Wednesday, October 24, 2007

More on "pastors"

Objections to the Multiple Pastor Model

by Mark M. Mattison

The evidence is clear and unambiguous - the New Testament Scriptures nowhere support the idea of the one-man pastorate. Nor do they support the artificial distinctions we've created between elders and pastors. In spite of these facts, however, Christians everywhere - including Protestants who profess sola scriptura (Scripture alone) and the Priesthood of All Believers - try to justify the clerical system they have inherited. On the one hand this is understandable, since dismantling the clergy entails radical changes in the life of the church (very positive changes, we would argue). Furthermore, even pastors and church leaders who want to conform their ministries to Scripture manage often to do little more than adapt Scriptural language to contemporary practices.

For example, many believe that although pastors are elders, elders are not necessarily pastors. It is as if there are two classes of elder: "lay elder" and "lead elder." The "lay elders" are ultimately subordinate to the "head elder" or "chairman of the board of elders," the "pastor." Unlike the "elders," who provide some spiritual leadership, the "pastor" is the ordained, professional "minister" of the church; he's still the one whose name appears in the bulletin, whose ministry is celebrated on "Past or Appreciation Day," who's addressed as "the pastor."

Yet this semantic compromise does not go far enough. If any distinction between "elder" and "pastor" is preserved, the equality of the leaders will brought into question. The common bond of presbyterial (elder) leadership will quickly be lost in the shuffle the moment the pastor is singled out as somehow the leader of the leaders. We must recognize not only that "pastors" are "elders," but also that "elders" are equally "pastors." Both Paul (Acts 20:17,28) and Peter (1 Pet. 5:1,2) instructed the church's elders to pastor or shepherd the flock. Notice in this last Scripture that Peter did not write to the pastors and their "chief pastor," for the "chief pastor" is Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 5:4). There is no Scriptural sanction for a hierarchical distinction among the elders.



Timothy and Titus

It is frequently objected that Timothy and Titus prove the exception. In many ways these men, and particularly Timothy, inspire and comfort young seminary graduates who otherwise would have to struggle with their obvious lack of spiritual qualifications. This is not in any way to denigrate these dedicated young people who are bright, intelligent, motivated, and probably better educated than the previous generation of pastors and seminary grads, probably better educated than me. It is to say, however, that no amount of dedication, education, and "fire for the Lord" can make up for the accumulated wisdom which comes from years, even decades of hands-on church work. But how can someone gain this practiced wisdom without being a pastor/elder in the first place? Must not young seminarians enter the pastorate and "earn their laurels"? The answer is that aspiring pastors (elders), regardless of the amount of education they have received (or whether they have received a seminary education at all), need to be discipled by experienced pastors (elders) for a considerable length of time - certainly much longer than the typical year or two of "internship" so common in the denominations.

Nevertheless, Timothy and Titus are cited as the exception to this rule. A cursory reading of the letters written to them may seem to reinforce traditional pastoral practices. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are even popularly known as "the pastoral epistles." Paul addresses Timothy as a "minister" (1 Tim. 4:6) who is not to let himself be looked down upon because of his youth (4:12). Furthermore Paul gives Timothy extensive instructions about church teaching, practices, and the qualifications that elders and "deacons" should have. He writes similarly to Titus that he should appoint elders in Crete (Tit. 1:5), and tells him what qualifications he should seek in potential elders (vv. 6-9).

From this it has been gathered that Timothy and Titus were the ancient counterparts to our modern seminarians; young men (likely in their twenties) who were installed in congregations to single-handedly oversee the affairs of the church, delegating their authority by appointing and supervising elders underneath them.

But this reading cannot be sustained. First, we do not know how young Timothy really was. That is a relative judgement. We call Bill Clinton a "young president," but he certainly is not in his twenties. Timothy could have been forty - perhaps young in comparison to other church leaders. After all, the first generation of church leaders in Jerusalem would have been well into their sixties or seventies at that time. Perhaps most church leaders in Timothy's time were in their fifties at least. We simply do not know; given this sliding scale of possibilities, this one verse can hardly be used to overthrow the overwhelming evidence from the rest of the New Testament that church leaders are to be mature and experienced Christians.

Second, neither Timothy nor Titus were pastors. Paul encouraged Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist" (2 Tim. 4:5, NIV). Timothy and Titus were evangelists, "apostles" in a secondary sense, who travelled with Paul and others to organize and strengthen churches. A cursory reading of the New Testament will demonstrate that these two men were not permanently stationed in Ephesus and Crete respectively; they were all over the Roman world.Reference1 After Timothy was finished in Ephesus, he was to leave and join Paul in Rome (2 Tim. 4:9-13). Similarly, Titus was to join Paul at Nicopolis (Tit. 3:12). Paul had left him behind in Crete to "straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town" (1:5). Titus was not the pastor of a church; he was an evangelist who was helping to organize several churches on the island.

This practice of appointing elders after churches had been organized was the standard in Paul's missionary journeys. In Acts we read that after Paul and his companions had evangelized Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra (13:13-14:20), they returned to those cities (14:21), encouraged and strengthened the churches (14:22), and appointed elders (14:23). If we compare this pattern to the instructions written to Timothy and Titus, Paul's method becomes apparent. Before elders were appointed they needed to be observed and tested (Tit. 1:6ff). When churches were formed and the Holy Spirit was given (1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:11,12), it would eventually become apparent who had been gifted in terms of leadership. If that gift were corroborated by the observable qualifications of maturity and steadfastness, those leaders would be officially recognized ("appointed") by the churches and/or apostles as elders. This two-fold qualification (Spirit gifting and seasoned wisdom) is similar to that described in Acts 6:3, where the Apostles instructed the Jerusalem Hellenist Christians to "choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the spirit and wisdom" (NIV).

All of this is critically important, because it establishes a consistent pattern of church leadership. Pastors (elders) in the early church weren't shipped off to Jerusalem or some other place to receive their academic training as youths, then exported to some congregation they had never seen before. If a young person insists on going to a seminary, then let him return to his own church after graduating. Let him return to the authority of his local church body where he may continue to study and practice ministry under the auspices of the congregation and its leaders. The people of the congregation, who know the elder-to-be, will be much better suited to gauge his developing maturity and qualifications than any denominational ordination or licensing board. The practice of shipping young people away from their home congregations (where their authority may be undermined by recent memories of youthful escapades) is as unscriptural as "ordaining" these elders at age 20 while "lay" elders are "elected" at age 50.



Pragmatic Objections

If the Scriptures themselves will not support the traditional pastoral practice, however, there are far more compelling ways to defend it. The irony is that these objections, which are by far among the most popular, are usually invoked by those who profess sola scriptura (Scripture alone).

One such argument is that someone must be "in the office" (assuming the church owns a building) or "on call" forty hours a week, ready to respond to pastoral emergencies. If the elders/pastors are working during the day, are they not inaccessibl e?

The best solution to this problem is to train self-employed and retired men and women of the church to respond to emergencies in the body. In an ideal setting, some of these retirees should be leaders of the church anyway (elders). They should be the ones on-call if other elders of the church are busy at work and if the crisis cannot wait another few hours. Furthermore, many emergencies can (and perhaps should) be just as well attended by members other than official leaders. Visitation, comfort, and counsel is well within the potential grasp of most church members.

Involving other church members in such ministerial functions is the most effective way to break down that clergy/laity distinction. "The most pernicious influence of that distinction," writes R. Paul Stevens, is:

Secularization by copying the world's leadership patterns. In the Greco-Roman world the municipal administration had two parts: the kleros (clergy, the magistrate and the laos (layperson), the ignorant and uneducated citizen. The same defamatory distinction prevails today when people argue for secular management structures in church organization and when, in response to an appeal for the full liberation of the laity, one hears the jibe, "Would you go for medical help to an untrained doctor? Why would you trust your soul to a nonprofessional?"Reference2

Responding to this argument that churches must be led by professionals, Vernard Eller writes that the early churches:

Were "do it yourself" organizations, sometimes in extremis. Paul, apparently, would convert a few people, start a congregation, and then move on. At times he would leave or send one of his helpers to give some leadership, and sometimes the new Christians were entirely on their own. In any case, it is plain that the people did their own "doing" rather than hiring experts to do it for them.Reference3

Perhaps the most compelling objection to the Scriptural ministry model is that the New Testament way of doing things is no longer relevant. This argument was put to me often when I was searching for a house church to join. I was told that it simply wasn't possible anymore. We no longer live in the first century; we don't wear togas, carry oil lamps, and practice foot-washing. We have buildings and institutions; they didn't. These things require different organizational structures.

But even if we choose to argue for ministry models on practical and utilitarian grounds instead of Scriptural grounds, it seems to us that the New Testament model is still superior to the traditional model. What better way to circumvent pastor burnout and congregational apathy than to distribute the work of ministry?



The Right Thing to Do

We are not saying that institutional churches today aren't doing anything right, nor are we saying that God has not done great things through many godly pastors and churches through the years. We know for a fact that He has blessed many ministries and churches under a variety of circumstances, and we praise Him for that. We are saying only that the pastoral model most often emulated tends to hinder ministry efforts rather than help them.

Perhaps an analogy may be in order. The invention of the heavy plough revolutionized agriculture in Western civilization. Might the implementation of a biblical ministry model do the same for our churches? If God has given us great harvests through our use of the rudimentary plough, what might he grant our ministries when we start using the grand plough which He has designed for our use? And at the other end of the orchard where some pastors are about to drop from fatigue for trying to till the seemingly impenetrable soil, what could be more germane? We have no desire to add to the pressure and grief of the church's already strapped leaders by criticizing their ministries or their intentions. Our intent rather is to prevent problems like pastor burnout and congregational apathy. Putting Christian ministry back into the hands of the entire priesthood - the members of the local church - is in the final analysis the only solution to the vexing problem.



Notes

1Cf. Acts 16:1-4; 17:14,15; 18:5; 19:22; 20:4; Rom. 16:21; 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10; 2 Cor. 1:1; 2:13; 7:5-7,13,14; 8:6,16,17,23; 12:18; Gal. 1:2,3; Phil. 1:1; 2:29-23; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 3:2,6; 2 Thess. 1:1; 2 Tim. 4:10; Philem. 1:1; Heb. 13:23.

2R. Paul Stevens, Liberating the Laity: Equipping All the Saints for Ministry (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 1985, p. 21.

3Vernard Eller, The Outward Bound: Caravaning as the Style of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), 1980, p. 25.

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/objections.html

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

The Smell of Death

<< 2 Corinthians 2 >>
14 But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. 15 For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; 16 to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life

The more you are full of the Spirit of God, the more you will be "an aroma from death to death" to those who are perishing. Your very presence will somehow get under their skin, you will annoy them without saying a word. Why? Their spirit senses the Spirit of Life in you which is always convicting their unrepentant hearts. Not a pleasant "aroma" to be sure. The next time you are wondering why someone does'nt like you, why you seem to rub them the wrong way for no explainable reason. Realize the reality of the spirit world, and how it is always working.

Grace and Peace

The Churches of Revelation



I've noticed that many christians on the web criticize the laodicean church we see everywhere. They rightly do this since Christ himself said He would spit the Laodiceans out of His mouth if they did not repent. What these christians don't do is take a hard look in the mirror. They are quick to condemn the Laodicean church, all the while, they are eyeball deep in the error of the church at Pergamum. There are maybe 2 or 3 churches I've seen in my LIFETIME that did not practice both the sin of the nicolaitins (clergy-laity system) AND the error of Balaam (worldly involvement-fornication with the world). Which is worse? The sins of the nicolaitins or the sins of the church at pergamum? The Lord says He will spit the lukewarm out His mouth, but He says that He will "make war against them (pergamum) with the sword of His mouth" Sorry man, that "war against them" does NOT sound like something I would want to experience.

Instead of reclining in their chairs of self righteousness, these pergamese christians should see the sword that's poised right above their own heads. The Lord says that He HATES the teaching and works of the nicolaitans. HE hates them, but men LOVE them.

The Bible warns us over and over again to be "sober and vigilant." The Holy Spirit is not talking about beer here, He's talking about walking circumspectly, examining ourselves, taking a hard look at our own life. Deceiving others is bad, deceiving yourself is devastating.

grace and peace

Only a Few Will Be Saved



Matt 7:13 does a great job of giving us the correct perspective.

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

But that's not the only place we find this theme.

Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. (1 Corinthians 9:24).

All run but only one receives the prize. In the olympics, they give out 3 medals for the top 3 competitors, everyone else goes home empty handed. It's just another illustration of how most people walk away with nothing. In the case of the kingdom of Heaven it's much worse than nothing, they walk away to eternal torment.

We should keep the narrow path, and the few who will make it on our minds at all times. Perspective is so powerful, which is why today's babylonian form of christianity says nothing about it (the narrow path). This is sobering stuff. It's not about is being in "fear" per se, although the "fear of the Lord" is a powerful motivator, it's about seeing the truth for what it is. It's about dismissing the empty images and empty form that the world presents us and embracing the substance we find in Christ. A man must REALLY love the truth to be saved. In a distance race, it requires perseverance, determination and a deep want to succeed. When during the race, you begin to get tired, the "why" you are doing it must be greater than the "why" you should quit.
<< Romans 11 >>
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

Hebrews 10:31 says, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Some people say "Man, that's so negative!" Yep, it's the polar opposite of preachers like Joel Osteen and the TBN crew. I once read a book by Donald Trump, I don't remember which one, but in that book he said something to the effect of: I keep my eyes on the downside of situations, that's where most of my attention goes because the upside of a deal takes care of itself. I could'nt agree more.

Grace and Peace

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Eyes on the Apocalypse


I am convinced that it won't be long before the world as we know it is turned upside down. I believe that those who are truly "in Christ" will be spared. Luke 21:36, Rev 3:10 are bedrock that cannot be explained away in my opinion. In any case, there should be no fear as we see the tidal wave of calamity that is about to wash over the world, We must count on the power of Christ to protect and guide us every day that our eyes open to this world. Even if I'm wrong about the pre-trib rapture, so what? We are to live each day as if it will be our last, we live on daily bread. Here's another tidbit from the news that shows how very very close we are to being face to face with our Creator.

