” Or, “spiritual leader.”
His Disciples called themselves “Servants.”
If someone with a “Title,” pastor/leader/reverend…
Calls them self “Leader?”
Tells you they are your “Leader?”
Allows others to call them “Leader?”
Are they one of His Disciples? 😉
Isa 3:12 KJV
…O my people, *they which lead thee* cause thee to err,
and destroy the way of thy paths.
Isa 9:16 KJV
For *the leaders* of this people cause them to err;
and they that are led of them are destroyed.
Some legacy todays “Church Leaders” are creating for themselves…
Think I’ll stick with, and follow, The ONE Leader…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
@ nathan priddis:
I was young when attending Calvary Costa Mesa, I became involved on the inside later as an adult in another state and have had an on and off relationship.
There is much good that came out of CC, mostly teaching people the bible (which I believe is still very much needed, but also teaching the importance of bible reading and learning for oneself, not so pastor oriented).
The biggest mistake IMO was choosing the episcopal style of church government from the Old Testament which became known as the “Moses Model”. It is documented here –
http://procinwarn.com/ccclergy.htm
The Moses Model allows someone to exalt themselves to an unbiblical position. Brian Brodersen has attempted to downplay it but it is still very much in play.
There are other problems.
Max wrote:
I know some commenters say there is no such a thing as a pastor in the bible, but poimen does seem to be that. And some think that the early church did not have any ‘offices’ of any kind. I don’t want to talk about that but rather something else.
For those people who postulate various ways in which the word episkopos and presbuteros can be conflated to refer to the same person, have you noted that there seems to be a tendency to hang onto the definition of episkopos as ‘overseer’ and attribute the function of overseer to the pastor? I see more talk of eliminating the office of bishop to the status of a non-office than I see talk of eliminating the function of oversight to a non-function.
Of course I am biased about this, but nevertheless it looks like some people are adamant about not having to answer to anybody else (as in a different sort of church system) but just as adamant that other people (pew persons) answer to them. Eliminating the separate office of bishop seems to be not about eliminating the idea of oversight but looks like acquiring that ‘power’ as they see it for themselves. Hence, the pastor-driven church.
And for what it is worth, the church should not be ‘driven’ at all. How did any church system get to drivenness?
nathan priddis wrote:
The Church is a Missionary Baptist church in Southwestern Kentucky.
I think many of the women are silent because they just don’t know any better, IMHO. Most of the women were either raised in this church, or their husbands were. Churches with serious restrictions on women are not uncommon in Southern Kentucky.
My husband is definitely on board. He is leading a team (under Kentucky Changers) from our church to go to a Christian based children’s campground (Camp Joy) to do repair/update work there. He hasn’t sId a word to me about it. The only way I know about it is through the info provided in the church bulletin!
okrapod wrote:
Exactly! This thought would have been tossed out in the early church … you just don’t see leaders and members contrasted in this manner in Scripture. We are called to be one in the Body of Christ – a pulpit/pew separation was developed by man, not the Spirit. Pastor-driven aspiration is a weakness, not a strength. If you allow someone’s weakness to control your strength, they own you.
clarissa wrote:
I don’t know how it is in Hong Kong with regard to the Anglican church. But here in the United States the Episcopal church (sic) has gone off the rails with regard to Christian orthodoxy. And there have been several splits among the Anglicans as the liberal movement within their ranks has diluted the Christians faith with heretical and destructive teachings. The Church of England has taken the same path as the liberal churches mentioned above. One need not sacrifice orthodoxy when permitting women to have leadership roles – but in the case of the churches above, they have done just that: sacrificed the truth of the Christian faith in order to be relevant in the 21st Century.
Max wrote:
That is such a good sentence.
Want to know how authoritarian a church (or any other organization) is? It’s easy: just disagree with the leader’s stance on something even rather minor and watch the reactions.
If those reactions are quick, defensive, relentless, and numerous, it’s very likely you’re dealing with an authoritarian regime.
The organization I’ve had the most experience with, because of a family member’s involvement, is that of John MacArthur. While its public stunts aren’t as crazy as some of the organizations discussed here, and while some of the teaching is certainly orthodox, it’s heavily authoritarian and heavily centered around the leader, to the point of having some of what I’d consider cultic elements, both organizationally and sociologically.
The Episcopal Church (sic) did blaze some ways on birth control and then divorce and then women in ministry and non-celibate gay priests and now gay marriage. But other than sex and marriage what did they do?
I am almost hesitant to ask, but I need to know.
