Conference yukon::christian_v7

I don't have time to write much of a response, but the question that
immediately comes to mind is:  What about the offices of Elder and 'overseer'
that are spoken of in the Word?  To say nothing of 'apostle.'  There very
much does seem to be a concept of authority, resting in some number of
people, that number being smaller than "the whole congregation."

Paul

    Barry, the Calvary Chapel model is patterned after the ministries of
    Moses and Paul.  I have some materials I could send you on this if you
    send me your address.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    Re: Note 808.2 by OUTSRC::HEISER

�    Barry, the Calvary Chapel model is patterned after the ministries of
�    Moses and Paul.  I have some materials I could send you on this if you
�    send me your address.
    
    Assuming it's best to come snail mail:
    
    	Barry Dysert
    	2210 Woodedge Court
    	Miamisburg, OH 45342
    
    Thanks!
    
    	BD�

    Thanks for your mention of elder, overseer, and apostle, Paul (hmm,
    "apostle Paul" ;-}. While there are clear qualifications on who these
    people are, I need to do some work to realize what they do and how
    they function.
    
    	BD�

I don't think that a purely-congregational model is the Biblical model.  The
problem is that in a congregational, one-vote model (mentioned nowhere in
Scripture), the just-converted Christian has the same voice as the
long-years, mature in the faith Christian.  1Tim 3:6 says that an 'overseer'
should not be a recent convert.  1Tim 3:10 says that deacons should first be
'tested.'  The implication is not tested by people but tested by life - that
their faith should have endured trials before they serve as a deacon.

Because of our independent, American (not unique to us, but amplified here)
mindset of "I know best for me," we have no positive concept of authority. 
Authority in the church has been heavily abused, as people in authority have
done exactly what Jesus said specifically they should NOT do - lord it over
people instead of serve.  But that does not mean that the concept of
authority is incorrect.

The biblical model very much assumes some form of authority in the church. 
Everywhere that talks about church structure makes that assumption.  We need
to understand how authority can be a positive thing, a good thing.  We need
people in authority who themselves are submitted to Jesus.  I don't know
exactly what form that authority should take.  The Presbyterian church has
focused on the Elders as the authority, Catholic and Episcopal and Methodist
(others?) have focused on a more layered authority with Bishops, etc.  I
don't know which is right, an both have their failings, when the people in
'authority' do not put themselves under Christ's authority.

But I think it's a pretty safe assertion that a congregational one-vote
democratic setup is not according to the Biblical model.

Paul

Barry,

I don't know if you consider note 28 as relevant, but the overly long 28.2 
does touch on principles of church government.  In case it's too much to 
dig through, I've extracted the [I hope] relevant paragraph here, and I'll 
continue from that, as other things are relevant here.



================================================================================
FELLOWSHIP OFFICES
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Methods of Church Government:
============================

Presbyterian   - Rule is via elders court; decisions presented to the church
Congregational - rule by the membership - church meeting votes on actions

    Neither of these is strictly what the Bible describes.  The 'ideal' is
    neither democracy nor human dictatorship, but the theocracy indicated in
    Exodus 19:5, and referred to more personally in John 14:20, 16:13 and
    Ephesians 5:17, where each Christian is directly accountable to the LORD,
    hearing His voice personally.

    This *can* be worked out by either Presbyterianism or Congregationalism,
    but the point of the Presbyterian form of government (via elders) is to
    commit those who are recognised as spiritually mature to listen to the
    voice of the LORD on behalf of the church, and to direct the affairs of
    the church as implied in 1 Timothy 5:17.

================================================================================

I believe that the 1 Timothy 5:17 reference is important; that the church
affairs (spiritual as well as temporal) should be under the direction of
recognised spiritual leaders, who are answerable to the church for the care
entrusted to them [ note that they _are_ answerable - 1 Timothy 5:19-20 ].
Also, the church meeting is the ultimate place to bring difficult church
concerns before the LORD to be dealt with - ref 1 Corinthians 5:4:
    "When you are assembled in the Name of our LORD Jesus and I am with 
     you in spirit, and the power of our LORD Jesus is present...."

The epistles are generally addressed to churches, saints, or individuals, 
rather than to someone representing / on behalf of any particular church, 
however the letters of Revelation 2-3 are addressed to the angels / 
messengers of the churches.  Quite how you interpret that varies.  Some 
take it to refer to the minister, some to the deacon board etc, usually 
conforming to their particular method of church government ;-).  I didn't 
yet hear of a brethren meeting, for instance, that decided this referred to 
the minister, though when I lived in Edinburgh the assembly I attended 
debated this issue.  The term could also refer to the dominant spirit
leading the church, whether that happened to be an individual (pastor), a 
group (eldership) or the gathered congregation.  It almost looks as though
the LORD is leaving a certain amount of leeway there, to make space for
individual body (bodily?) comfort ;-) 

It is important that the LORD is recognised as the ultimate authority, and 
each individual or body is responsible to both the LORD, and to the other 
individuals, who are our medium of expression of our love to the LORD, as 
well as to the congregation as a whole.