Grace and Peace



Dick Cheney & Vigilant Shield: Will a Missing Nuke from the B-52 Incident be used in a Simulated Terrorist Attack?

by Michael Salla, Ph.D. Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com


From October 15 to 19, 2007, a set of military and civil exercises will be held in Oregon, Arizona and Guam. The exercises, TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield 08, are designed to test official responses to the detonation of radiological dispersal devices on U.S. territory. The exercises will be overseen by Vice President Dick Cheney who, according to unconfirmed reports, will travel to Portland to coordinate all Federal departments and agencies responses to the simulated attacks. This has led to a number of civilian groups expressing alarm that TOPOFF and Vigilant Shield might be used as a cover for False Flag operations that replicate what occurred during the 911 attacks . On September 11, 2001, Dick Cheney was overseeing a series of simulated terrorist attacks involving hijacked airplanes hitting buildings that was called “Vigilant Guardian”. Vigilant Guardian was run simultaneously with NORAD training exercises called Vigilant Warrior and Northern Vigilance that altogether involved as many as eleven hijacked airplanes. This created much confusion and led to stand down orders for the US Air Force that was unsure if the 911 attacks were part of the simulated exercises or real attacks. This confusion accounted for the long delays between initial reports of hijacked planes being used in ‘terrorist’ attacks, and Air Force intercept missions being launched using the few planes not involved in the Northern Vigilance exercise.

What makes TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield especially concerning is that they follow upon an incident involving five (later revised up to six) nuclear cruise missiles found on a B-52 sitting on a tarmac at Barksdale Air Force Base on August 30. The Air Force has launched an official inquiry and so far has announced to the public that the B-52 incident was nothing more than an unusually high number of errors. A Washington Post article on September 23 summarized the main arguments for this explanation which has effectively put to an end any further investigations by mainstream media sources. In contrast, a number of researchers have argued that the B-52 incident could not have occurred without very senior officials giving orders, and others refusing to comply with such orders. According to Wayne Madsen a number of Air Force personnel refused to allow the nuclear armed B-52 to fly in a covert mission to Iran outside the normal chain of military command. Madsen describes the nature of the internal conflict over the B-52 incident: “Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran.”

Madsen is alluding here to the most plausible explanation for the source of orders leading to the B-52 incident. The orders emanated from the office of the Vice President, and in particular Dick Cheney himself. Cheney’s orders were opposed all the way up the Department of Defense hierarchy including Admiral William Fallon, Commander of Central Command, and Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. This is supported by a recent report in the Telegraph newspaper that Gates has become the chief opponent to Dick Cheney’s plans to commit the U.S. to another war against Iran and is encouraging military officers to be more candid in their assessments of a new conflict.

What makes the B-52 incident even more disturbing is that six nuclear cruise missiles left Minot Air Force Base, and the initial Military Times report on September 5 reported that five nuclear warheads were discovered at Barksdale Air Force Base. This was subsequently revised by the Military Times to six in an updated story five days later on September 10. How could the Air Force mix up how many nuclear weapons were initially involved in the incident? The most plausible explanation is that there had been a discrepancy in the number of nuclear weapons that had left Minot and what had been later discovered at Barksdale? The nuclear armed B-52 had been sitting on the tarmac in an unsecured military environment for up to 10 hours before its nuclear payload was discovered. This offered plenty of time for the removal of one of the nuclear weapons. Such an event had to be covered up for national security purposes which is why the Military Times revised its initial report. The possibility of a missing nuclear weapon is augmented by an unprecedented official standown by the Air Force on September 14 where all planes were grounded allegedly to review Standard Operating Procedures. Was the Air Force really conducting an emergency inventory to locate any missing nuclear weapons?

This raises the disturbing possibility that not only was the B-52 ordered to participate in a covert mission to attack Iran outside the regular chain of military command, but that one of its nuclear weapons was secretly siphoned off for another covert mission. If Dick Cheney did give the order for the nuclear weapons to be loaded on to the B-52, it is highly likely that he is aware of the location and potential use of the missing nuclear missile. A number of serious questions therefore need to be asked about the appropriateness of Cheney being in charge of TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield. This is even more urgent if there is a missing nuclear warhead that was taken from the B-52 for a yet undisclosed mission. Could this mission be related to the TOPOFF and Vigilant Shield exercises?

In a Presidential Statement released on May 21, 2001, President Bush gave Vice President Cheney the power to coordinate national efforts in response to terrorist attacks: “I have asked Vice President Cheney to oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that we may do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm.” An “Office of National Preparedness” was created to implement the “national effort overseen by Vice President Cheney” and would “coordinate all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies.” Effectively, this means that during TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield, VP Cheney will be responsible for all efforts to respond to weapons of mass destruction. He will have the power of override any Department of Defense objections to activities concerning “consequence management” of nuclear weapons. If there was a missing nuclear weapon from the B-52 incident, then TOPOFF and Vigilant Shield could provide the cover for its use.

The possible use of the B-52 missing nuclear weapon could trigger the martial law scenario found in National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51 after the declaration of a “Catastrophic Emergency.” NSPD 51 defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” Once declaring such an emergency, President Bush or his successors according to Continuity of Government provisions, can take over all governmental functions at local, state and national levels, as well as private sector activities, to ensure the U.S. emerges from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."

So far, the Air Force inquiry is classified and information on a possible missing nuclear weapon has not been disclosed. It is unlikely that much information will be disclosed to the public for national security reasons. The only U.S. Congressman calling for an official public inquiry into the B-52 incident is Dennis Kucinich. As long as the role of Dick Cheney in the B-52 incident is not investigated and the missing nuclear weapon is not located, Cheney should be removed from any position of authority in coordinating civil and military responses to any simulated terrorist attack. Such exercises provide him the opportunity and authority to secretly approve the covert use of a nuclear device that can be used to trigger a declaration of a “Catastrophic Emergency.” U.S. National Security is not served by Dick Cheney having a prominent role in leading TOPOFF 4, Vigilant Shield and any future simulated terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction.

www.exopolitics.org

Monday, October 15, 2007

Interesting Reading for Oct 15, 2007

The gods orchestrating the strings of modern finance offer us a Faustian solution: the pleasure of consumption without the pain of saving. Did Mr. and Mrs. Consumer spend more money than they have in the bank? No worries, they can pay it back next month…or the month after…or maybe never.
They’ve been told to expect more for less… They’ve been assured that it’s O.K. to spend more than you make.
This is the game that caters to a new American generation…an entitlement class of children playing children’s games…a generation weaned on the bottle of instant gratification.
----------------------------------------
The reason seems simple. People find comfort in knowing lots of other people have made the same choices…like fans routing for a sports team. Human beings naturally gravitate towards the crowd. And “crowds cannot think. They can only feel and act.”
So their behavior only seems rational in the fact that “everybody’s doing it.”

http://www.agorafinancial.com/afrude/2007/10/12/living-la-vida-loca/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And so we come closer to understanding why it is that today's babylonian christianity is so popular. It's the mindless, spiritless power of the mob. It must be right if everyone's doing it right?

Matt 7:13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The crowd is headed through the broad gate that leads to destruction. They comfort each other as they head into the abyss. Men's persuasive words never saved anyone.

1Thess 1:4 knowing, brethren beloved of God, your election, 5 how that our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance; even as ye know what manner of men we showed ourselves toward you for your sake.

Words are not enough, it takes words, POWER and the assurance of the Holy Spirit to save men. Men have to love the truth and hate lies but most today love lies and hate the truth. Is the Spirit of God going to hand over the precious gift of His presence to men like this, NO.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Pastors (more)