Nancy2 wrote:
Nancy, did he not tell you of his plans because he doesn’t think you have a right to know? If so, does this sort of thinking stem from the teachings of the pastor? Doesn’t your church believe that husbands and wives should communicate with each other about the direction of their home and decisions that are made with regard to ministry?
The NT does not give us specific guidance in the organizational details of the church or how churches relate to one another. Paul could, and did, command that churches obey what he said. The democratic results at Corinth resulted in a decision to ignore a terrible moral situation.
The NT clearly identifies elders and deacons in the local churches and the qualifications.
In light of the lack of NT clarification about further specifics, I could see how a variety of relationships could work well.
There are obviously dangers that come with any form of organizational structure.
I don’t believe that Catholics even pretend to be following scriptural dictates in the organization of the Catholic church. That’s because Catholics, and some other groups, recognize “church” authority in addition to biblical authority.
I believe that the Reformation was correct to do away with the idea of much church authority outside of specific scriptural directive, and I would not go to a church that believed that the church has binding authority in that way.
But eventually, every group will have rules, and will have to have a system for adopting and enforcing rules.
Someone said or suggested that Liberal churches had more leeway for members expressing themselves. That may be true in some instances. But most Liberal groups have more top-down control, especially in denominational contexts. That’s why the common members in the churches of Liberal denominations have very little say-so on denominational policy, which is pretty much run by the most Liberal people in the denomination. And there’s not much “openness” to changing that.
But as I said, you can pick any form of organization, and it will have a weakness, a chink in the armor, so to speak, that can display the weakness of the organization’s structure.
Fortunately, there are good, as well as bad, examples of those models. So, we may get a glowing report of the Pastor – the one elder in the church, with every member voting, and we may get a terrible report from someone who had a bad experience in such a church. And you go down the line.
My suggestion would be to identify the model that each of us is comfortable with and attend a church with that model. But at the same time, recognize the weakness of that model, and try to think of “tweaks” or procedures that can be used to address the weakness of the model.
A hierarchical church has the top-down tendency in the extreme. What changes could be made to that structure so that the common members could be heard?
A pastor-one elder model with the congregation voting can be subject to manipulation by the popular pastor. What changes could be made to reign the pastor in , if necessary?
A plurality elder model could be stacked with the pastor’s friends. What changes could be made to keep that from happening?
A pure democracy can be subject to the equivalent of “mob rule” or the adoption of unwise and unscriptural practices because they are trendy now. Can you imagine a church that was going to decide something like whether Jesus was born of a virgin, or some other central and ancient confession of the church? It could happen, but the spectacle of such an event is mind-blowing to contemplate. What could be done in a model like that to prevent the dangers of pure congregational rule.
And so on.
So rather than saying, “This model sucks” or “This is the best”, let’s start with the model where we attend, identify the weakness of our own model, and come up with a suggestion that would preserve the thing we like about our model, but would make it stronger.
I believe that would be a really good way to enhance the health of churches.
@ A. Amos Love:
Is it possible to lead without lording?
Is it possible to be a leader without longing to be called a leader?
Are the elders Paul asked to be appointed in the church in the pastoral epistles leaders?
Were the Twelve regarded as leaders by the early church? If so, was the church wrong for viewing them as such?
okrapod wrote:
Many Episcopal bishops have given public statements verbalizing that they do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ nor the the resurrection of the body. I read an article a few years ago (I could try searching the internet for it if you want) in which a female priest of an Episcopal parish out west (I think California) took part in pagan worship ceremonies and had no problem with members believing in non-Christian religions. I would say that the drift to un-Orthodox teaching has occurred more so within the ranks of the clergy. I have no doubt there are many within the pews who still hold to basic, Christian orthodox teaching and belief. My husband was raised in the high Episcopal Church and some of his family are still Episcopalian. So I have heard about the drastic changes that occurred over the years. One year we were invited to a picnic in which the family’s priest attended. He had left his wife for his gay lover openly defending his actions, and was not defrocked. Now, he is priest of a parish that my sister-in-law attends.
I wanted to add that those Episcopal priests that publicly made statements against orthodox Christian teaching such as the virgin birth and the resurrection were not defrocked.
I was attending a meeting of Christians recently and said that I did not believe Jesus wanted us to be in authority over each other, and that I personally did not want people to “obey” me.
Another person attending the meeting cited Hebrews 13:17, which says, “Obey your spiritual leaders, and do what they say. Their work is to watch over your souls, and they are accountable to God. Give them reason to do this with joy and not with sorrow. That would certainly not be for your benefit.”
Who were the readers’ “Spiritual Leaders”? And about what should these readers “obey” their spiritual leaders.
I have an answer to that that works for me, but I would be interested in the thoughts of others here.