I don't know if I'm reaching towards the area you're looking for, but as I 
hinted above, I rather suspect that the LORD has left us some leeway of 
expression there, even though some can be very dogmatic about details.

					In Jesus' love
							Andrew

    While Barry is waiting on his mail package, here's a quick model of the
    Calvary Chapel church government.  Ours is the bottom diagram.
    
                       Old Testament Theocratic Government
    
                                   GOD
                                    |
                                  MOSES
                                  |   |
                              Judges  Priests
                              |             |
                            Children of Israel
    
               Church Government (New Testament Counterpart)
    
                                  JESUS
                                    |
                                  Pastor
                                 /  |   \
                          Elders/ Board  Asst 
                         Deacons    |    Pastors
                              |     |       |
                            Church Congregation

Mike,

That's very interesting.  It reminds me that while the Bible parallels 
marriage with the spiritual relationship in Ephesians 5:22-33, there is no 
such hierarchical picture given anywhere of the church.  Now while your 
picture-model looks a good operational one, it is not spelled out for a 
pastor or deacon board etc to claim authority in quite that way.  Just as 
well, considering what a mess we make of fulfilling Ephesians 5:22-33 
accurately!

							Andrew

    I agree completely with Mike's model.  It is the model we use in my
    church.

    I like Mike's model too, but (like Andrew) I'd like to know how that
    model was derived from what's in Scripture. (Maybe it's in the mail
    packet?) Thanks for the good discussion. I'm still reading.
    
    	BD�

    Yes, it's based on Christ being the head of the church.  However, both 
    models depend on the human leader to be in tune with God and having the
    right heart and calling for the Lord.  Moses is a great example, as is
    also (IMHO) Pastor Chuck Smith.  
    
    Pastors shouldn't be hirelings.  They're shepherds for God's people. 
    Too many times a well-meaning board (and even an obnoxious one) can
    hinder true shepherds.
    
    Mike

    Do you believe that Pastors should be accountable?  And if yes, by whom
    and/or to whom?

    Re: Note 808.12 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

�    Do you believe that Pastors should be accountable?  And if yes, by whom
�    and/or to whom?
    
    To whom is your question direction, Nancy?
    
    	BD�

    Directly to Joe, but anyone can comment.

�    Do you believe that Pastors should be accountable?  And if yes, by whom
�    and/or to whom?

   "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."
								Romans 14:12 

   "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they 
    watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do 
    it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

								Hebrews 13:17 

  ie - To God.

								Andrew

    I agree, Andrew.  
    
    Mike

    Do you think a Pastor then should not be accountable to another Pastor
    or the deacon board?

It depends on your view of heirarchy.  The picture of the leader is given in
John 13.  The one who leads is the servant of those he leads, and in that sense
is responsible for them, to care for their very foot washing. 

The reporting structure is subservient to expressing the Spirit of the LORD. 
In different situations, different structures may be appropriate. However, I
would not think it appropriate for a pastor to be considered accountable to a
deacon board.  That may be because of our different perceptions of these roles.

I see the pastor as one who makes the gospel his living and way of life, and
occupies an eldership role. 

I see the deacon board as a team of men who are probably in secular employment,
but care to give their time to serve the church in its material and
administrative concerns. 

As such, it would be inappropriate to place a spiritual leader 'under' those 
whose responsibility is more temporal, because it would be placing a low value 
on the Word and witness of the LORD.

Now possibly by Deacon Board, you mean what I would know as the elders.  I'll 
describe the situation in my church, which might clarify what I mean.
In order to qualify for office, the deacons should be recognised as Godly men,
but the maturity of the elder is of a different degree.  He is one who may or
may not be in full time service, but occupies a patoral role in the fellowship.
Not necessarily a 'pastor', or 'preacher', though these gifts may well be his.
Rather, a role in caring for a section of the flock, maybe passing harder cases
on to the senior pastor.  The team of elders - including the pastor(s) meet
weekly (� as required!).  Thay meet as a team to discuss examine and agree 
before the LORD the direction of the church in ministry, and the needs of the 
fellowship etc.

Now in a sense, the pastor is accountable to them, but to say that would give 
an inappropriate slant to it.  Any differences in preference concerning 
fellowhip matters should be superficial, and subservient to their love for the 
brethren - each other - with whom they work.

As far as pastoral accountability goes, he is accountable to every member of
the flock, for whom he has responsibility, just as every other elder is.  The 
reminder here is in 1 Timothy 5:19-20, where the seriousness of considering an 
accusation against an elder is stressed.

Sorry - not many  supporting verses, but I'm short of time tonight!

						God bless
								Andrew

	Accountability:  I'm unsure of how a church hierarchy should be
structured, but I'd like to point out that *every* member of the body of
Christ *should* be accountable to his or her brothers and sisters.