Nicolaitanism
Or The Rise and Growth of the Clerisy

http://www.biblecentre.org/topics/fwg_nicolaitanism.htm


"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate. "
"So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate" - (Rev 2:6,15)
The address to Pergamos follows that to Smyrna. This next stage of the Church’s journey in its departure (alas!) from truth may easily be recognized historically. It applies to the time when, after having passed through the heathen persecution, and the faithfulness of many an Antipas being brought out by it, it got publicly recognized and established in the world. The characteristic of this epistle is, the Church dwelling where Satan’s throne is. "Throne" it should be, not "seat." Now Satan has his throne, not in hell, which is his prison, and where he never reigns at all, but in the world, he is expressly called the "prince of this world." To dwell where Satan’s throne is, is to settle down in the world, under Satan’s government, so to speak, and protection. That is what people call the establishment of the Church. It took place in Constantine’s time. Although amalgamation with the world had been growing for a long time more and more decided, yet it was then that the Church stepped into the seats of the old heathen idolatry. It was what people call the triumph of Christianity, but the result was that the Church had the things of the world now as never before, in secure possession: the chief place in the world was hers, and the principles of the world every-where pervaded her.
The very name of "Pergamos" intimates that. It is a word (without the particle attached to it, which is itself significant,) - really meaning "marriage," and the Church’s marriage before Christ comes to receive her to Himself is necessarily unfaithfulness to Him to whom she is espoused. It is the marriage of the Church and the world which the epistle to Pergamos speaks of - the end of a courtship which had been going on long before.
There is something, however, which is preliminary to this, and mentioned in the very first address; but there it is evidently incidental, and does not characterize the state of things. In the first address, to the Ephesians, the Lord says, "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate" (2:6). Here it is more than the "deeds" of the Nicolaitanes. There are now not merely "deeds," but "doctrine." And the Church, instead of repudiating it, was holding with it. In the Ephesian days, they hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes; but in Pergamos, they "had," and did not reprobate, those who held the doctrine.
The question now before us is, How shall we interpret this? and we shall find that the word "Nicolaitanes" is the only thing really which we have to interpret it by. People have tried very hard to show that there was a sect of the Nicolaitanes, but it is owned by writers now almost on all sides to be very doubtful. Nor can we conceive why, in epistles of the character which we have seen these to have, there should be such repeated and emphatic mention of a mere obscure sect, about which people can tell us little or nothing, and that seems manufactured to suit the passage before us. The Lord solemnly denounces it: "Which thing I hate." It must have a special importance with Him, and be of moment in the Church’s history, little apprehended as it may have been. And another thing which we have to remember is, that it is not the way of Scripture to send us to church histories, or to any history at all, in order to interpret its sayings. God’s Word is its own interpreter, and we have not to go elsewhere in order to find out what is there; otherwise it becomes a question of learned men searching and finding out for those who have not the same means or abilities, applications which must be taken on their authority alone. This He would not leave His people to. Besides, it is the ordinary way in Scripture, and especially in passages of a symbolical character, such as is the part before us, for the names to be significant. I need not remind you how abundantly in the Old Testament this is the case; and in the New Testament, although less noticed, I cannot doubt but that there is the same significance throughout.
Here, if we are left simply to the name, it is one sufficiently startling and instructive. Of course, to those who spoke the language used, the meaning would be no hidden or recondite thing, but as apparent as those of Bunyan’s allegories. It means, then, "Conquering the people." The last part of the word ("Laos") is the word used in Greek for "the people," and it is the word from which the commonly used term "Laity" is derived. The Nicolaitanes were just those "subjecting - putting down the laity" the mass of Christian people, in order unduly to lord it over them.
What makes this clearer is, that, - side by side with the Nicolaitanes in the epistle to Pergamos, - we have those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, a name whose similarity in meaning has been observed by many. "Balaam" is a Hebrew word, as the other is a Greek; but its meaning is, "Destoryer of the people," a very significant one in view of his history; and as we read of the "doctrine of the Nicolaitanes," so we read of a "doctrine of Balaam."
You have pointed out what he "taught" Balak. Balaam’s doctrine was, "to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication." For this purpose he enticed them to mixture with the nations, from which God had carefully separated them. That needful separation broken down was their destruction, so far as it prevailed. In like manner we have seen the Church to be called out from the world, and it is only too easy to apply the divine type in this case. But here we have a confessedly typical people, with a corresponding significant name, and in such close connection as naturally to confirm the reading of the similar word, "Nicolaitanes," as similarly significant. I shall have to speak more of this at another time, if the Lord will. Let us notice now the development of Nicolaitanism. It is, first of all, certain people who have this character, and who (I am merely translating the word.) first take the place of superiors over the people. Their "deeds" show what they are. There is no "doctrine" yet; but it ends in Pergamos, with the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. The place is assumed now to be theirs by right. There is a doctrine - a teaching about it, received at least by some, and to which the Church at large - nay, on the whole true souls, have become indifferent.
Now what has come in between these two things, - the "deeds" and the "doctrine"? What we were looking at last time - the rise of a party whom the Lord marks out as those who said they were Jews and were not, but who were the synagogue of Satan: the adversary’s attempt (alas! too successful) to Judaize the Church.
We were looking but a little while since at what the characteristics of Judaism are. It was a probationary system, a system of trial, in which it was to be seen if man could produce a righteousness for God. We know the end of the trial, and that God pronounced "none righteous - no, not one." And then alone it was that God could manifest His grace. As long as He was putting man under trial, He could not possibly open the way to His own presence and justify the sinner there. He had, as long as this trial went on, to shut him out; for on that ground, nobody could see God and live. Now the very essence of Christianity is that all are welcomed in. There is an open door, and ready access, where the blood of Christ entitles every one, however much a sinner, to draw near to God, and to find, in the first place, at His hand, justification as ungodly. To see God in Christ is not to die, but live. And what, further, is the consequence of this? The people who have come this way to Him, - the people who have found the way of access through the peace-speaking blood into His presence, learned what He is in Christ, and been justified before God, are able to take, and taught to take, a place distinct from all others, as now His, children of the Father, members of Christ - His body. That is the Church, a body called out, separate from the world.
Judaism, on the other hand, necessarily mixed all together. Nobody there could take such a place with God: nobody could cry, "Abba, Father," really; therefore there could not be any separation. This had been then a necessity, and of God, no doubt; but now, Judaism being set up again, after God had abolished it, it was no use, it is no use, to urge that it was once of Him; its setting up was the too successful work of the enemy against His gospel and against His Church. He brands these Judaizers as the "synagogue of Satan."
Now we can understand at once, when the Church in its true character was practically lost sight of, when Church-members meant people baptized by water instead of by the Holy Ghost, or when the baptism of water and of the Holy Ghost were reckoned one, (and this very early became accepted doctrine,) how of course the Jewish synagogue was practically again set up. It became more and more impossible to speak of Christians being at peace with God, or saved. They were hoping to be, and sacraments and ordinances became means of grace to insure, as far as might be, a far-off salvation.
Let us see how far this would help on the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. It is plain that when and as the Church sank into the synagogue, the Christian people became practically what of old the Jewish had been. Now, what was that position? As I have said, there was no real drawing near to God at all. Even the high- priest, who (as a type of Christ,) entered into the holiest once a year, on the day of atonement, had to cover the mercy-seat with a cloud of incense that he might not die. But the ordinary priests could not enter there at all, but only into the outer holy place; while the people in general could not come in even there. And this was expressly designed as a witness of their condition. It was the result of failure on their part; for God’s offer to them, which you may find in the nineteenth chapter of Exodus, was this: "Now, therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine; and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation."
They were thus conditionally offered equal nearness of access to God, - they should be all priests. But this was rescinded, for they broke the covenant; and then a special family is put into the place of priests, the rest of the people being put into the background, and only able to draw near to God through these.
Thus a separate and intermediate priesthood characterized Judaism, as on the other hand, for the same reason, what we should call now missionary-work there was none. There was no going out to the world in this way, no provision, no command, to preach the law at all. What, in fact, could they say? that God was in the thick darkness? that no one could see Him and live? It is surely evident there was no "good news" there. Judaism had no true gospel. The absence of the evangelist and the presence of the intermediate priesthood told the same sorrowful story, and were in perfect keeping with each other.
Such was Judaism; how different, then, is Christianity! No sooner had the death of Christ rent the vail, and opened a way of access into the presence of God, than at once there was a gospel, and the new order is, "Go out into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." God is making Himself known, and "is He the God of the Jews only?" Can you confine that within the bounds of a nation? No; the fermentation of the new wine would burst the bottles.
The intermediate priesthood was, on the other hand, done away; for all the Christian people are priests now to God. What was conditionally offered to Israel is now an accomplished fact in Christianity. We are a kingdom of priests; and it is, in the wisdom of God, Peter, ordained of man the great head of ritualism, who in his first epistle announces the two things which destroy ritualism root and branch for those who believe him. First, that we are "born again," not of baptism, but "by the word of God, that liveth and abideth for-ever;" and this, "the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." Secondly, instead of a set of priests, he says to all Christians, "Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priest-hood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (2:5). The sacrifices are spiritual, praise and thanksgiving, and our lives and bodies also (Heb. 13:15, 16; Rom. 12:1); but this is to be with us true priestly work, and thus do our lives get their proper character: they are the thank-offering service of those able to draw nigh to God.
In Judaism, let me repeat, no one drew really nigh; but the people - the laity (for it is only a Greek word made English,) - the people not even as the priest could. The priestly caste, wherever it is found, means the same thing. There is no drawing nigh of the whole body of the people at all. It means distance from God, and darkness, - God shut out.
Let us see now what is the meaning of a clergy. It is, in our day, and has been for many generations, the word which specially marks out a class distinguished from the "laity," and distinguished by being given up to sacred things, and having a place of privilege in connection with them which the laity have not. No doubt in the present day this special place is being more and more infringed on, and for two reasons. One is, that God has been giving light, and, among Protestants at least, Scripture is opposing itself to tradition, - modifying where it does not destroy this. The other is a merely human one - that the day is democratic, and class-privileges are breaking down.
But what means this class? It is evident that as thus distinguished from the laity, and privileged beyond them, it is real and open Nicolaitanism, if Scripture does not make good their claim. For then the laity has been subjected to them, and that is the exact meaning of the term. Does Scripture, then, use such terms? It is plain it does not. They are, as regards the New Testament, an invention of later date, although, it may be admitted, as imported really from what is older than the New, - the Judaism with which the Church (as we have seen,) was quickly permeated.
But we must see the important principles involved, to see how the Lord has (as He must have) cause to say of the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, "Which I also hate." We too, if we would be in communion with the Lord in this must hate what He hates.
I am not speaking of people (God forbid!): I am speaking of a thing. Our unhappiness is, that we are at the end of a long series of departures from God, and as a consequence, we grow up in the midst of many things which come down to us as "tradition of the elders," associated with names which we all revere and love, upon whose authority in reality we have accepted them, without ever having looked at them really in the light of God’s presence. And there are many thus whom we gladly recognize as truly men of God and servants of God in a false position. It is of that position I am speaking. I am speaking of a thing, as the Lord does: "Which thing I hate." He does not say, Which people I hate. Although in those days evil of this kind was not an inheritance, as now, and the first propagators of it, of course, had a responsibility, self- deceived as they may have been, peculiarly their own. Still, in this matter as in all others, we need not be ashamed or afraid to be where the Lord is; - nay, we cannot be with Him in this unless we are; and He says of Nicolaitanism, "Which thing I hate."
Because what does it mean? It means a spiritual caste, or class, - a set of people having officially a right to leadership in spiritual things; a nearness to God, derived from official place, not spiritual power: in fact, the revival, under other names, and with various modifications, of that very intermediate priesthood which distinguished Judaism, and which Christianity emphatically disclaims. That is what a clergy means; and in contradiction to these, the rest of Christians are but the laity, the seculars, necessarily put back into more or less of the old distance, which the cross of Christ has done away.
We see, then, why it needed that the Church should be Judaized before the deeds of the Nicolaitanes could ripen into a "doctrine." The Lord even had authorized obedience to scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses’ seat; and to make this text apply, as people apply it now, Moses’ seat had of course to be set up in the Christian Church: this done, and the mass of Christians degraded from the priesthood Peter spoke of, into mere "lay members," the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes was at once established.
Understand me fully, that I am in no wise questioning the divine institution of the Christian ministry. God forbid! for ministry in the fullest sense is characteristic of Christianity, as I have already in fact maintained. Nor do I, while believing that all true Christians are ministers also by the very fact, deny a special and distinctive ministry of the Word, as what God has given to some and not to all - though for the use of all. No one truly taught of God can deny that some, not all, among Christians have the place of evangelist, pastor, teacher. Scripture makes more of this than current views do; for it teaches that every true minister is a gift from Christ, in His care, as Head of the Church, for His people, and one who has his place from God alone, and is responsible in that character to God, and God alone. The miserable system which I see around degrades him from this blessed place, and makes him in fact little more than the manufacture and the servant of men. While giving, it is true, a place of lordship over people which gratifies a carnal mind, still it fetters the spiritual man, and puts him in chains; every where giving him an artificial conscience toward man, hindering in fact his conscience being properly before God.
Let me briefly state what the Scripture-doctrine of the ministry is - it is a very simple one. The Assembly of God is Christ’s body; all the members are members of Christ. There is no other membership in Scripture than this - the membership of Christ’s body, to which all true Christians belong: not many bodies of Christ, but one body; not many Churches, but one Church.
There is of course a different place for each member of the body by the very fact that he is such. All members have not the same office: there is the eye, the ear, and so on, but they are all necessary, and all necessarily ministering, in some way or sense, to one another.
Every member has its place, not merely locally, and for the benefit of certain other members, but for the benefit of the whole body.
Each member has its gift, as the apostle teaches distinctly. "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, etc. (Rom. 12:4-6.)
In the twelfth chapter of first Corinthians, the apostle speaks at large of these gifts; and he calls them by a significant name - "manifestations of the Spirit." They are gifts of the Spirit, of course; but more, they are "manifestations of the Spirit;" they manifest themselves where they are found, - where (I need scarcely add that I mean,) there is spiritual discernment, - where souls are before God.
For instance, if you take the gospel of God, whence does it derive its authority and power? From any sanction of men? any human credentials of any kind? or from its own inherent power? I dare maintain, that the common attempt to authenticate the messenger takes away from instead of adding to the power of the Word. God’s Word must be received as such: he that receives it sets to his seal that God is true. Its ability to meet the needs of heart and conscience is derived from the fact that it is "God’s good news," who knows perfectly what man’s need is, and has provided for it accordingly. He who has felt its power knows well from whom it comes. The work and witness of the Spirit of God in the soul need no witness of man to supplement them.
Even the Lord’s appeal in His own case was to the truth He uttered: "If I say the truth, why do ye not believe Me?" When He stood forth in the Jewish synagogue, or elsewhere, He was but in men’s eyes a poor carpenter’s son, accredited by no school or set of men at all. All the weight of authority was ever against Him. He disclaimed even "receiving testimony from men." God’s Word alone should speak for God. "My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me." And how did it approve itself? By the fact of its being truth. "If I speak the truth, why do you not believe Me?" It was the truth that was to make its way with the true. "He that will do God’s will shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself." He says, "I speak the truth, I bring it to you from God; and if it is truth, and if you are seeking to do God’s will, you will learn to recognize it as the truth." God will not leave people in ignorance and darkness, if they are seek-ing to be doers of His will. Can you suppose that God will allow true hearts to be deceived by what- ever plausible deceptions may be abroad? He is able to make His voice known by those who seek to hear His voice. And so the Lord says to Pilate, "Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice." (John 18:37.) "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;" and again, "A stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him; for they know not the voice of strangers." (John 10:27,5.)
Such is the nature of truth, then, that to pretend to authenticate it to those who are themselves true is to dishonor it, as if it were not capable of self- evidence, and so dishonor God, as if He could be wanting to souls, or to what He Himself has given.
Nay, the apostle speaks of "by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor. 4:2): and the Lord, of its being the condemnation of the world, that "light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). There was no lack of evidence: light was there, and men owned its power to their own condemnation, when they sought escape from it.
Even so in the gift was there "the manifestation of the Spirit," and it was "given to every man to profit withal." By the very fact that he had it, he was responsible to use it - responsible to Him who had not given it in vain. In the gift itself lay the ability to minister, and title too; for I am bound to help and serve with what I have. And if souls are helped, they need scarcely ask if I had commission to do it.
This is the simple character of ministry - the service of love, according to the ability which God gives, mutual service of each to each and each to all, without jostling or exclusion of one another. Each gift was thrown into the common treasury, and all were the richer by it. God’s blessing and the manifestation of the Spirit were all the sanction needed. All were not teachers, still less public teachers, of the Word; still in these cases, the same principles exactly applied. That was but one department of a service which had many, and which was rendered by each to each according to his sphere.
Was there nothing else than that? Was there no ordained class at all, then? That is another thing altogether. There were, without doubt, in the primitive Church, two classes of officials, regularly appointed, or (if you like) ordained. The deacons were those who, having charge of the fund for the poor and other purposes, were chosen by the saints first for this place of trust in their behalf, and then appointed authoritatively by apostles mediately or immediately. Elders were a second class, - elderly men, as the word imports, - who were appointed in the local assemblies as "bishops," or "overseers," to take cognizance of their state. That the elders were the same as bishops may be seen in Paul’s words to the elders of Ephesus, where he exhorts them to "take heed to . . . . all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." There they have translated the word, "bishops," but in Titus they have left it - "that thou shouldest ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee; if any be blameless . . . . for a bishop must be blameless." (Acts 20:28; Tit. 1:5,7.)