Also, after that, I went to Bible Gateway, and searched the following words in the NT (using the New Living Translation – my favorite translation): Authority, Obey, Submit.
The results were really interesting.
The verses cannot all be explained away. Clearly the scriptures teach some things that are definitely counter-cultural.
And also, we realize that sound hermeneutics require that we compare and contrast the teaching in other places in the NT, which may sound contradictory, to arrive at a coherent understanding.
But still, having done that, reading those verses was quite startling. I am sure the modern ear is not attuned to much of what is written there. I was wondering if some think that we would not be better off if those verses were not there, rather than having to qualify them to the point of apparent absurdity, or argue that there are some places in the Bible that are hopelessly backward because of the date and time in which they were written and have no practical application now.
Darlene:
You have identified a weakness in the organizational structure of the Episcopal Church.
What organizational corrective would you recommend that would help Episcopalians deal with that?
If you are not cognizant of the Episcopal structure, you can certainly pass.
But you did such a good job of identifying situations that cry out for discipline in the NT sense. I hope that the Episcopal church will find a way to deal with stuff like that. It is certainly absurd!
Anonymous: I am not sure that I have an answer that would be a corrective measure in the EPUSA. Some the the answer is schism: another church split. Hence, the various branches of Anglican shoot offs. Quite a few Episcopalians left their church body after openly gay Gene Robinson was appointed as bishop in 2003. There are United Methodist churches in my area that do not agree with liberal decisions within the hierarchy, and so they still operate in a conservative manner – virtually as if those liberal decisions were never made. But for how long that will continue, who can say?
No particular form of church government is more immune from abuse and dysfunction than another. It might be easier to mask issues with one form over the other, but show me a form of church government and I’ll show an example of how that model resulted in abuse of authority. Any form requires dedication, vigilance, and mutual submission.
I’ve been involved in a variety of forms of government, and I prefer the plurality of elders… a TRUE plurality. I was a member of an elder team that functioned for a season or two as a healthy model of what it should be, but over time degenerated into a senior pastor rule (with the elders marginalized to nothing more than providing “cover” for the senior pastor’s decisions)… that carried a lot of weight due to the reputation that the elders had earned by their faithfulness to their calling.
That experience didn’t sour me on the plurality of elders, but taught me the importance of implementing safeguards and true accountability.
Darlene:
I am no expert in Episcopalian polity either. You may be right. Split may be the only option left for some.
My experience with United Methodists is similar. Rural churches, and few urban ones, are still very true the Gospel. Others, and the national leadership, can be quite wiggly. I am hoping for a complete embrace of orthodoxy at all levels.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Another type of organisation which is having an affect on more middle-of-the-road churches are the ones which offer consulting, management and software services – “Transforming Church”, “Church Community Builder” and “Church Leaders” come to mind. Look up their websites if you like. They may offer good professional services, like church software systems, but alongside their products they offer philosophical teaching and support – “how to be the leader God intended” and “how to make the volunteers do the work”. The medium sized church I am involved with has changed radically from a loosely congregational form of government to a top down corporate business style. I did what I could to point that out, but the appeal of “it will be easier to make decisions” overruled. In addition, it was written into the Constitution that the CEO – or rather Lead Pastor, would be male. Women are allowed to speak in all ways, since there is a man at the top of the structure… and they don’t mean Jesus.
I am so almost a “done”…
WillysJeepMan:
First, really like your name. I had a Wrangler for about 5 years, until it got totaled when my daughter was driving it. (was not her fault). I still got about 75% of what I paid for it 5 or 6 years earlier. The depreciation curve on that thing was not very steep.
I serve as an elder in a modified elder rule type situation. My wife and I helped start the church with 4 other couples 23 years ago. We started out with elder rule, and have remained that way. Started out with 3 elders, all elected by the congregation with full support. We now have 13 elders.
A couple of the things that we have done for checks and balances are to require 100% approval of all new elders, and that is done by secret ballot. So one elder can derail the entire process, and that elder’s identity is never blown. Elders have to be among those nominated by someone in the congregation (other than another elder), who are then voted on by the elders, and then approved by the congregation.
The same process goes for all pastoral or ministry hires, acquiring debt, building, starting a new congregation etc.
Those are the safeguards we use. But the key, I believe, has to be in the attitude and maturity of people. I have known some bad models that were still successful, despite the dysfunctional model, because the people in the church were loving and kind.
WillysJeepMan wrote:
Willy, what input did the church members have in the decision making process in your plurality of elders model?