	There are quite a few evangelists on TBN, for example, who appear
to be accountable only to God.  Some of them handle this responsibility
better than others.  Others veer off into some very doctrinally unsound
teaching, and I believe *someone* (e.g. CRI?) should hold these people
accountable both to God and to the flock.  I used to watch TBN and enjoy
it; I don't anymore.  A little bit more accountability would help there.

							Bob Sampson

� *every* member of the body of Christ *should* be accountable to his or
� her brothers and sisters. 

Hi Bob,

The 1 Timothy 5:19 situation I cited, where anyone is able to question the
action of an elder, is qualified by requiring substantiation, rather than
being the random grouse of someone who is out of fellowship.  This is also
the principle behind the escalation of the church discipline situation of
Matthew 18:15-17.  The 'normal' control we would expect at the level of
leadership is as in 1 Corinthians 14:29, where those who move in certain
areas submit to each other, as they move forward under the LORD together. 
Obviously this isn't an ultimate guarantee, because of what man is - and
what has been seen over the last decades, when those who have led groups in
certain areas of thought have had to come forward and publicly apologise
for a collective misdirection.  But it is a measure of safeguard that lets
any member of the group who is able to hear the LORD on a matter be the one
to bring His mind to the group. 

I do not have any direct knowledge about television evangelism - it's not 
something we have in the UK.  Certainly I would expect anyone ministering 
in this area to have reliable people supporting in personal fellowship and
also very much as checks on his doctrine and spiritual direction.  It 
sounds too ready a ground for the growth of cults.

    I 100% agree with you, Bob.  This is one case where I'll actually
    commend Benny Hinn.  He went off and joined the Assemblies of God for
    the sole purpose of accountability.  I'm hopeful and assuming that he
    had to adopt their doctrinal stances.  This should eliminate some of
    his crazy theology.
    
    I pray that God will purge and/or have the FCC pull the plug on TBN. 
    They damage and hinder the spiritual growth of the brethren.
    
    Mike

	Mike,

>    I pray that God will purge and/or have the FCC pull the plug on TBN. 
>    They damage and hinder the spiritual growth of the brethren.

	Well, I wouldn't take it that far.  They do have a Constitutional
(i.e. God-given) right of free speech, and I rather like the idea of a
federal government with Constitutionally-limited powers, even though few
even harbor such a concept anymore.  I'm still rather fond of Paul and
Jan, Matthew and Lori, etc., and more in favor of praying for them,
rather than trying to pull their plug.  I don't *have* to tune them in,
and I *don't* tune them in much anymore, either.  I think Lori does a
reasonably decent job of telling Bible stories to the small fry on
Shabbat mornings, but I've given up on the network as any kind of good
teaching source for adults, or even school-age kids.  It's kind of sad,
when you see how many really good stations and studios they have.  TBN
is on three UHF stations in this area alone; channels 33, 47, and 57.

							Bob

    Nevertheless, they're currently in trouble with the FCC.  They have a
    ruling that says a single person can't own more than 1 station.  To get
    around this, Paul Crouch names friends as station owners, with him as
    vice-president.  He recently named Phil Aguilar of Set Free Ministries
    as owner of some stations and he is a convicted felon, another FCC
    violation.
    
    Mike

    
    Haven't read all of this string but I believe to the extent that a
    model is evident in the NT, that the presbyterian model most closely 
    resembles that model. 
    
    In the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, of which I am a member and Deacon
    elect, the elders and deacons are nominated by the congregation,
    screened by the elders of the local session where they may be
    disqualified, voted on by the congregation (against the office, not 
    against other candidates), and ordained by the session.
    
    Elders govern all activities of the church.  Deacons are under the
    direction of the Elders.  The congregation votes on issues such as
    building programs and the like but nothing else.  
    
    All Elders and Deacons are part of a regional presbytery which is part
    of a General Assembly.  This offers tremendous accountability and, like
    St. Paul's dependence upon the council in Jerusalem, a process for
    resolving local issues.
    
    I have been a part of the following churches: Southern Baptist,
    Evangelical Free, the "Bible Church" (dominated by Dallas Theological
    Seminary theology), and Orthodox Presbyterian.  All except for the OPC
    have been largely congregational churches.
    
    I believe the presbyterian model to be far superior to the
    congregational model in every respect and I believe this is because it
    most closely reflects biblical church governance.
    
    jeff

>    In the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, of which I am a member and Deacon
>    elect, the elders and deacons are nominated by the congregation,
>    screened by the elders of the local session where they may be
>    disqualified, voted on by the congregation (against the office, not 
>    against other candidates), and ordained by the session.
    
    The epistles contain passages telling pastors (i.e., Timothy, Titus, etc) 
    to use great caution when appointing elders and deacons.
    
    Mike

    
    Hi Mike,
    
    That's a curious response.  I'm not sure what you mean.
    
    jeff