Their work was to "oversee," and although for that purpose their being "apt to teach" was a much-needed qualification, in view of errors already rife, yet no one could suppose that teaching was confined to those who were "elders," "husbands of one wife, having their children in subjection with all gravity." This was a needed test for one who was to be a bishop; "for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:1-7.)
Whatever gifts they had they used, as all did, and thus the apostle directs - "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the Word and doctrine (5:17). But they might rule, and rule well, without this.
The meaning of their ordination was just this, that here it was not a question of "gift," but of authority. It was a question of title to take up and look into, often difficult and delicate matters, among people too very likely in no state to submit to what was merely spiritual. The ministration of gift was another thing, and free, under God, to all.
Thus much, very briefly, as to Scripture-doctrine. Our painful duty is now to put in contrast with it the system I am deprecating, according to which a distinct class are devoted formally to spiritual things, and the people - the laity - are in the same ratio excluded from such occupation. This is true Nicolaitanism, - the "subjection of the people."
Again I say, not only that ministry of the Word is entirely right, but that there are those who have special gift and responsibility (though still not exclusive) to minister it. But priesthood is another thing, and a thing sufficiently distinct to be easily recognized where it is claimed or in fact exists. I am, of course, aware that Protestants in general disclaim any priestly powers for their ministers. I have no wish nor thought of disputing their perfect honesty in this disavowal. They mean that they have no thought of the minister having any authoritative power of absolution; and that they do not make the Lord’s table an altar, whereon afresh day after day the perfection of Christ’s one offering is denied by countless repetitions. They are right in both respects, but it is scarcely the whole matter. If we look more deeply, we shall find that much of a priestly character may attach where neither of these have the least place.
Priesthood and ministry may be distinguished in this way: Ministry (in the sense we are now considering) is to men; priesthood is to God. The minister brings God’s message to the people, - he speaks for Him to them: the priest goes to God for the people, - he speaks in the reverse way, for them to Him. It is surely easy to distinguish these two attitudes.
"Praise and thanksgiving" are spiritual "sacrifices:" they are part of our offering as priests. Put a special class into a place where regularly and officially they act thus for the rest, they are at once in the rank of an intermediate priesthood, - mediators with God for those who are not so near.
The Lord’s supper is the most prominent and fullest expression of Christian thankfulness and adoration publicly and statedly; but what Protestant minister does not look upon it as his official right to administer this? what "layman" would not shrink from the profanation of administering it? And this is one of the terrible evils of the system, that the mass of Christian people are thus distinctly secularized. Occupied with worldly things, they cannot be expected to be spiritually what the clergy are. And to this they are given over, as it were. They are released from spiritual occupations, to which they are not equal, and to which others give themselves entirely.
But this must evidently go much further. "The priest’s lips should keep knowledge." The laity, who have become that by abdicating their priesthood, how should they retain the knowledge belonging to a priestly class? The unspirituality to which they have given themselves up pursues them here. The class whose business it is, become the authorized interpreters of the Word also, for how should the secular man know so well what Scripture means? Thus the clergy become spiritual eyes and ears and mouth for the laity, and are in the fair way of becoming the whole body too.
But it suits people well. Do not mistake me as if I meant that this is all come in as the assumption of a class merely. It is that, no doubt ; but never could this miserable and unscriptural distinction of clergy and laity have obtained so rapidly as it did, and so universally, if every where it had not been found well adapted to the tastes of those even whom it really displaced and degraded. Not alone in Israel, but in christendom also, has it been fulfilled: "The prophets prophecy falsely, and the priests bear rule through their means, and My people love to have it so!" Alas! they did, and they do. As spiritual decline sets in, the heart that is turning to the world barters readily, Esau- like, its spiritual birthright for a mess of pottage. It exchanges thankfully its need of caring too much for spiritual things, with those who will accept the responsibility of this. Worldliness is well covered with a layman’s cloak; and as the Church at large dropped out of first love, (as it did rapidly, and then the world began to come in through the loosely guarded gates,) it became more and more impossible for the rank and file of christendom to take the blessed and wonderful place which belonged to Christians. The step taken downward, instead of being retrieved, only made succeeding steps each one easier; until, in less than three hundred years from the beginning, a Jewish priesthood and a ritualistic religion were every-where installed. Only so much the worse, as the precious things of Christianity left their names at least as spoils to the invader, and the shadow became for most the substance itself.
But I must return to look more particularly at one feature in this clerisy. I have noted the confounding of ministry and priesthood; the assumption of an official title in spiritual things, of title to administer the Lord’s supper, and I might have added also, to baptize. For none of these things can scripture be found at all. But I must dwell a little more on the emphasis that is laid on ordination.
I want you to see a little more what ordination means. In the first place, if you look through the New Testament, you will find nothing about ordination to teach or to preach. You find people going about every where freely exercising whatever gift they had; the whole Church was scattered abroad from Jerusalem except the apostles, and they went every where preaching (literally, evangelizing) the Word. The persecution did not ordain them, I suppose. So with Apollos: so with Philip the deacon. There is, in fact, no trace of any thing else. Timothy received a gift of prophecy, by the laying on of Paul’s hands with those of the elders; but that was gift, not authorization to use it. So he is bidden to communicate his own knowledge to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also; but there is not a word about ordaining them. The case of elders I have already noticed. That of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch is the most unhappy that can be for the purpose people use it for; for prophets and teachers are made to ordain an apostle, and one who totally disclaims being that. "of men or by man." And there the Holy Ghost (not confers power of ordaining any, but) says, "Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereto I have called them," - a special missionary journey, which it is shown afterward they had fulfilled. (See Acts 8, 11, 13, 18; 1 Tim., etc.)
Now, what means this "ordination"? It means much, you may be sure, or it would not be so zealously contended for as it is. There are, no doubt, two phases of it. In the most extreme, as among Romanists and ritualists, there is claimed for it in the fullest way that it is the conveyance, not merely of authority, but of spiritual power. They assume with all the power of apostles to give the Holy Ghost by the laying on of their hands, and here for priesthood in the fullest way. The people of God as such are rejected from the priesthood He has given them, and a special class are put into their place to mediate for them in a way which sets aside the fruit of Christ’s work, and ties them to the Church as the channel of all grace. Among Prot-estants, you think perhaps I need not dwell on this; but it is done among some of these also, in words which to a certain class of them seem strangely to mean nothing, while another class find in them the abundant sanction of their highest pretensions.
Those, on the other hand, who rightly and consistently reject these unchristian assumptions do not pretend indeed to confer any gift in ordination, but only to "recognize" the gift which God has given. But then, after all, this recognition is considered necessary before the person can baptize or administer the Lord’s supper, - things which really require no peculiar gift at all. And as to the ministry of the Word, God’s gift is made to require human sanction, and is "recognized" on behalf of His people by those who are considered to have a discernment which the people as such have not. Blind themselves or not, these men are to become "leaders of the blind;" else why need others to be eyes for them, while their own souls are taken out of the place of immediate responsibility to God, and made responsible unduly to man? An artificial conscience is manufactured for them, and conditions are constantly imposed, to which they have to conform in order to obtain the needful recognition. It is well if they are not under the control of their ordainers as to their path of service also, as they generally are.
In principle, this is unfaithfulness to God; for if He has given me gift to use for Him, I am surely unfaithful if I go to any man or body of men to ask their leave to use it. The gift itself carries with it the responsibility of using it, as we have seen. If they say, "But people may make mistakes," I own it thoroughly; but who is to assume my responsibility if I am mistaken? And again, the mistakes of an ordaining body are infinitely more serious than those of one who merely runs unsent. Their mistakes are consecrated and perpetuated by the ordination they bestow; and the man who, if he stood simply upon his own merits, would soon find his true level, has a character conferred upon him by it which the whole weight of the system must sustain. Mistake or not, he is none the less one of the clerical body, - a minister, if he has nothing really to minister. He must be provided for, if only with some less conspicuous place, where souls, dear to God as any, are put under his care, and must be unfed if he cannot feed them.
Do not accuse me of sarcasm; it is the system I am speaking of which is a sarcasm, - a swathing of the body of Christ in bands which hinder the free circulation of the vitalizing blood which should be permeating unrestrictedly the whole of it. Nature itself should rebuke the folly - the enormous inference from such scriptural premises as that apostles and apostolic men "ordained elders"! They must prove that they are either, and (granting them that,) that the Scripture "elder" might be no elder at all, but a young unmarried man just out of his teens, and on the other hand was evangelist, pastor, teacher - all God’s various gifts rolled into one. This is the minister (according to the system, indeed, the minister,) - the all in all to the fifty or five hundred souls who are committed to him as "his flock," with which no other has title to interfere! Surely, surely, the brand of "Nicolaitanism" is upon the forefront of such a system as this!
Take it at its best, the man, if gifted at all, is scarcely likely to have every gift. Suppose he is an evangelist, and souls are happily converted; he is no teacher, and cannot build them up. Or he is a teacher, sent to a place where there are but a few Christians, and the mass of his congregation unconverted men. There are no conversions, and his presence there (according to the system) keeps away the evangelist who is needed there. Thank God! He is ever breaking up these systems, and in some irregular way the need may be supplied. But the supply is schismatical and a confusion: the new wine breaks the poor human bottles.
For all this the system is responsible. The exclusive ministry of one man or of a number of men in a congregation has no shred of Scripture to support it; while the ordination, as we have seen is the attempt to confine all ministry to a certain class, and make it rest on human authorization rather than on divine gift, the people, Christ’s sheep, being denied their competency to hear His voice. The inevitable tendency is, to fix upon the man the attention which should be devoted to the word he brings. The question is, Is he accredited? If he speak truly is subordinated to the question, Is he ordained? or, perhaps I should say; his orthodoxy is settled already for them by the fact of his ordination.
Paul, an apostle, not of men, nor by man, could not have been, upon this plan, received. There were apostles before him, and he neither went up to them nor got any thing from them. If there were a succession, he was a break in the succession. And what he did he did designedly, to show that his gospel was not after man (Gal. 1:11), and that it might not rest upon the authority of man. Nay, if he himself preached a different gospel from that he had preached, (for there was not another,) - yea, or an angel from heaven (where the authority, if that were in question, might seem conclusive), his solemn decision is, "Let him be accursed."
Authority, then, is nothing if it be not the au-thority of the Word of God. That is the test - Is it according to the Scriptures? "If the blind lead the blind, shall they not both fall into the ditch?" To say, "I could not, of course, know: I trusted another," will not save you from the ditch.
But the unspiritual and unlearned layman, how can he pretend to equal knowledge with the educated and accredited minister devoted to spiritual things? In point of fact, in general he does not. He yields to the one who should know better; and practically the minister’s teaching largely supplants the authority of the Word of God. Not that certainty, indeed, is thus attained. He cannot conceal it from himself that people differ - wise and good and learned and accredited as they may be. But here the devil steps in, and, if God has allowed men’s "authorities" to get into a Babel of confusion, as they have, suggests to the unwary soul that the confusion must be the result of the obscurity of Scripture, whereas they have got into it by disregarding Scripture.
But this is every where! Opinion, not faith; - opinion to which you are welcome and have a right, of course; and you must allow others a right to theirs. You may say, "I believe," as long as you do not mean by that, "I know." To claim "knowledge" is to claim that you are wiser, more learned, better, than whole generations before you, who thought opposite to you.
Need I show you how infidelity thrives upon this? how Satan rejoices when for the simple and emphatic "Yea" of the divine voice he succeeds in substituting the Yea and Nay of a host of jarring commentators? Think you can fight the Lord’s battles with the rush of human opinion instead of "the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God"? Think you "Thus saith John Calvin, or John Wesley," will meet Satan as satisfactorily as "Thus saith the Lord"?
Who can deny that such thoughts are abroad, and in no wise confined to papists or ritualists? The tendency, alas! is, in the heart of unbelief ever departing from the living God, - as near to His own to-day as at any time through the centuries His Church has traveled on, as competent to instruct as ever, as ready to fulfill the word, "He that will do His will shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God." The "eyes are of the heart," and not the head. He has hidden from wise and prudent what He reveals to babes. The school of God is more effectual than all colleges combined, and here layman and cleric are equal: "he that is spiritual discerneth all things," and he alone. Substitute for spirituality there is none: unspirituality the Spirit of God alone can remedy. Ordination, such as practiced, is rather a sanction put upon it, - an attempt to manifest what is the manifestation of the Spirit, or not His work at all, and to provide leaders for the blind, whom with all their care they cannot insure not being blind also.
Before I close, I must say a few words about "succession." An ordination which pretends to be derived from the apostles must needs be (to be consistent,) a successional one. Who can confer authority (and in the least and lowest theories of ordination authority is conferred, as to baptize, and to administer the Lord’s supper,) but one himself authorized for this very purpose? You must, therefore, have a chain of ordained men, lineally succeeding one another. Apostolic succession is as necessary on the presbyterian as on the episcopalian plan. John Wesley, as his warrant for ordaining, fell back upon the essential oneness of bishop and presbyter. Nay, presbyterians will urge against episcopalians the ease of maintaining succession in this way. I have nothing to do with this: I only insist that succession is needed.
But then, mark the result. It is a thing apart alike from spirituality and from truth even. A Romish priest may have it as well as any; and indeed through the gutter of Rome most of that we have around us must necessarily have come down. Impiety and impurity do not in the least invalidate Christ’s commission. The teacher of false doctrine may be as well His messenger as the teacher of truth. Nay, the possession of the truth, with gift to minister it and godliness combined, are actually no part of the credentials of the true ambassador. He may have all these and be none; he may want them all and be truly one nevertheless.
Who can believe such doctrine? Can He who is truth accredit error? - the righteous One unrighteousness? It is impossible. This ecclesiasticism violates every principle of morality, and hardens the conscience that has to do with it. For why need we be careful for truth if He is not? and how can He send messengers that He would not have to be believed? His own test of a true witness fails; for "he that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory; but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him." His own test of credibility fails, for "If I speak the truth, why do ye not believe Me?" was His own appeal.
No: to state this principle is to condemn it. He who foresaw and predicted the failure of what should have been the bright and evident witness of His truth and grace, could not ordain a succession of teachers for it who should carry His commission unforfeitable by whatever failure! Before apostles had left the earth, the house of God had become as a "great house," and it was necessary to separate from vessels to dishonor in it, He who bade His apostle to instruct another to "follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart," could not possibly tell us to listen to men who are alien from all this, as His ministers, and having His commission in spite of all. And thus notably, in the second epistle to Timothy, in which this is said, there is no longer, as in the first, any talk of elders or of ordained men. It is "faithful men" "who are wanted, not for ordination, but for the deposit of the truth committed to Timothy: "The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
Thus God’s holy Word vindicates itself to the heart and conscience ever. The effort to attach His sanction to a Romish priesthood or a Protestant hierarchy fails alike upon the same ground, for as to this they are upon the same ground. Alas! Nicolaitanism is no past thing - no obscure doc-trine of past ages, but a wide-spread and gigantic system of error, fruitful in evil results. Error is long-lived, though mortal. Reverence it not for its gray hairs, and follow not with a multitude to do evil. With cause does the Lord say in this case, "Which thing I hate." If He does, shall we be afraid to have fellowship with Him? That there are good men entangled in it, all must admit. There are godly men, and true ministers, ignorantly wearing the livery of men. May God deliver them! may they cast aside their fetters and be free! May they rise up to the true dignity of their calling, responsible to God, and walking before Him alone!
On the other hand, beloved brethren, it is of immense importance that all His people, however diverse their places in the body of Christ may be, should realize that they are all as really ministers as they are all priests. We need to recognize that every Christian has spiritual duties flowing from spiritual relationship to every other Christian. It is the privilege of each one to contribute his share to the common treasury of gift, with which Christ has endowed His Church. Nay, he who does not contribute is actually holding back what is his debt to the whole family of God. No possessor of one talent is entitled to wrap it in a napkin upon that account: it would be mere unfaithfulness and unbelief.
"It is more blessed to give than to receive." Brethren in Christ, when shall we awake to the reality of our Lord’s words there? Ours is a never- failing spring of perpetual joy and blessing, which if we but come to when we thirst, out of our bellies shall flow rivers of living water. The spring is not limited by the vessel which receives it: it is divine, and yet ours fully, - fully as can be! Oh to know more this abundance, and the responsibility of the possession of it, in a dry and weary scene like this! Oh to know better the infinite grace which has taken us up as channels of its outflow among men! When shall we rise up to the sense of our common dignity, - to the sweet reality of fellowship with Him who "came not to be ministered unto, but to minister"? Oh for unofficial ministry - the overflowing of full hearts into empty ones, so many as there are around us! How we should rejoice, in a scene of want and misery and sin, to find perpetual opportunity to show the competency of Christ’s fullness to meet and minister to every form of it.
Official ministry is practical independence of the Spirit of God. It is to decide that such a vessel shall overflow though at the time, it may be, practically empty; and, on the other hand, that such another shall not overflow, however full He may have filled it up. It proposes, in the face of Him who has come down in Christ’s absence to be the Guardian of His people, to provide for order and for edification, not by spiritual power, but by legislation. It would provide for failure on the part of Christ’s sheep to hear His voice, by making it as far as possible unnecessary for them to do so. It thus sanctions and perpetuates unspirituality, instead of condemning or avoiding it.
It is quite true that in God’s mode of treating it the failure in man’s part may become more evident externally; for He cares little for a correct outside when the heart is nevertheless not right with Him, and He knows well that ability to maintain a correct outside may in fact prevent a truthful judgment of what is our real condition before Him. Men would have upbraided Peter with his attempt to walk upon those waves which made his little faith so manifest. The Lord would only rebuke the littleness of the faith which made him fail. And man still and ever would propose the boat as the remedy for failure, instead of the strength of the Lord’s support, which He made Peter prove. Yet, after all, the boat confessedly may fail, - winds and waves may overthrow it: but "the Lord on high is mightier than the noise of many waters - yea, than the mighty waves of the sea." Through these many centuries of failure, have we proved Him untrustworthy? Beloved, is it your honest conviction that it is absolutely safe to trust the living God? Then let us make no provision for His failure, however much we may have to own that we have failed! Let us act as if we really trusted Him.
F W Grant