From the header:
There were very few limits where I came from. Church leaders had authority over what people ate, where they shop (they prefer people support church businesses), where they lived, what type of home they lived in (nothing too fancy since that’s less money going to the “church”), where they worked, who they married, how the children were educated, how the children were disciplined, what toys children could play with, what books children could read and how they should be edited, whether or not people could take their children to Walmart and expose them to “the world,” whether or not people could miss Sunday church meetings or Friday night home meetings or Tuesday night prayer meetings, what they did in their free time, what types of clothing were appropriate including socks, what kind of magazines people could read (Martha Stewart Living was verboten), what kind of cell phone you could purchase so that a minister could lock down the browser with a passcode, whether or not people could have internet access, whether or not people could listen to music, whether or not people could take a vacation or attend a funeral outside the “church,” what kind of gifts were appropriate at bridal showers (one woman had to return some Victoria’s Secret pajamas) . . .
It might be a shorter list to tell what they didn’t have authority over.
Darlene wrote:
Well, this is one person’s opinion.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
good grief…. what church was this? to your knowledge do they still operate like this? if so, are its members as compliant as they have been in the past?
I hope all you’ve described is a trend that it is dying due to exposure.
elastigirl wrote:
TWW wrote about them here: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/05/02/homestead-heritage-does-this-group-remind-you-of-your-former-church/
They still operate like this, and the members are compliant. If you’re actually allowed to join you feel pretty special to have made it in. They still have a lot of support locally and otherwise because they’re unique. You’d probably enjoy visiting too. Who doesn’t like watching people farm with horses, make cheese, pottery, furniture, blacksmithing, and watching a restored gristmill grind grains for purchase?
Exposure has only put a dent in their support. They expend a tremendous amount of effort defending themselves. I’m trying a different tact on my blog by using their own literature to expose how they think and operate.
Long Story by Washingtonian Magazine about C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church, & Sovereign Grace Ministries Hits Newsstands Tomorrow
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/long-story-by-washingtonian-magazine-about-cj-mahaney-covena.html
——————-
I hope everyone saw the other link I put on here a couple of nights ago (I don’t know if it was this thread), but someone posted photos of Mark Driscoll’s new “church,” which turns out to be a P.O. Box in some UPS facility. LOL.
Anonymous wrote:
Search the internet for Hebrews 13:17 misuse
You will get a lot of information. My take is it is bad translation, rather than obey it should be “allow yourself to be persuaded”. The 13:17 passage follows a warning to not be carried away by bad teaching so it is unlikely the author is suddenly switching direction and advocating blind obedience.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
yes, I remember reading that one. I just watched a news story by brett ship on the place. horrendous.
Is there any kind of shelter or half-way house, where ‘escapees’ could stay for a time?
Are there billboards in your town? Is there a group of someones who would be willing to pay for a perpetual billboard sign offering a ride, shelter and protection for anyone who might want to get out but feels trapped?
or maybe it’s not that hard to get out. how about a billboard sign with some message about freedom from religious control, or about the unhealthiness of church control of its members lives, with an allusion to homestead heritage (if not the words “homestead heritage”)?
pie-in-the-sky dreaming here (from the convenience of thousands of miles away).
John wrote:
I wonder if the situation I left might not eventually degenerate to such overt displays. In my limited experience it wasn’t obviously harsh. Disagreement with the pastor would be met with seeming acceptance, you might even think you had been heard, but nothing changed. I have described the exercise as he was attentive, nodding his head, even interjecting “that sounds good” and writing it down, but when you left the room it got tossed in the trash. It was an act.
When you disagreed however you found yourself being sidelined but done with a gospel™ smile, all done very smooth. Minions who only knew how to follow the party line would wear down the few opposing voices drowning them out in a chorus of “ministry wins”. I only saw harshness when the inner party officials thought they were safe, anyone who disagreed had left the room, unaware waffling deserters were in their midst.
@ Nancy2:
I don’t know that it’s helpful for someone to say you have a complex situation. So, I won’t say you have a complex situation.
The deck is obviously not in your favor and you will need to exercise a little wisdom in this kind of setting. I guess this is the part of the show where the scriptures come to mind..I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Matt 28:20
Some of the women in the Scriptures lived in a pretty tough neighborhood. and they lived there by faith.
About my first comments to you…don’t. And, it may be best that what happens on the Ole Wartbugh Watch, stays on the Wartbugh Watch.
nathan priddis wrote:
As well as some patience and self- control!
Thanks, nathan.
It may well be true in the US that ‘pray about it’ means not to do anything ; if so then I can only apologise.
Here in Asia, where there is both a huge awareness of the Spirit realm – and vast opposition from certain parts of that realm: think Fung Suitable, witch craft, Buddist/Daoist fortune telling and so forth, we tend to be very careful that our decisions are based on the LORD’S Holy Spirit rather than our own wants.