Pastors

There are three named heresies among the seven churches - the Nicolaitanes, Balaam, and the woman Jezebel. The names are symbolic of the heresies they represent. When a name appears in the scriptures its meaning sheds light upon the spiritual reality behind the name. What was this thing God hated but man loved and would not stop doing? What are these Nicolaitanes? We’ll understand it when we know what the name means! The word comes from two Greek words: nikao, which means "to rule over or to conquer," and laos, which means "the laity or the people." Put these definitions together and you get a domineering ruling class within the body of Christ whose main agenda is to get the upper hand, conquer, subordinate, and subdue those who they consider "less gifted," "less knowledgeable," and "less qualified" than themselves!

In the religious world there are those who are called "clergy" and those who are called "laity." Where do you suppose these titles came from? "Laity, lay person, and layman" are all derivatives from the Greek word laos mentioned above! This is a title that has come to us from religious Babylon! The clergy are called the "reverends," "doctors," "pastors," "teachers," "evangelists," "overseers," "bishops," "ministers," "priests," "superintendents," "leaders," etc. These are often termed "men of the cloth" - men who wear special attire as a matter of identification as "clergy." These are the people who have the power, authority, and lordship! The rest of us poor folks are just "laity."
What were the "deeds" of the Nicolaitanes? They were exalting the "clergy" over the "laity"! The clergy class were dominating the laity, the people. The clergy were exalted whereas the laity were abased. The clergy became the authority, they became the fountain of all truth, they had the last word, and the laity were the "dumb sheep" that were instructed to follow and do what they were told. I once read that the saddest thing that happened to the church was when it stopped being a family and became an audience. Most people have missed the point completely; they conceive of the church as a drama wherein they are merely spectators. In this drama the minister is the principle actor, God is his prompter whispering His lines in his ear - should he chance to forget them - and the congregation are the critics who pass their judgment upon the performance when all has been said and done. This can be perceived by the comments of many people to the minister (actor) who has now made his way to the front door to receive the acclamation of the spectators. "Good job, preacher! You really did a good job today. You really let ‘em have it!" Or the comment, "The choir was really beautiful today." The whole idea expressed seems to be that it was a drama; it was a performance, a show, and you express your acceptance and your approval. You are the critic and it is up to you to pass your judgment.

We have here a "caste system" of "clergy" and "laity" which has been clearly and soundly repudiated by the firstborn Son of God! The firstborn Son, the pattern Son, the proto-type of what the life of sonship is all about, said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men hold them in subjection; but it must not be so among you. On the contrary, whoever desires to be first among you must be your slave; and whosoever may desire to take rank among you, let him be your servant: just as the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve. You are not to be called teacher, for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. And you must not be called leaders, for you have one Leader, the Christ. He who is greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whosoever humbles himself shall be raised to honor" (Mat. 20:25-27; 23:8-12, Amplified & Ferrar Fenton). Men love to rule, even though God has called all of us to serve one another. How many churches or groups can we point out today who observe these words of the Lord Jesus? THINK ABOUT IT!

God’s people, since the days of king Saul, have been accustomed to appointing kings, priests, prophets, bishops, pastors, teachers, elders, deacons, overseers, leaders, and rulers of all kinds, to hear the word of the Lord for them, and rule over them by it, instead of hearing and knowing the Lord for themselves. But that old order has since passed away! It has not passed away for those who remain in religious Babylon, but God has established a new and spiritual order for His elect who are in Christ. This new order is not really new, for it is the very same order the Lord Jesus gave to His disciples! It is the order of sonship! And this new order of the spirit of sonship replaces all those substitutes, whether they be bishops, pastors, priests, elders, or anything else. Oh, yes, there are spiritual ministries in the body of Christ! But these spiritual ministries are servants, not leaders or rulers. In this new kingdom day God is making His elect to be sons of the Father with the spiritual ability to HEAR all the Lord would tell us and to KNOW Him by personal experience of His fullness. No longer do His called and chosen ones submit to the lordship of others who can hear and act "for" them, but as brethren in the body of Christ they share the same mind, nature, life, and power and so admonish, encourage, confirm, and bless one another as each joint supplies. ONLY THE HEAD RULES! There is one Head and one Leader, even Christ, who dwells within. These are such simple principles, and so divine, that one would think all men could understand, but the carnal mind never understands!

The word of the Lord is coming forth today! This fresh, new word is not given only to designated apostles, prophets, pastors, or teachers. It is better, rather, to avoid those who claim such titles and offices and turn your spiritual ears to the heavens of God’s Spirit, and hear for yourself what your Father has to say. The word that you receive will then be confirmed by all who are walking in the Spirit and hearing from the Father. How beautiful this is! What safety there is in this order of the Spirit! Father’s anointed word of life, wisdom, power, and authority is radiating out of the Spirit of the Son within us. Let us HEAR HIM and then obediently DO all He tells us to do! Christ alone is the true Head, Lord, and King of all His elect and chosen ones. His faithful and obedient elect are hearing His pure word from His pure mind. And they are fulfilling His word, walking out His righteousness and will out of His holy nature and power. They are worshipping Him in spirit and in truth, as our Lord told us to do, and not after the traditions of the church systems. By these necessary principles of consecration and yieldedness unto the Lord, those called to sonship are becoming a holy, separated people unto the Lord, prepared to serve His holy kingdom purposes in all the earth.

I do not seek to revile, but rather to speak the truth in love as I warn all who seek after life, immortality, and sonship to God to flee from the deeds and doctrines of the Nicolaitanes as you would flee from a poisonous snake or a lion in the jungle. Let us reverently consider together just how this heresy entered in among the Lord’s people. What a flood of light fell upon the world in the ministry of Jesus and His apostles! Then following His ascension, by the gift of the Holy Ghost which is the spirit of Christ, the Lord came again in mighty Spirit power to indwell His people. The church was birthed, and gathered from Jew and Gentile alike, a vast multitude into its bosom. The shadows of the law were replaced by the glorious and eternal reality of a living, indwelling Christ. In those few holy years Christ Himself within was the only Head of the church and unity and harmony flowed like a river and the body of Christ was one. There was no government but the government of the Spirit. Love and wisdom shone like the sun from the mind of God. When the human body knows no government but the government of its head, all is order and unity, and there is health and power. So also it was with the body of Christ!

http://ezinearticles.com/?Doctrine-of-the-Nicolaitanes&id=55078

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Bad Drivers, Sign of the Times?

Not long ago, I was driving into work and as usual, I was being tailgated. My trip into work consists of a series of different vehicles tailgaiting me until I actually pull into my parking spot at work. Not only am I constantly tailgated, I'm routinely cutoff by aggressive drivers. It was just recently that I think I began to understand where the explosion of bad drivers comes from. Consider what kind of drivers these people make:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power.2 Timothy 3

It's these kinds of people we routinely experience on the road. I no longer wonder why I'm constantly tailgated and cutoff.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

We Shall Appear With Him

<< Colossians 3 >>Young's Literal Translation

1 If, then, ye were raised with the Christ, the things above seek ye, where the Christ is, on the right hand of God seated, 2 the things above mind ye, not the things upon the earth, 3 for ye did die, and your life hath been hid with the Christ in God; 4 when the Christ -- our life -- may be manifested, then also we with him shall be manifested in glory.

Time is short, the rapture will be upon us any second now. Last night I had a dream that Washington DC had been nuked. People's faces were burning, military personnel were trying to get their NBC gear on. The dream seemed very real. No timing was included in the dream. We know from watching what's happening in the world around us that time is very short. Be watching, be ready, He stands at the door. Grace and Peace

Monday, October 01, 2007

Great Quote

Form is everything and substance just a passing myth. (Trevanian)

http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/15/perception.htm

Interesting Reading for 10/1/2007

History does have a way of repeating itself. Maybe that is because we have the imperfections of Adam and Eve and humanity was the same inclination to do evil thing that were practiced by our forefathers. Similar actions eventually produce the same results, if left unchecked.God brought judgment on the religious leaders of Jesus' day because of their hypocrisy, intolerance, and bloodshed. (Matthew 23:29-35) These very same words that Jesus addressed to the religious leaders of his day are applied to the coming execution of the mystery religious system of Babylon in Revelation 18:24. The ancient nation of Israel was likened to a prostitute in Ezekiel chapter 16 because it made alliances with such neighboring nations of Assyria and worshiped other gods while claiming to be the "wife" of the one true God Yahweh. A prostitute could be described as a woman who was engaged but had seperate "lovers" on the side. Many of the world's religious organizations also claim to represent the one true God but they commit spiritual adultery by means of idolatry and involvement in the world's political and economic affairs. The Bible talks about the "virgin bride of Christ," a bride this is holy, unblemished, and without any spot from the world. This obviously does NOT refer to any of the mainstream "Christianity" or any of the religious organizations that follow the model of Roman Emperor Constantine the Great's church-state system and its system of theology. The Anti-Christ also has a Church, Satan counterfeits everything that God does. THe church-state system of Christendom has proven by its actions that it is a tool of the Devil, it is most definitely not the bride of Christ. This church-state system places itself in the seat of Christ, much in the same manner that the Pharisees and Sadducees placed themselves in the seat of Moses. (Matthew 23:1-3) This "Man" of lawlessness will be revealed or exposed for the whole world to see, people will then realize what this "MAN" of lawlessness really is and how Satan's church system had deceived many people since its start at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
http://danielle-movie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1228

Brent,
Last week I was working with Swiss Public Television doing a documentary on "Joe Bageant's Winchester." During the process I ran into a man from one of the wealthy local families who works in global finance abroad, has some murky US State Department connection with his work, and owns a brokerage in New York. We yakked bit, he agreed that there is a worldwide financial collapse coming, then he asked what I was doing back in town. I explained we were filming my people, the people born on the wrong side of the tracks. The working grunts. "Well when they find out what has been done to them and that it can never be fixed I don't want to be in this country." I thought such a bold faced admission of our condition was pretty bad.
http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2007/09/so-rich-he-want.html

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Quote of the Day

Liberals and liberal institutions condemn the worst aspects of capitalism in order to preserve the system as a whole.
Most Americans want more investment in the nation’s infrastructure. They want universal healthcare and more funding for schools. They want New Orleans rebuilt and their bridges secure. Liberals know that, unless the system can deliver on some level, the majority will eventually reject that system.
Wiser capitalists remember the French Revolution. Those who take too much can lose their heads. Billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett prefer to return a small piece of the pie than forfeit the entire bakery.
Gates criticizes the “inequality gap” and devotes a tiny portion of his fortune to charity. Buffett says it’s unfair that he pays less than 18 per cent of his income in taxes, when his secretary pays 30 per cent of hers. Gates and Buffett aren’t socialists. Like the robber-baron philanthropists of the last century, they understand that their class must appear generous to preserve its system of organized thievery.
http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=320#more-320

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Position of the Modern Day Pastor