This does not mean that people don’t then act. They do; voting with their feet or having pastors removed.
At the same time we do not have the same issue as our sisters and brothers in the States have, that of mega churches and famous pastors.
So far that is.@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Should be Fung Sui….and I should be more careful
@ Anonymous:
I think twas ever thus, because the office of bishop tends to attract people who are about politicking, and TEC has historically bern populated by people from certain cultursl, social and economic backgrounds. The one big difference in the past was that the clergy in higher offices had to keep up certain appearances. Since thd 60s, that hasn’t been the case. But i bet it’s still true in the RCC, for the most part.
@ Clarissa:
“It may well be true in the US that ‘pray about it’ means not to do anything ”
++++++++++++++++
indeed it does. it’s so pathetic. It means “Leave me alone — I have no intention of doing anything about it because my time is more important than you or your ideas.”
how I detest Christians especially leaders who exploit good concepts & words from the bible for their own convenience. may cockroaches infest your kitchen forever.
@ Bill M:
your pastor and leaders of your former church are oily shysters. pretenders. unworthy of their titles, the nameplates on their office doors, and the offices themselves. your community would be better served if they were given toilet brushes, mops, and tongs for the litle white metal boxes in the ladies’ instead.
@ Clarissa:
“Here in Asia, where there is both a huge awareness of the Spirit realm – and vast opposition from certain parts of that realm…. we tend to be very careful that our decisions are based on the LORD’S Holy Spirit rather than our own wants.”
+++++++++++++++++
…and I totally respect you and your culture for this.
I don’t discount opposition from that realm in our culture. but here in the US, i tend to think the dark side is lounging around saying “it’s so easy! the clerical collars are putty in our hands. all it takes is breathing some fear on ’em, and a little wave of the ego and money flags. as to their followers, they’re so dozy anyway… we just sit back & watch the whole thing play out… give it an occasional spin now & then…”
Scary, scary stuff, elastigirl
elastigirl wrote:
I don’t think anyone has ever thought of a billboard before. 🙂
I appreciate the support from thousands of miles away.
After spending ten days in Israel with forty Calvary Chapel pastors…
That’s the first line in what should make for a great joke.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Willing to bet the equity on my house that the sort of lifestyle that went on secretly amongst the leaders of that cult would’ve shocked the laity. Anytime you have that level of control and pharisaism, it’s almost a done deal that there’s some dark ugly things going on with the rule makers.
Law Prof wrote:
There were rumors of one elder having private meetings with his children’s nanny a la Doug Phillips, Esq. But if someone is going to publicly say such things they’d better have concrete evidence. These people trash everyone who expose them.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Doesn’t surprise me. Just an observation that excessive control over and attention to the activity of others, particularly when it takes the form of superficial rules that hit on external displays of goodness rather than the state of the heart, seems almost invariably to be a strong indicator that the rules-makers are projecting and attempting to throw people off the path of their own ugliness. A church leader at a cult where I was formerly an elder was excessively concerned about appearances, he was a prude’s prude, he and his wife once had us watch one of his children for the weekend, and we let him watch Groundhog Day with our children. We thought it was fairly wholesome, but it was considered a major faux pas by the leader and wife–they called it a “bad movie”. Imagine my surprise (not actually) when I later discovered that the leader and his wife had a penchant for watching hard core violent movies, with all the blood and gore, after they tucked the kids away at night.
Q wrote:
I think that CC had importance out of proportion to it’s numbers. Just like the Plymouth Brethren starting circa 1830. Without CC / Jesus Movement and Assemblies of God, I think the Church was on the verge of rolling over in the 1960’s.
I was sent to very conservative religious schools but now think of that segment of Christianity as biblically illiterate. This is where the Preacha walks back and forth condemning the sinna’s while waving a huge black bible. But never does the congregation actually hear from the book in his hand. He just talks about how we “stand on the Word here.”
The concept of reading out of the Scriptures seemed like a radical departure from American Christianity.
Recently, I have begun to suspect that there was networking or shepherding inside CC back in the seventies of young men who later became CC celebrities. If so, I question if this went on behind CS’s back.
This is one of the suspicions that I developed during the GFA infection story. There are actions and relationships I can not explain on the surface. Yes, people make stupid decisions, but those decisions should be random disjointed events. I don’t have an answer for what looks like organized stupidity.
Do you feel I am on the right track.
@ Q:
oh. BTW..
procinwarn…
Hmmm…Small world?