http://www.ourlordjesus.com/Chapter%204.htm


Now, let's take a look at the position of the modern day pastor. As it is today, I believe the position is unscriptural. No doubt, many good men have started out right, but have fallen into this snare, by being put, or putting themselves into an unscriptural position. First of all, nowhere in the Bible will you find that a church was ruled by one man. Nowhere! Yet most churches today are. But, where does the Bible say that a church should be run by one man? If you know of one clear example or one Scriptural command, please let me know.
The word pastor ("poimen"), is used without end today, and was mentioned only once in the New Testament, (Eph. 4:11, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; The word pastor means to "feed" or to "shepherd". According to the context of the text in Eph. 4, it appears that "pastoring" is a spiritual gift, not a position or a calling. However, the most common word used in the Bible for leaders in the churches was "elders" ("presbuteros" which means older) and "bishops" ("episkope" which means overseer). "Elder" was the Jewish name and "bishop" was the Greek name for the same office, and they both are interchangeable. "Elder" is an older man, and "bishop" is the word for his office (work), or ministry as an overseer. They represent the same person. This is proven in Acts 20:17. "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church." Now, look down at verse 28. "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Notice that here in this verse he refers to the elders (presbuteros) of verse 17, as "overseers" in verse 28. Paul calls the men "elders" and says that their ministry is to be "overseers". Note carefully that the Greek word used here for the word "overseers" is "episkopos", the very same word as for "bishop" Hence, he is calling these leaders of the church "elders" in verse 17 and "bishops" (overseers) in verse 28. The words are interchangeable. They were "elders" and it was their job to "oversee" the church. This refutes the idea that the pastor of the church is the only bishop, and the other mature Christian men who lead in the church are the elders. No, this verse says that Paul called the elders of the church of Ephesus, (and there is no mention of a pastor or a single elder). It was the elder's job to be overseers or bishops. There is no mention or even a hint to a single pastor of this church in Ephesus. Referring to these leaders in the churches, they are always plural in each church. Notice in Acts 20:17, that Paul called the elders (plural) of the church. One church (Ephesus), but many elders, or mature spiritual men who were the leaders in the church.
Look at some other examples where leadership in the early church was plural. "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi , with the bishops and deacon"s: Phil 1:1 (The church at Philippi had many elders, or bishops (overseers), and deacons (servants) (no mention of one pastor)
"And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed". Acts 14:23 (Notice they appointed elders (plural) in every church (singular). (No mention of one singular leader being appointed over each church)
"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and elders…".Acts 15:4.(This verse says one church in Jerusalem, but elders is plural) (No pastor or singular ruler mentioned) (Later, when the apostles died off, that left the elders to lead the church).
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee": Titus 1:5. (Bible Dict. says each of these cities in Crete had only one church)
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church’; James 5:14 (one church, many elders, or overseers in the church)
1Thes 5:12-13 "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake". (He is speaking to the local, church of Thessalonica (who the letter is written to) and saying to "know them" and "esteem them" for "their work's sake." (all plural) This is speaking of the elders in the church at Thessalonica.) (No pastor mentioned). (It did not say, to know him which labours among you, and is over you in the Lord, and admonishes you; and to esteem him very highly in love for his work's sake.)
There are many other similar verses, but I think these will do. If you disagree, then please show me a church in the Bible where one man was the only leader. I will help you. I can think of one example. It is in Third John 1:9-11. I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth [them] out of the church. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. (Preeminence means first place. He had the preeminence or first place in the church and loved it. He was running the church, forbidding others in the church to receive brethren, and was casting people out that opposed him) Sounds like this church was run by one man, but John condemned it. Now, today a pastor holds a POSITION in the church, which will put him in a place of preeminence. Even Diotrephes didn't have the position of being a singular leader, as do modern day pastors. He, as an elder, just gained more power from the church over the other elders and became preeminent and ran the church. A modern day pastor may be a good man, or he may be a bad man, but the position automatically puts him in the place of preeminence. Now, the question is, "Should there be that one position of authority in the local church?" I believe the Bible teaches that it is wrong.
Don't think that no one else believes this. C. I. Scofield said in his notes in the "Old Scofield Bible", "There is no instance of one elder in a local church.... Elders are made or set in the churches by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). At first they were ordained by an apostle (Acts 14:23), but in Titus and 1 Timothy the qualifications of an elder become part of the Scriptures for the guidance of the churches." Scofield's note for 3 John says, "The aged Apostle had written to a church which allowed one Diotrephes to exercise an authority common enough in later ages, but wholly new in the primitive churches. Historically, this letter marks the beginning of that clerical and priestly assumption over the churches in which the primitive church order disappeared. John addresses this letter to a faithful man in the church for the comfort and encouragement of those who were standing fast in the primitive simplicity."
Some say that the pastor can have many assistant pastors (as in a big church), then that is a plurality of elders in the church. But, that seems to make the pastor the senior pastor or chief shepherd. If so, that statement is bordering on blasphemy. The Bible says that Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. "For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd" (Jesus, the Shepherd ("poimen") which means pastor) and Bishop (Overseer) of your souls. (1Peter 2:25)."And when the chief Shepherd (JESUS) shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." Thus all the elders in the local church are the under shepherds all on the same level. There is no provision from the Scriptures for a senior elder or senior pastor over the others.
The pastor is not the head of the church. Colossians 1:18 says, "And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence." Now, you tell me, how can they both have the preeminence? You say, "Well, the pastor is in that position to be a servant to the flock. He represents Christ in the church. He is the undershepherd. Christ can't be the literal head of the church, so the pastor is the visible representative of Christ in the church." Did you know those are dangerous words. What you are saying is the same thing the Catholics say about the Pope, that he represents Christ on the earth to the church in doing the Lord's will. Are you saying that the pastor is in the place or position of representing Christ? Surely, you don't believe a man takes the place of Christ in the church, do you? The Bible clearly says that Jesus IS the Head of the church, and if the pastor is going to be His representative head in the church, the Scriptures would have told us. But, you won't find it. So, men should not twist Scriptures to make it appear that way.
One might say, "Well, the pastor is not the head, but a servant to the church." But, whether he is a servant or not depends on the man, not the position. He can be a servant and serve the church without being in this elevated position of authority that exists today. We probably get this idea from the term "office of the bishop" in the Scriptures, "This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work". (1Tim. 3:1). But, the word "office" simply means a "service", a "ministering", or a "work". In other words, "the work of an overseer." The work of any overseer in the church is to watch over, and protect the group. You can't say that it refers to a singular position of authority. It is for any qualified elder in the church that desires it. In no way does it represent an elevated position in the church over the brotherhood, for that would divide an equal brotherhood that Jesus spoke of.
When the Bible speaks of an "office of a bishop", it is not referring to one position in the church that has authority over all other members in the church. For example, did you know that Judas was a bishop? Did you know that he also had a bishop's office? But, Judas was not a pastor of a church. Speaking of Judas, Acts 1:19 says, "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take". But, look what that passage in Psalms says referring to Judas, "Let his days be few; [and] let another take his office". Ps 109:8. "Bishoprick" means office of a bishop. So, Judas had an office of a bishop or a bishoprick. (One of twelve offices or "bishopricks"). But, Judas had no church, nor authority, and was not over the other apostles. Jesus called him to a service, a ministry, a work, or an "office", and sent him out with the other disciples to preach the gospel. The elders in a local church, however, were "not called" to a service or office, but only had to "desire" it, ("If a man desire the office of a bishop"). But, an elder did have to meet the qualifications for it, given in 1Tim. and Titus. So, any qualified, spiritually mature man in the church, who desired the work of a bishop or overseer, could have a bishoprick in that local church. "And when they had ordained them elders in every church," Acts 14:23. Who? The mature spiritual men who desired it and were qualified. This in no way indicates one position of authority in a local church by a pastor. So, this position in the church where the pastor rules over the church is not the "office of a bishop". It may be a distortion of it. Let me be very clear. It is not the man that is wrong, it is the position, and in many cases will, with time, make the man wrong. He will tend to gradually gain more and more authority and responsibilities in the church while the people become more accountable to him and less accountable to Christ. (That is why followers of men are carnal as Paul pointed out to the Corinthians) Any person only has as much power as is given to him. The more authority that the people of the church give the pastor, the more powerful he becomes. In many cases he gains this power from the people by reminding them of his "position", and twisting Scriptures to support it. The position of singular leadership in the church will make him preeminent in the church and divide an equal brotherhood into clergy and laity.
The men of the church will become more accountable to him and less responsible to Christ. Little by little, he will take the place of Christ. Now, we did not get this from the Scriptures, but like many things in the church that are traditional, we got this idea of a separate level of "clergymen" from the Catholic Church. They were the ones that developed an hierarchy in their church consisting of a pope, bishops, cardinals, priests, etc. Changing the name to pastor doesn't change anything. But, the Scriptures say that Jesus is to have preeminence in the church in all things. He is the Head. Only He should be in that position. Each man in the church is responsible to the headship of Christ. Service, ministering, and leadership should come from an equal brotherhood of elders in the church.
Peter also condemns it.Listen to what Peter says about the subject of being an elder. "Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock". (1Peter 5: 3) They are not to be lords, but to be an example to the flock. They are not to be preeminent, or in a position that automatically puts them in first place. They are not to be lords. A lord can be good or bad, but he still is a lord. They are to be a servant and an example to the flock.
Paul condemns it.Look what happened at the church of Ephesus. And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. (skip to verse 28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Acts 20:17-28. (Notice the leaders in the church were: (1) to be plural, ( 2) to oversee (protect) the flock, and (3) to feed the flock ) Look at verse 29, where Paul says after his departing (after his death?) that some of them would draw men after their ownselves, to have men be their disciples. Each of these wicked elders tried to get men to follow him so he could have preeminence. Now, this did happen as Paul predicted. Look at Ephesus during the year 96 AD. Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden Candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Rev 2:1-6. (Jesus said "thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.") (These are the "grievous wolves" Paul mentioned in Acts 20, those claiming to be apostles, and trying to draw men after themselves.) Notice, right after this statement of men claiming to be apostles, you find for the first time the word "Nicolaitans." Look at verse 6, and you will find that Jesus complimented the Ephesians for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans. The word Nicolaitans is a compound word, "nikao" which means "to conquer", and "laos" which means "people". Put it together and you have "conqueror of the laity", or "conqueror of the people". This was an attempt to usher in a priestly order or clergy. Sounds familiar doesn't it? We know they later became successful because in Rev. 2:6, the "deeds" of the Nicolaitans later became the "doctrine" of the Nicolaitans in Rev. 3:15 at the church in Pergamos. But, Jesus condemns this modern idea of a clergy which divides an equal brotherhood. Remember, Jesus said in Matt 23:8, "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and ALL YE ARE BRETHREN." So, we are not to have spiritual masters or leaders, because Christ is our spiritual master and leader. He said you can't serve two masters.
Distorted Position of the Pastor.It is important that you realize that there was plurality of elders in the church, because one man would easily be tempted to run the church, thus becoming the head of the church. But, the pastor is not the head of the church; Jesus is. The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the head of the church, and that it is not to be run by one man. Remember, the saved people make up the church and Jesus is to be their head. Modern day clergy claims to be the "undershepherd", serving in the place of Christ to that local church. (they get this from 1Pet 5:4, "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.") (But, if you look at the previous verses, it says that Peter is writing to the elders, not pastors. Elders are not to lord over God's people, but to be examples. They also are not to receive base gain; "not for filthy lucre". (money, note below) Other verses elsewhere say that they are to feed the flock, serve as overseers, and to take care of the church.) This sounds like being a helper, not a ruler or lord. The position has become distorted probably because the church has become distorted, being more like a business requiring a businessman to run it. God did not scripturally organize a church to be like a business, so there was no foundation for a "minister" to be like an executive.
Important note: You will not find one example of a minister in the Bible who received a salary. Not one. However, the Bible is very clear that Christians support the poor and give offerings to meet needs of those in full time ministry, but never did they give a salary. Even Jesus received offerings for His work while on earth. [not a tithe; the tithe went to the Temple] But, He did not receive a salary. Paul worked and supported his ministry along with those who helped him, but he received no salary either. Today, we have professionally trained pastors, ministers, and missionaries who receive salaries. The Bible states that gifts of financial help should be given to poor brethren, but that doesn't mean they receive a salary. Likewise, the Scripture teaches that those who minister in the gospel should receive financial help, but for a minister to receive a salary for his services seems to put him into the category of a hireling receiving "filthy lucre". You say it depends on why he is doing it. True, but the idea of a salary is foreign to any servant in the Bible, (only the O.T. Levites were commanded to receive tithes from the people, because they had no inheritance in Israel.) Futhermore, you will not find any of God's servants that were professionally trained or educated specifically for the ministry.
Three different kinds of churches concerning its leadership. First, there is the church that is run by the people. The Bible calls it the Laodicean church. ("Laos"= people, "dicea" = rule by) It is run by the "laity" or the people. All decisions are made by the people. The people run the church. They just have a vote by everyone in the church in a business meeting. Needless to say, there is no Scripture for this method.
Secondly, there is the church that is run by one man, the pastor. Now, we swing all the way to the other end of the pendulum. Some are run by a hierarchy of clergymen with one man in charge of the church. But, in many, it is usually the pastor ruling alone. He may pretend to let others in on the leadership or act as his advisors, but there is no doubt that he is in charge. He is "God's man". The Bible refers to this as the Nicolatian church, or the conqueror of the people. He really makes the decisions, and the people "rubber stamp" them because he is the "man of God" and God direct His will through His "man". The people feel that God will direct him, so they will usually go along with him. Most all churches today are run by one of the above methods, and most people don't realize there is a third way, and the right way.
Thirdly, there is the church that is not run by the people, nor is it run by a man, but by the Lord Jesus. It should be, because He is the Head of the church. It is His church. I admit you won't find many of those today, because churches are not meeting Scripturally. Jesus is outside the church, knocking on the door to get in. "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me" (Rev 3:20.) Here He is speaking to the church of our age, the Laodician church, or the church run by the people. But, He isn't in the Nicolatian church either, which is run by a clergyman, because He said He hated their deeds and doctrine. (Rev. 2:1-6) So, you ask, how does Jesus become the head of His church? The Scriptures indicate that He guides the church by the Scriptures by a group of men in the church called elders that the Holy Spirit has appointed. They are all equal brethren that are not "professionals", but have been raised up through that church, not hired. They have equal authority with one another and they have Jesus as their Head. These men are to help other Christians to follow the Lord, and by no means were they to be in an elevated position to be rulers over the others in the place of Christ.
Now, look at today's clergy. You see, a clergy, or priestly order, or "men of God", or what ever you want to call them, did and does today divide an equal brotherhood. Some of these men today call themselves "men of God" or "God's man". They claim to have a special "calling" or anointing. Funny, they talk so much about a special calling, and I can't find it anywhere in the Scriptures, other than the call to be an apostle or a preacher. But no calling for pastor, elder, or bishop. Everywhere it was for the people of the church to recognize these men whom the Holy Spirit had raised up among them. The office of a bishop was for anyone who desired it and met the qualifications; there was no special calling from God mentioned. So, they claim to have a special call or anointing that others don't have, and that God will lead His people and show them His will for their lives through these "men of God". Since there is no position in the Bible for these clergymen, they have created one, and they call it the "office of the pastor". But, what office are they using as their pattern? I believe they could be claiming one of the following offices, and then renaming it (pastor) whenever they claim to be "the man of God".
(1) Old Testament Prophet?Many of the pastors today compare their leadership to that of Moses or others that were God's men in the Old Testament. They claim to be the "man of God" leading God's people today. They say, "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." Ps 105:15. This is a favorite verse of the clergy today to hold over the heads of the people. But, are these so called "men of God" today who claim to have a special calling from God to lead His people, claiming to be some kind of Old Testament man of God? Well, first of all, the verse in Ps. 105:15 about "touch not mine anointed" was referring to the nation of Israel, not to a man. (Read verses 9-14.) You see, God is saying in these verses that all His children in the nation of Israel were His anointed. Furthermore, in the New Testament, 1 John 2:27 says that all Christians today are anointed, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." So, all Christians are anointed of the Lord. This verse says that all Christians have been anointed by the Holy Spirit, and He teaches us all things, so we have no need of a "man of God" to spiritually lead us. The Holy Spirit and the Word of God leads us. Others can help show what the Word says, and rightly divide the Word for you (as I am doing), but if you really learn anything that is "spiritual" it takes the Holy Ghost to reveal it to you, and you must be given the liberty to allow Him to. In other words, you can learn of God by the Holy Spirit just as well as any other man, including the leaders in the church. God will not just enlighten or reveal spiritual things to a pastor to relay to others. All saved people are "spiritual" and can discern spiritual things. "God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit…but which the Holy Ghost teacheth: comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1Cor 2:10&13. This in no way says these spiritual things are comprehended only by spiritual leaders in the church, but states clearly that all saved people can and will know the truth when it is revealed to them. Even a carnal Christian will know the truth when it is revealed to him. He may not do it, or accept it, but he will know it is true, if he is saved, because the Holy Spirit is in him and will bear witness of the truth. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and He will lead us (all saved people) unto the truth. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth. John 16:13. Not may guide. Jesus said that He will guide us into all truth! "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
Let me illustrate. A "man of God" says that God has revealed to him some new twist on salvation, whether if it's God electing certain ones for salvation, or that you can lose your salvation, or that it's by works, or some other crazy notion that he may get. What do most people in the church do? Many will say, "Well, he is "God's man," so surely God has spoken to him. I don't fully understand it, but God leads him in order to lead us, and since I want to be a good submissive Christian, and support my pastor, I will follow him." And, many people in the churches do just that, and the whole church goes into heresy. But, the Bible says we are all His anointed and not some clergyman only. God teaches and speaks to all of us by His Word through the Holy Spirit and each of us will be held accountable to God. All saved people are His "priesthood". "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1Peter 2:5). We all will be held accountable; every single Christian. "Individual Christians must do their own believing, just as they must do their own dying."
Maybe you like making a man your spiritual Head, so that you can get out of making Christ your Head. It may make you more comfortable and less committed, but you will always be a carnal Christian, because you have the wrong Head and you will answer to Jesus someday at the judgment seat of Christ. And, it may be more serious than we think, to make man our head. It is all right to follow good men, learn from good men, and even hold them up as an example to be like, but remember, Christ is your Head.
But, then the verse adds, "and do my prophets no harm." But, surely they don't claim to be an OT prophet. These men in the Old Testament held a special office, and were called by God to proclaim His word and His will to the nation of Israel. They performed great miracles and predicted future events. God gave them special revelations. "…but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). In that day, God spoke to the prophets with an audible voice or through dreams and visions. Most OT prophets came out of the desert or wilderness to proclaim their message. Most wore a coarse dress of hair cloth, as did Elijah and John the Baptist. They often led a wandering and unsettled life and were very simple in their manner of life. Lastly, most OT prophets I know in the Bible were matyred. These were all qualifications for people to recognize God's true prophets. Surely, today's "men of God" are not claiming to be OT prophets. They don't qualify, and besides, that office is not for today.
(2) New Testament Apostle?Could it be that they are trying to be like the apostles, "God's man" in the New Testament? But, the qualification for an apostle was that he had to be "called" to be one, and he had to have been an eyewitness of Jesus' life and an eyewitness of his resurrection. (1 Cor 9:1, "Am I not an apostle, am I not free, have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord, are not ye my work in the Lord?" (Paul saw Him on the road of Damascus) That knocks everyone out today. There are no apostles today. There are not many today that would admit they're trying to be an apostle. They're smarter than that, but they are trying to behave as one, and trying to get people to treat them as one. They get by with it by renaming the office, substituting the phrase "man of God" for the word apostle. They don't claim to be an apostle, but they do claim the office. You hear them say, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ." (1 Cor 11:1). But, wait a minute. Paul said these words, and he was a true apostle. The New Testament was in the writing stages, so in order for churches to know the will of God, they asked the apostles, and God spoke through them. He still does today, not through pastors, but through the apostle's writings, the Scriptures, so there is no need for modern day apostles or "men of God." Now, when you hear someone say, "I'm going to follow my pastor because he is "God's man," you better be careful. You better be sure he is following the Scriptures. But, better yet, why don't you follow the Scriptures? God holds you accountable to follow the Scriptures, not a man. During your judgment someday, you will not give an account of how you followed a man, but how you followed the Scriptures. Your total life will be judged according to your obedience to the Scriptures. The middle verse in all the Bible says, "[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Ps 118:8. Over in 2 Tim 4:3-4, it says, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth." An elder, or bishop is to be a helper to you, and to assist you by pointing out Scriptures. His attitude should not be "follow me", but "let me help you follow the Lord." Jesus is your head. He is the head of the body, His church. He will lead you, and teach you by the Spirit of Truth, (the Holy Spirit) and make you to grow as a Christian. Jesus is your head. He is your authority. How? By the Word of God, the Scriptures. You follow Jesus today by following His Scriptures.
Pastors Today Claim More Authority than the Apostles did in the Bible.Did you know that many pastors or "men of God" today demand more from you than the apostles did? Even the apostles didn't demand and expect the obedience that pastors do today. Look what Paul who was a true apostle said. "Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you". (from God, to Paul the apostle, to man) But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;" 1 Cor 11:1 Notice that Paul, as an apostle, said to follow him as he followed the Lord, and to obey the commands that he had given them, but then he quickly added, "BUT I WOULD HAVE YOU KNOW, THAT THE HEAD OF EVERY MAN IS CHRIST". He is, even as a true apostle, reminding them that Jesus is their head or authority and not Paul. Follow Paul, yes, but Jesus is their Head. They will give an answer to Jesus someday, not to Paul. And, you, my friend, will give an answer some day how you followed Jesus, not a man. Paul also said, (remember he was a true apostle), "Not for that we have dominion over your faith , but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand" 2 Cor 1:23. So, elders, the ones who take the leadership in the church, should be helpers, not lords, for a lord is one who has dominion over others. By the way, who did Jesus put into a position of leadership over the other apostles after He left? Nobody. Now, Peter would have no doubt been a good leader, and many of the other apostles probably looked to him for leadership, but he was not put into a position of leadership over the others. Jesus did not say, "Well, I'm getting ready to leave you, but don't worry, I'm going to leave Peter in charge while I'm gone. He will take my place, so you need to follow him." No, Jesus did not do that. He did not create a position and leave someone in charge to lead the others. Now, Peter did seem to be a leader, and the others looked up to him. (He said, "I go a fishing", and the others went with him.) He did have influence. He had been very close to the Lord, and was very qualified to be their leader, but Jesus did not put him in a position to be their leader. Why? Because Jesus left someone else to take His place over them. "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth : for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you." John 16:13,14. Jesus did not appoint any man to take his place, but he sent the Holy Spirit to take his place on the earth. I am not against leadership, because the Bible teaches that the more spiritual men should lead in the church, which the Bible refers to as elders or overseers. But I am against a singular position of authority in the church. You hear many pastors say, "you are not to submit to me, but to my position. I may not be much, but you should honor my position." Now, that friend is dangerous. You better make sure the man is worthy to be followed, and that he loves the Lord, and meets the qualifications in 1Tim. and Titus, because the position is wrong. He is using that remark to bring you under his authority. The word "position" means rank or status, so when they speak of position, they are saying that they outrank you in the Lord because of their position, whereby we get the concept of the clergy-laity division. But, Jesus said, "But be not ye called Rabbi: (a position of a spiritual leader. Today we would say Reverend, Pastor, Doctor, or some other spiritual title), "for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren." Jesus is saying that we are all on the same level. He told his disciples they were all equal brethren, and not one of them was to let others put any of them in a higher position, and they were not to put someone else in that position either. Jesus said it was the Gentile's (what we are) nature to want to have authority over others. "But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all". Mark 10:42-44. Gentiles (non-Jews) like to have authority over others. It is their nature, Jesus says. But, a servant is not a lord and a lord is not a servant. They are opposites. A servant does not and cannot exercise authority. He is a servant. He serves. If he is greatest (closest to the Lord), then we ought to submit and learn from him. A person may be closer to the Lord (as Peter and John were), thus you should submit to them to learn more about the Lord. But, you are submitting to a person, not a position.
(3) Old Testament Priests?So, I have clearly shown you that modern day pastors are not prophets or apostles in any way, shape, or form. What their position might closely resemble, yet they would deny it, is the office of the Old Testament priests. In the Old Testament, the priests were from the tribe of the Levites. They were to care for the Temple or the "house of God." They received tithes from the people for their livelihood. They were an intermediary between God and man. They performed the sacrifices in the Temple.
The modern day pastor in most churches likewise is in a special group of spiritual leaders (like the Levites), called the clergy. They also preside over the "house of God" or their building the church meets in. They also receive tithes from God's people, from which part of it goes for their livelihood for their services in the "temple". (some churches even have "Temple" in their name.) They in many ways act as an intermediary between God and man. ("Follow me as I follow Christ." "God will lead me to lead you.")
But, nowhere in the Bible will you find a command from God that one man should act as a priest in a New Testament church. He is not an intermediary between God and man. As Spirit filled Christians, we each are our own "priesthood", and have no need of a priest or intermediary. "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood , to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light". 1Pet 2:5,9.
(4) The Vicar of Christ?This one, friend, is the scary one. Does a modern day pastor of a local church claim to be the "vicar" or representative of Christ to that local church? He may if he carries his position too far. Many do claim to be the representative head of Christ in that particular church. (Don't they say that they are the "undershepherd" representing the Shepherd?) However, it is the position that has been created that makes him the representative head of Christ. (disagree? Then what church in the New Testament had a position for a single pastor?) If he claims to be the "spiritual leader" in the church, then he is getting close to becoming the "vicar". Now, the word "vicar" comes from a Latin word "vicarious", which means substitute. The pope outwardly claims that he is the Vicar of Christ. He claims that he has been given authority by God to act as Christ's substitute on the earth and to the church. He is Christ's representative on the earth. Now, friend, this is heresy. The disciples asked Jesus, "…what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many ..." Matt 24:3-5. Now, I have never heard too many people come right out and say that they are Christ, but, are they claiming his position in the church? The pope sure does. He outwardly claims to have a position of being Jesus' representative or substitute head in the church. (In other words, Jesus can't be here, so He put me in his place to represent Him. {Remember Peter?} The World Book Encyclopedia says that the "pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. The members regard him as the visible head and Christ the invisible head of the church.") Again, that is heresy! Nowhere did Christ say that he was choosing someone to represent himself as the head of the church. Christ is the head of the church. The Bible makes that very clear. Now, surely a pastor would not want to be identified with that kind of a position. But, what does a pastor mean then, when he says, "It is not me, but my position that you are to respect and follow"? Or, "You are to submit to my position as your pastor." When he says, "Follow me as I follow Christ", what is he actually saying? What does he mean when he says, "Christ will lead and direct the church through me?" Is he claiming the position of Christ in the church? This kind of pastor is saying that as the Holy Spirit leads him, he will lead the church. Where is this in the Bible? He becomes the intermediary or link between Christ and the other men of the church. Do you see how that when he speaks this way, he is being like a pope to that local church. He is the "clergyman" and everybody else is the laity. (by the way, the word "pope" means "papa". But, Jesus said call no man "father", for you have but one father in Heaven. He is claiming to be your spiritual "papa", or your spiritual leader.) So, have Baptist and other denominations substituted the word "pastor" for the word "pope" or "vicar of Christ"? Friend, if you haven't figured it out yet, this is cultish. (definition of cult is "an obsessive devotion to a person or idea.") The person can be the pastor and the idea can be his position. Your devotion should not be to a person or a position, but to the Lord. You should be devoted to Jesus, not some man or his position. That is why Paul sharply rebuked the Corinthians, because they were making men their leaders. ("I'm of Paul", "I'm of Cephas", "I'm of Apollos") ( but these good men would not allow others to make them their heads.) As I have said before, you may learn from good men, and follow good men, but your devotion and service is to the Lord. He is your head. He is your spiritual authority. The Bible says we should follow good men that help us follow the Lord. You are to follow what you see in them. (if it is of the Lord) Remember them which have the rule (a standard or guide) over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: WHOSE FAITH FOLLOW, considering the end of [their] conversation. (behavior) Also, notice here it doesn't say to follow the men, but to follow their faith, and beware of their behavior, because men may go wrong. This sounds like you are to look for examples or patterns to follow. You should want to follow men who are close to the Lord and display His character. Learn from them how to be more like the Lord. Then you are following their example or life (if it is Christlike), and you are learning those characteristics. You are following their example not a position of authority. "Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples (examples) to the flock". (1Peter 5: 3) We are to follow their exampleship, yes, but not their lordship, because there should not be any. These elders in the church are not bosses. They are not to exercise lordship. They are not to be lords. They are to set the example according to Scripture, and the others will take notice and follow them. But, they are to make sure these men are following the Scriptures. When one of the elders in the church in Third John became preeminent and began to practice bad habits, John told Gaius to not follow him, but to follow one of the others. (Now, John could not have made that statement if Diotrephes held the position of a pastor.) If a pastor is in the position of authority in the church, then he is in charge. He is the authority. He becomes the head of that particular church. He may say he is not a lord, but rather a servant. However, the position makes him an authority over others in the church, thus making him a lord. Again, the Bible clearly teaches that Christ is the head of the church. There is no mention of him placing someone else in charge of his church. Why? Because Jesus is the head of the church. "And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church. Eph 1:22 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church". Eph 5:23 "And he is the head of the body, the church.... that in all [things] he might have the preeminenc"e. Col 1:18. Christ is the head of the church. How? By the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ on earth. The Holy Spirit is the representative of the Lord Jesus Christ to his church. The Bible also says that Jesus is the head of man. "But I would have you know, that the head of EVERY MAN is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God." 1Cor. 11:1.
What is the "church"? Saved men, women, boys, and girls. Jesus, head of the church, is also head of the men of that church. The men in turn are the heads of their wives and children. "Yes, I know, but who is the authority in the church?" I've already told you, Jesus is. "How?" By the Holy Spirit and by the Holy Scriptures. The older Christian men are the elders in the church, and it is their responsibility to submit to Christ. The qualified elders who take on the responsibilities of overseers in the church are to feed the flock, act as overseers (protectors of the truth), and to be examples or patterns to follow. But, they are not an authority over the spiritual lives of others in the church. They are workers among the men, not over them. " And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you (more mature) in the Lord, and admonish you"; (1 Thes. 5:12) There is a big difference between elders leading and working among the men, than if the elders became a class of clergymen and laboured over them. Ever wonder why many preachers or pastors cannot have close fellowship with their people, but must find it with other pastors instead? That is proof there is a separation of the brotherhood, the clergy and the laity. But, friend, you won't find a position of authority for one man given in the local church in the Bible. It is not there. As I have said before, Christ did not give any command for one man to take his place in being the head of the church. When Jesus was on the earth, he led his disciples. When he left them, he did not put someone else in charge. He did not appoint somebody to take his place. He had several good men to choose from that would have made a good choice. But, Jesus left no one in charge to take his place. Jesus said that he would leave the Holy Spirit to take his place, and that He would lead us by the Holy Spirit. The more spiritual men, or elders should know how to follow the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures, and then it will be easy for the others to follow them. If they don't, then you don't follow them. It's that simple. Now, that is the position of authority in the church. Jesus, the head of the church via the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. Men should submit to that and we should help other men to do likewise.