Q wrote:
Yes there may be other problems. There might be a schism brewing in the Calvary Chapel brand. The old guard (pushing 60 and over) would love to have the good old days back when Papa Chuck and his rule was as revered as Chairman Mao’s was in a bygone China.
Brodersen’s a very smart fella and he knows full well that the corporation will lose the millenials if it doesn’t change, and that it cannot survive under the aegis of the boomer set who are fast fading into the sunset.
Brodersen also strikes me as a moderate, a centrist if you will, and not given to the various hard and fast dogma points of the old guard.
@ Muff Potter:
I think the break up is already underway. The CC Amarillo confession was hard to listen to. Weird to say, but left me rather emotional to hear it.
That was some serious betrayal mentioned towards the end. That is rodent behaviour. Outright treachery between pastors. And the whole thing is built on personal relationships. (this assumes you are familiar with the GFA issue)
Law Prof wrote:
You know I’ve heard enough tales of this kind of thing (externally pure and holy, internally not) to understand why Christians can appear to be repressed, especially to those outside the church.
Perhaps too many are, don’t know how to be normal.
Muff Potter wrote:
As an example, Papa Chuck taught an almost Islamic aversion to alcohol consumption in any form, a stance that many of the old guard taught as well. Some of them even copied Papa Chuck’s talking points on the subject right down to his voice inflections. Not so with Brodersen. He’s made it clear that it’s strictly a conscience thing, so long as one doesn’t consume the stuff (alcohol) for the express purpose of getting drunk.
Muff Potter wrote:
Did not know that.
What made me uncomfortable was the CC Distinctives. Just starting with that word in their lexicon.
Ken wrote:
Christianity should teach one how to be more human, fully so, not repressed and warped and condescending and passive aggressive and emotionally constipated, as I have observed among so many who call themselves “Christians”.
Muff Potter wrote:
Brodersen might be wrong on a thousand other things, but at least he got that one right. Never trust a church where Jesus wouldn’t be welcome based on His actions.
In my experience “authority” has meant what the pastor/person wanted it to mean, extending the control as far as he wanted. When met with opposition in public, he would listen, then go on about what he wanted to do. When met with opposition in elders meetings, he would use lies, accusations, belittling, demeaning abusive language to try to get his way.
Even though the congregation thought some social activities were needed for teens, pastor and youth minister disagreed and only Bible Studies were done. Also pastor thought he had the “authority” to tell a couple in their early 30’s with children that they should ask permission before moving closer to jobs. When this pastor decided to move on for a better opportunity, he thought he could just appoint who he wanted to follow him as pastor without any input from the congregation. Thankful to say our church prevented that.
@ nathan priddis:
I don’t think much went on behind CS back, I think he really believed/relied on the Holy Spirit to lift men into the pastoral position and remove those who shouldn’t be in that position, although he did at times step in (mostly for going against the distinctives). So as a whole it was a very loosely organized at times but in the local church, because of the Moses Model, it could be very authoritarian. When things went bad for someone or a family at the local level there was no recourse, you just had to “vote with your feet” (leave and lose your church, friends, family, business associates…all at once). It’s like over spiritualizing things. The Moses Model or Pastor driven churches and over spiritualizing has allowed some controlling and narcissistic personalities to take over and stay in position at the local church level.
Before the internet a person/family who had been burned was left alone. Now with the internet the recourse seems to be to find others who have had similar experiences, talk things out and inform others (blow the whistle I guess).
I think GFA is different in GFA controls everything and CC just lets it happen. Two opposite extremes. CC is like GFA at the local church level.
Darlene wrote:
When the church exhibited a healthy model of elder leadership, an announcement was made to the congregation that the elder team would be expanded and anyone interested should express their interest to the current elders.
From those who expressed interest, one was selected as a candidate. (only one at a time) They went through a very lengthy interview process. Their wives were subsequently interviewed, as well as references they provided. The candidate was then invited to sit in on elder team meetings (to observe and be observed), given ministry opportunities (they were already serving), and were observed by the current elders.
If everything went well up to that point, they were were announced as a candidate to the congregation. The congregation was asked to pray about the candidate and to express any concerns or questions they would have about the qualifications of the candidate. Barring any concerns, the candidate would be ordained/installed during a Sunday service.
Because the process was quite lengthy and involved, by the time the candidate was nominated, they were already well known in and among the congregation. Their qualifications had been evident for a long period of time… 12-18 months.
The process wasn’t perfect, but it worked very well, and produced well-qualified elders.
When the elder team deteriorated to senior pastor led (but masquerading as elder led), subsequent elder candidates were chosen because of their faithfulness to the senior pastor with no announcement of the candidate to the congregation… an announcement was made on the Sunday morning that so-n-so would be installed/ordained as an elder. The response from the congregation would be, “Who’s so-n-so?”
Why did the congregation allow it to happen? Probably because of the track record of faithfulness in the past that resulted in highly qualified elders. The change in the process was only noticed by those who were paying attention and even for them it was a matter of trust in the senior pastor and existing elders.
WillysJeepMan wrote:
A church I attended was quite similar, the main elder, the right hand man, was recruited from another church a few hours away, the pastor presented him as an elder, it was a fait accompli. Another fellow who’d served for some time, always faithfully, the kind of guy who cuts the grass and does all the dirty work in addition to serving as elder, was curtly dropped from the elder team without an announcement to the church (we found out later), presumably to make room for this “wonderful new guy”. The new guy’s only qualification, near as anyone could tell, was that he was a friend of the pastor from their former church. The new guy immediately went to work on the rest of the leadership team, vigorously arguing that the team should get on board and submit to pastor. Eventually this new guy and pastor started ousting anyone from leadership who wasn’t on board with their plans (including me), then finally, as tyrants almost invariably do, turned on one another and the church simply ceased to exist (maybe that was God’s plan from the start).
@ js:
Thanks for the response. And questions…
Today I see things a little differently since leaving “The Religious System” in the early 90’s. Commandments of Men, Doctrines of men, Traditions of Men, that Make Void the Word of God, that held me in bondage to, “The System,” and in bondage to, ”Mens Traditions,” often take awhile to fall away. I do reserve the right to be wrong. I’ve changed my mind quite a few times over the years, and likely will again.
.
I know the angst when someone first told me, “There are NO leaders in christianity.” I rejected that immediately. After all, my elders told me I had “the Gift of Leadership.” Who was I to reject such great wisdom. And, I was desiring to be a “leader.” Reading all the books about “Godly Leadership.” There are lots of them. (But NOT many books on being a “Servant.”) Even got myself ordained. But, little by little, I began to see verses that went against what I was taught. I saw Jesus teaching His Disciples there is “ONE” leader, Jesus. I saw Jesus teaching His Disciples NOT to be called Leader. I checked out His Disciples in the Bible and NOT one of His Disciples called them self leader. NOT one of His Disciples were Hired or Fired as a pastor/leader. And, found almost nothing of what today’s pastor/leader gets paid to do in the Bible.
.
Eventually, had to leave “The System.” Much spiritual abuse…
3-4 years later, ripped up those papers…
Found myself trying and figure out how to Hear His Voice, and follow…
The ONE Leader… The “ONE” Shepherd…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
Law Prof wrote:
Or they know their own ugliness and are trying to self-treat in secret. Especially when as Pastor(TM) they have been expected to be or deliberately presented themselves as being Perfect in Every Way.
“I have Problem X but don’t dare admit to it, you all of YOU must be hiding the very same Problem X!”
@ js:
js
You ask…
“1 – Is it possible to lead without lording?”
— Sure, when WE, His Sheep, His Disciples, are
“leading people to Jesus.” “The ONE Leader.” “The ONE Shepherd.”
Jesus, Never taught His Disciples to follow a Mere Fallible Human.
Jesus, always taught His Disciples to follow Him, Jesus. “The ONE Leader.”
Mat 4:19 …* FOLLOW me,* and I will make you fishers of men.
Mat 8:22 …* FOLLOW me;* and let the dead bury their dead.
Mat 9:9 … *FOLLOW me.* And he arose, and *FOLLOWED him.*
Mark 8:34 …Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself…and * FOLLOW me.*
Mark 10:21 …One thing thou lackest…take up the cross, and * FOLLOW me.*
Luke 9:23 And he said to them “ALL” If any man will COME AFTER ME,
……let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and *FOLLOW me.*
Luke 18:22 …distribute unto the poor… and come, * FOLLOW me.*
John 1:43 …Jesus… findeth Philip, and saith unto him, * FOLLOW me.*
John 10:4 …and the sheep * FOLLOW him:* for they know HIS VOICE.
John 10:5 And *a stranger will they NOT FOLLOW,* but will flee from him…
John 10:27 My sheep Hear MY Voice, and I know them, and they *FOLLOW me:*
There is lots more but you get the drift.
Kinda hard for a “servant” to Serve Two Masters.
Kinda hard for a “Sheep” to Follow Two Shepherds.
@ js:
You ask…
“2 – Is it possible to be a leader without longing to be called a leader?
Have you seen any congregations who “Hire a pastor” they do NOT call “church leader?”
Have you ever met a pastor/leader who taught the folks NOT to call the pastor, “leader?”