Any man that puts himself into a position to exercise authority over a church is following the same error the pope does. He claims to be in the place of Christ in the church. He claims to be the visible head representing an invisible Christ. He is the "vicar of Christ" or "substitute" of Christ. ("vicar means substitute) This man, the pope, is also an "antichrist". "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there MANY antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." 1 John 2:18. Friend, did you know that anyone who takes the place of Christ is an antichrist? The word antichrist means "against Christ," "taking the place of Christ," "instead of Christ," or "usurper of Christ's name and rights." When a man says that he is in a position of authority representing Christ in the church, watch out! "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist , that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" 1 John 2:18-23. This verse says that anyone that denieth the son is an antichrist. I always thought that the word "deny" here meant to not believe or declare untrue, and it does mean that, but "deny" here can also mean to "refuse to acknowledge" or "ignore", because the verse ends by saying "but (a contrast) "he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." (So, a person that does not acknowledge Christ is also an antichrist). In other words, one may say that he believes Jesus is the Christ, (the Devil knows that), but to refuse to recognize or acknowledge him as Christ (in your life or in the church) indicates otherwise. When a pope, a pastor or any other man, tries to take the position of Christ in the church, and get the people to submit to him rather than Christ, then he becomes an antichrist. He is ignoring Christ, because it is His position. He thus, is against Christ. They say, "Follow me as I follow Christ." You better watch out. "It is because of my position that you should obey and follow me." You better watch out. "I am God's man, so you should follow me." You better watch out! "I will lead you as Christ leads me." You better watch out! He is trying to take the place of Christ in the church. He wants to be your spiritual authority, your spiritual head. He wants you to commit spiritual adultery with Christ. My wife is submitted to my authority. I am her head, and Christ is my head. How? By my submission to His Word. Your wife should be submitted to you, and you should be submitted to Christ. He is your head. It is wicked for your wife to become your authority, or head. The Scriptures are very clear on that. But, you shouldn't allow anyone else to be the head of your life either. Christ is to be the head of your life. How? By your submission to His Word. If you allow anyone to come between you and Christ, then you are committing spiritual adultery. In their field of authority, you are to submit to teachers, employers, laws, law officers, elders in the church, etc. But, Christ is the head of your life, or should be if you are saved. If Christ has not been the head of your life, then you probably are not saved. How is He your head? By the Scriptures. They are the written Word. The Holy Spirit that lives in you, if you are saved, will guide you to understand His will. Are you submitted to His Word? It's all right to follow a man, or group of men, but is the Word your final authority?
Jesus said that his relationship to the church is similar to a marriage. When I got saved, I repented of my sins and rebellion against God, and submitted myself to the Lord Jesus and His Word as my authority. I remember at the time I thought it was like a marriage, that I was being married to Him. I found out later that the Bible taught this very fact. "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery : but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Eph 5:30-32. Christ is the groom, and we are the Bride, the Bible says. In the Old Testament, we find that God the Father called the nation Israel his wife. However, the Jews got in trouble because they mixed their faith in God with the pagan religions around them. The most popular one was the worship of Baal. Their worship was some kind of combination of Baal worship with the worshipping of God, and so He referred to them as an adulterous wife. "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce..." Jer 3:8.; "And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that [were] round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger. And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth". Judges 2:12,13. Did you know that the word "baal" means lord, possesser, or husband? Yes, the "wife," Israel, left her "husband" God, and chose a new husband, Baal. Likewise, we are the wife of Christ. He is our groom or husband. We should keep ourselves pure, and not commit any kind of spiritual adultery against Christ. "But, to be a good Christian, I always submit and devote myself to the authority of my church, and follow our church constitution and bi-laws." You are committing spiritual adultery against Christ. "I submit to the authority of my pastor, and follow him, because he is "God's man." You are committing spiritual adultery against Christ. Your life should be submitted to Jesus Christ, your Groom. (you do this by submitting yourself to the Scriptures, If ye love me, keep my commandments . He that hath my commandments , (not the constitiution and bi-laws) and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, John 14:15) How about it? Are you a good, chaste, virgin bride to Christ? Come hither, I will shew thee the bride , the Lamb's wife. Yes, the Lamb here is Jesus, and we, the church, are and will be His Bride. Rev. 21:9 The last invitation in the Bible is, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come." Rev 22:17
Proper Leadership in the Church is by the Elders in the ChurchGod has chosen to provide leadership for his saints in the churches by older spiritually mature Christian men in the churches called elders. "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church." (skip to vs. 28) "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts 20:17&28. Paul called the elders (plural) of the church of Ephesus, and says that the Holy Ghost had made them overseers in the church. (No mention of one pastor leading the church of Ephesus.) These were not men of the clergy, but the Holy Spirit had raised them up from among the group to be overseers. Whenever Paul and others led people to the Lord in a certain area, they returned on their next missionary trip (about a year later) and appointed men from the group to be overseers in that local church. Futhermore, in 1 Peter 5:1-3, Peter says , "The elders which are among you (not over you, but among you) I exhort, who am also an elder,...... Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock". Here, Peter says that elders are to (1) feed the flock, (2) be overseers, and (3) be examples, not lords. Now, an elder was not the pastor, as many say, but refers to all older Christian men in the church. This is proven in 1 Tim 5:1-2. "Rebuke not an elder, but intreat [him] as a father; [and] the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
Some say this elder in verse one is the pastor, and it may seem that way since it is a singular collective noun. But it can't be, because Paul says after that to, (1) treat younger men as brethren, (2) elder (older) women as mothers, and (3) younger women as sisters. So, where are the older men mentioned? How are you suppose to treat the older men? Did he forget about them? No, when he says rebuke not an elder, he is talking about the group of older men in the church. The word elder here is referring to older men, so you can't say that this word means pastor. This is proven in Paul's same command toTitus. "That the AGED MEN be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded. Titus 2:2-6. Paul says "elders" to Timothy and "aged men" to Titus. They are the same. But, how old does a man have to be to be an elder, you may ask? Is there an age given in Scripture for when a male is considered an elder or aged man and not a young man? Yes, there seems to be. Did you know that the Bible seems to indicate that the age is about 30 years old when one becomes a man instead of a young man? The Levites could not begin service in the Temple until they were 30 years of age (Num 4:3,23,30,35,39,43,47). Joseph began his rule under Pharoah at the age of 30 (Gen 41:46), David began his rule as King of Israel at 30 (2 Sam 5:4), and Jesus began His ministry at the age of 30 (Matt 3:23).
Now, not all elders or older men will want to serve in the church. There will no doubt be some that will not be close to the Lord, some that will not want to serve, and others that will not be Scripturally qualified to oversee the church. But, they are still elders. However, the Holy Spirit will separate some of the qualified elders in the church, (over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, Acts 20:28) to perform the work of an overseer in the church and give them the desire to do their work. The people in the church recognize this and in turn acknowledge each of these elders as overseers. (And when they had ordained them elders in every church, Acts 14:23) The apostles ordained elders. They were already elders, but these elders were being ordained or appointed as overseers (bishops). So, it seems to me that there are elders in each church that are bishops (overseers) and then there are elders in the church that are not overseers, just "aged men". Qualified elders in the church should be recognized by the church only if Scriptural qualifications are met so that everyone may use them as a pattern or example to follow. "Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." 1Pet 5:3. These elders will naturally lead and care for the flock, and others in the church will and should follow these spiritual men. "Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good." III John 1:11. The Holy Spirit enables these elders by giving them spiritual gifts necessary to perform their tasks. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, (No more apostles now) secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments , diversities of tongues. [Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? . 1Cor. 12:27-31. Notice no mention of pastor here. (gift of pastoring is mentioned in Eph. 4, and overseers had this gift of pastoring). But in the Corinthian church, the Holy Spirit would also enable certain elders to be prophets (forth-tellers that spoke, comforted, encouraged, rebuked, convicted, and stimulated their hearers) and teachers (those who instruct) (We can't include apostles, because nobody today is qualified to be one.) Other gifts were given to them and to others in the church, such as miracles, healings, helps, governments, tongues (speak in other known languages) and interpreters (tongues disappeared during the apostolic age).
Let's take a look at Scriptural authority. Jesus said, "No servant can serve two masters...." Luke 16:13. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH: and he is the Saviour of the body. Therefore as THE CHURCH IS SUBJECT UNTO CHRIST, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in everything". Eph 5: 23 This says that Christ is the Head of the Church. Man is the head of his wife. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God". Here you have the major heads, or positions of authority. God over Christ, Christ over man, and man over the woman. (I don't see pastor or even elders here) There are many minor authorities, such as teachers, employers, government officials, church leaders, etc., and we are to obey them in their area of responsibilities, but when their authority conflicts with your major authority, then you have to obey the major authority. You have world order, church order, and home order, each having it's proper authority limited to it's order. The man has only one major authority or head, and that is Christ. The woman has only one head, and that is man. (Husband, or father if not married) Wife is to obey her husband or father, and man is to obey the Lord. Whom will you serve? "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." How do you serve or obey the Lord? Obey the Scriptures. Yes, listen to men, but obey the Scriptures. Let the Scriptures be your Head. Submit yourself to them and you are submitted unto Christ. Whenever you get the smallest inkling that a man wants to be your spiritual head, or trying to be the head of your life, then get away from him. Quick!
So, does this mean we have anarchy in the church; everybody does that which is right in their own eyes? No. There is leadership in the church, and people are to follow their leadership in the church. "Obey them that have the rule (guide) 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." Heb 13:17 (This is one of the favorite verses held over everyone’s head to get everybody to submit to the position of a pastor) (Notice the word pastor is not mentioned) Here are 3 possible explanations: (1) It is referring to elders and not one pastor, because it says obey THEM that have the rule over you. Submit yourselves; for THEY watch for your souls, as THEY must give an account, that THEY may do it with joy….) (if there had been one man over each church back then, it would have said, obey "him" that has the rule over you. Submit yourselves; for "he" watches for your souls, as "he" must give an account, that "he" may do it with joy.) But, it doesn't say that. It says "they" and "them" (all plural). People in the church are to submit to the elders. Elders are to lead in the services and others are to submit in the services, but the elders are not the Heads. Jesus is the Head.
(2) This verse could also apply to all forms of authority, not just in the church. (It doesn't say church) It can apply to parents, employers, teachers, government, police officers, etc. (The Bible says that even government and civic officials are God's ministers) "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil. For for this cause pay ye tribute (taxes) also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing". Rom. 12. (3 times he is a minister of God)
(3) Lastly, it was written to the scattered Hebrews, so probably included submission to the religious leadership of the Jewish people. The Jews did have a theocracy, being led by religious leaders. Jesus said, "... The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works". Matt 23) Any of the 3 could apply, but I would not want to take this verse written to Jewish Christians and their submission to their authorities (church or secular) and use it to establish pastorial authority in the churches. But, that is what has been done. The verse has been twisted to apply to a pastor. You as a Christian are to submit to all authorities over you, such as: Government leaders, parents, employers, teachers, policemen, church leaders, etc. Many minor authorities, but you only have one Head, and that head is Christ Jesus. You obey all authorities over you, but when they disagree with Christ, then you must obey your head, which is Jesus. And, you obey Him, by obeying the Scriptures.
Interesting Note: Most all letters today sent to churches would include the pastor's name, because of their prominent position in the church. "Reverend John Doe", "Such and Such Church". Did you ever notice that with all the letters to the many different churches in the New Testament, not one was addressed to a pastor or even mentions a pastor. Now Paul was a perfect gentleman, and if each church had a Pastor, then Paul would not have ignored him. But, he didn't have to, because each church that Paul wrote to didn't have one pastor. Paul wrote: "to the church of God which is at Corinth, to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints. And all the brethren which are with me, Unto the churches of Galatia:.(Galatia was a large province), To the saints which are at Ephesus, To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse, Unto the church of the Thessalonians, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the BISHOPS and deacons," etc. Now, if churches then were anything like they are today, Paul would be writing to or at least mentioning the Pastor's name. But, he never did address the Pastor of a church. Why? Because they had elders.
Now, some argue that letters are written to a pastor of each church of the Revelations. "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write" But the word is "angel", not "pastor". You will not find the word "pastor", "shepherd", "bishop", or even "elder" in the book of Revelation. (except the ones in Heaven around the throne), The word "angel", however, is mentioned in 74 verses and they refer to real angels, not pastors. All throughout the book of Revelation, the angels carry out the commands of God. "Well, the word "angel" means messenger." So, even if it was a man, it was the messenger to the church that John was writing to. He was a messenger, or a courier, to take the letter to that specific church. To call him the pastor is a gross overstatement. Some believe this anyway, saying that "angel" means "messenger" and "messenger" means "pastor". That is not interpretation. That's twisting the verse to make it say what you want it to say. If God wanted it to mean pastor or messenger, then he would have said pastor or messenger. But, He said angel. Others also argue that 1 & 2 Timothy are Pastoral Epistles written to Timothy, a pastor of the church of Ephesus. Well, they do include material for leaders and qualifications in the churches, but Timothy was not a pastor of the church at Ephesus. (We have already shown that the church at Ephesus had elders. Acts 20.) The Bible doesn't anywhere say that Timothy was a pastor or elder. It says that he was an evangelist. "But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry." Timothy and Titus and many others were helpers to Paul, or emissaries, and they went abroad spending time at different churches helping to establish them. But, each church, as mentioned before, was served by a group of elders, who remained there after the apostles or emissaries left.
Does the Bible say how elders in a church should behave in a meeting?Look what Paul says about polity in the Corinthian church. (Now, remember that he is writing to them because of chaos and confusion in the church, and he is telling them how they should conduct their services). "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. (Sounds like things are out of hand a little) Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints". 1 Cor 14: 26-33. Could these "prophets" be the preachers, bishops or elders? I think so. They were men in the assemblies of Christians that were moved by the Holy Spirit to stand and speak, having power to instruct, comfort, encourage, rebuke, convict, and stimulate their hearers. Today, we call them the pastor or the preacher. But, look at verse 29 where it says, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge." Notice, it does not say "one", but two or three. It doesn't say two or more, but two or three. There may be several men in the church, but two or three were to speak at a service being led by the Holy Spirit. While each took his turn, the others were to judge. In today's church, the pastor usually gives the message, but Paul said it was to be by two or three, and each could speak sooner or later. If the early Corinthian church had only one pastor, then why didn't Paul just say in order to do away with the confusion, let the pastor take charge and tell everyone else what to do? He didn't because there wasn't just one man in charge. (You disagree? Well, then show me in the Bible where there was one man over a church, or a Scripture that says it should be that way) So Paul is setting a pattern in the church to be followed and he says in the last verse of the chapter "Let all things be done decently and in order." He also says in verse 37, "If any man (in the Corinthian church) think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord". These are not suggestions by Paul, but commandments of the Lord.
But, you say, if a modern day church was led by a group of men called elders, you would have chaos in the church. Everybody would be trying to take over, and several people of equal authority can't lead in one church. It is much easier, you say, for one man to lead a church. Well, that's true if it is like a business, as most churches have become today. But, churches should not be businesses or operate as such. God did not set them up that way. The church is a spiritual body and should operate as one. The Scriptures clearly teach that a church should be led by the Holy Spirit, who leads a group of mature Christian men in the church, called elders. The Holy Spirit sets them apart for that task, to oversee, to feed the flock, and to set the example. So, there should be liberty in the church for more than one man to speak, teach, exhort, rebuke, etc. (Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.) This is a system of checks and balances that God has put into the church in order to keep out lordship over His church. Now, with one man ruling in a church, you do have a lord or dictator. In most denominational churches, he usually is the pastor, but in other churches, he may be the chairman of the deacons or the most prominent businessman. This makes him head of the church, or the lord, or a "dictator." What he says goes. Now, not all dictators are bad. Dictators in some countries may appear to be good, but they are still dictators. Likewise in the church. He may appear to be a good man, but he is still a dictator, or lord. When only one man rules in a church, he is automatically a dictator. Maybe good, maybe bad, but still a dictator. But, God said there is not to be a lord in the church. (Jesus is the head of the church) There is to be liberty in the church. There must be a plurality of rule in the church. For a democracy, you must have checks and balances. We have it in this country politically and it has worked better than in any other government in history. (Christianity has flourished better here than anywhere else.) ("where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty") We have checks and balances in our country by having three different branches: the Executive (President), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (Supreme Court). They keep checks and balances on each other. The president is not the "head" or lord of our country. He doesn't rule alone. When he speaks, the other two "judge". When any of the three speak or does something, the other two "judge". They are like overseers. They each must approve. Not one branch can rule and dictate over the country. So, our government is based on Scriptural principles. Now, God has set the church up to run the same way. There can be several elders in a church, but only two or three are to speak (message or lesson). Each is to wait his turn, (might mean waiting until the next meeting), and the others are to judge. " Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge". 1 Cor 14:29. These are the "checks and balances" in the church that will allow the Lord to have liberty in the church. When an elder is wrong, it is the duty of the other elders to correct the wrong before the church. That can and will happen when you have equal authority among the elders. However, that cannot happen with one man, the pastor, the "man of God", ruling in the church. It is unheard of for anyone to correct him. He says that he doesn't have to answer to anyone but God. But, that is not Scriptural. "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all that, others also may fear. I charge [thee] before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality." 1 Tim 5:19-21.