And – Do you mean – In the 501 c 3, Non-Profit, Tax-Deductible, Religious Corporations,
That the IRS calls church?
Anything is possible – BUT – I’ve never met one pastor/leader/reverend…
In “Today’s Religious System” who wanted to be Hired only as a “Servant.”
They ALL wanted to be known as leader. And called a “church leader.”
And hold “leader confrences” for the elite class. As they were taught in seminary.
Jesus, humbled Himself, made Himself of NO reputation…
And took on the form of a “Servant.” Phil 2:7-8.
Humble – a modest or low opinion of ones own importance.
Know many pastor/leaders in “Today’s Religious System” who are humble?
Having a modest or low opinion of their own importance?
“3 – Are the elders Paul asked to be appointed in the church in the pastoral epistles leaders?
Can NOT find “pastoral epistles” in my antiquated KJV.
I think “pastoral epistles’ was added to the scriptures so pastors could sound pastoral. 🙂
Can you name one elder who called them self a leader? — In the Bible?
Can you name one elder who was called a leader? — In the Bible?
And, elder/overseers have to meet some tough qualifcations.
“4 – Were the Twelve regarded as leaders by the early church?
I do NOT know if the Twelve were regarded as leaders. The Bible does NOT say. But, Jesus did teach the Twelve, NOT to be called leaders. And NOT one of His Disciples called them self leader. NOT one of His Disciples called another Disciple leader.
Jesus did teach His Disciples to teach what He taught them.
Mat 23:19-20
Go… teach all nations… KJV. – Go… Make Disciples… ESV.
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…
And Jesus taught His Disciples NOT to be called leader
For you have “ONE” Leader, the Christ. Mat 23:10 NASB.
What is popular is NOT always “Truth.”
What is “Truth” is NOT always popular.
@ A. Amos Love:
Ten amens!
nathan priddis wrote:
Lonnie Frisbee was a major connection between the shepherding/discipleship movement, Calvary Chapel and The Vineyard.
I don’t know how much, if any, cross-pollination occurred – but he was active & instrumental in all three.
BL wrote:
And Lonnie was a MAJOR mixed bag of contradictions and downright lunacy.
BL wrote:
Lonnie Frisbee became a doubleplusunperson.
Long Live Papa Chuck!
Muff Potter wrote:
Yes. Brian has changed his theology or views greatly.
Q wrote:
@ BL:
@ nathan priddis:
But why just let GFA into the building? GFA is a parasite.
Lonnie Frisbee.. That’s weird because his name just popped into my head lately.
I don’t know what to make of that whole (Lonnie) thing. Was he really a major cross-connection to the Shepherding Movement? A head shepherd or more of an introduction man…the guy outside manning the velvet rope?
Here is a question that makes people shut up…. Ok, two questions that do.
Who began introducing KP to all the CC guys?
What was Erwin’s relationship to CS in the early seventies? I mean, he was an AG guy working in CC, right?
nathan priddis wrote:
I don’t know. I would guess CCCM.
nathan priddis wrote:
Gayle was thrown under the bus by AG. CS would pick these guys up and reinstate them to some type of ministry, to my knowledge he was mostly a speaker at CC and had his own ministry based off his book “Jesus Style”.
He is very humorous off the cuff and it works well in a conference setting, plus he was an editor for AG, quick wit, huge vocabulary and very smart.
Q wrote:
He plays it down…It works.
Q wrote:
Why was he thrown under the bus?
This conversation is encouraging because of the comment that CS was sincere.
A. Amos Love wrote:
Yes. This.
John the Baptist’s disciples came to him and said ‘the One to Whom you bore witness – people are going to Him!’
John reminds them ‘I have told you that I am not the Christ… He must increase, but I must decrease.’
Would that today’s so-called ‘servant-leaders’ had the heart of John the Baptist, both toward the Lord AND toward those he pointed to the Lord.
There is never any decrease in them.
There is never any rejoicing when one leaves off following *them* and instead goes forth to follow the Lord Himself.
Instead, the churchianity system is rigorously designed and implemented to keep believers in perpetual infancy.
We have testimony after testimony over several decades now, revealing the programmed destruction of believers who had or have the temerity and longing to mature.
It is written that we are to mature – defined as those, who have THROUGH CONSTANT USE have powers of discernment TRAINED to distinguish good from evil.
Instead we are constantly hammered with teachings telling us otherwise. I know that the shepherding/discipleship teachings stressed submission & obedience – ESPECIALLY if you did not agree. And that same spirit lives on in all these current variations on today’s authoritarian themes.
These ‘servant-leaders’ are practicing a form of spiritual Munchausen by Proxy on those they call their sheep.