Fixing Church

[Cow Poke]

I agree with people whose view of fellowship is the handshake out the door. I'm thinking about churches where every non-service event is some form of fun - church coffeehouse, potluck dinner, etc. These things have their place but I think get pushed too far. The more I've read the Bible recently, the more I've realized that after I am saved, how much work is involved in being a Christian. There are many things a Christian should do that aren't enjoyable. I'm realizing my desire for a comfortable life is inhibiting my Christian growth.

I also agree that the black and majority world churches could teach us a lot on fellowship. Too many churches have fellowship but don't build community. At best, they seem to build cliques.

We've always enjoyed our fellowship around mission projects, or car clinics, or food drives or church workdays... stuff where you have an opportunity to get to know each other better while actually serving a purpose.

[tabibito]

We've always enjoyed our fellowship around mission projects, or car clinics, or food drives or church workdays... stuff where you have an opportunity to get to know each other better while actually serving a purpose.

Assuredly good things to get people into a fellowship mode, which is necessary to the formation of a community. I won't argue that those things have their place, and I think the monk is in agreement too.


When a pastor considers his congregation through evangelists' eyes, does he see a people in whose care the evangelists would be happy to leave their erstwhile charges? Or does he see areas where they would have concern?

[Cow Poke]

Assuredly good things to get people into a fellowship mode, which is necessary to the formation of a community. I won't argue that those things have their place, and I think the monk is in agreement too.


When a pastor considers his congregation through evangelists' eyes, does he see a people in whose care the evangelists would be happy to leave their erstwhile charges? Or does he see areas where they would have concern?

Interesting question.... one of the qualifications for "elder" that is not a qualification for "deacon" is teaching.

I happen to be in the school of thought that teaching is for the Church, and evangelism (preaching) is for the lost.

While I never assume that everybody in Church on a Sunday Morning service is saved, the emphasis is always on "how do we become more like Christ?"

[tabibito]

Interesting question.... one of the qualifications for "elder" that is not a qualification for "deacon" is teaching.

I happen to be in the school of thought that teaching is for the Church, and evangelism (preaching) is for the lost.

While I never assume that everybody in Church on a Sunday Morning service is saved, the emphasis is always on "how do we become more like Christ?"

Makes sense. Aside from reminders (necessary and important), the gospel is milk: not suitable as a primary food source even for toddlers.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Interesting question.... one of the qualifications for "elder" that is not a qualification for "deacon" is teaching.

I happen to be in the school of thought that teaching is for the Church, and evangelism (preaching) is for the lost.

While I never assume that everybody in Church on a Sunday Morning service is saved, the emphasis is always on "how do we become more like Christ?"

I think that's better than preaching to any lost people who happened to come in the door that week and making every sermon a salvation sermon. After awhile, I think the sheep start getting starved.

[Cow Poke]

I think that's better than preaching to any lost people who happened to come in the door that week and making every sermon a salvation sermon. After awhile, I think the sheep start getting starved.

I'm kinda different, I guess... I see the model as the Church being the family, and, if the Church was doing its job, the members would be out winning people to Jesus, then bringing them to Church to meet their new family.

[NorrinRadd]

Some observations...

Pastors, Elders, Overseers

Pastor -- The noun "poimen" is not used (in a spiritual sense) of anyone but Jesus (e.g. Heb. 13:20, 1 Pet. 2:25, and throughout John 10). In Eph. 4:11, it is not used in regard to any individual.

The verb form, "poimano," is used in regard to Simon Peter (John 21:16), the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20:28), the elders in "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Pet. 5:1 with 1:1), and Jesus in several places in the Revelation.

"Episkopos" (bishop, overseer, supervisor) is used only of a particular "named" individual -- Jesus -- 1 Pet. 2:25, where it rather clearly parallels "Shepherd." It is used of particular but unnamed individuals in Acts 20:28 (in which context it becomes synonymous with "elders," 20:17) and is used in conjunction with the verb form of "shepherd." In Phil. 1:1, it is used of particular but unnamed individuals. (In 1 Pet. 2:25, NET, CEB, HCSB, NRSV, and even the notoriously literal NASB have "Guardian" rather than "Overseer." Perhaps we could coin the term, "watch-over-er," for "one who watches over," to capture the practical sense of the word while retaining some etymological literalness.)

The verb form, "episkopeo," occurs along with the verb form of "shepherd" in 1 Pet. 5:1, referring to elders as noted above.

So "presbuteros," "poimen" (and "poimano") and "episkopos" (and "episkopeo") are at the very least closely related and overlapping, if not outright synonymous.

I note many places where a plurality of elders / shepherds / watch-over-ers are mentioned. I see very few where any individual is singled out as "chief."

Possible exceptions (and none specifically labeled as "elder," etc.):
-- James at Jerusalem
-- Nympha at Laodicea (Col. 4)
-- The "chosen lady" (2 John 1:1)

We know from Matt. 20:25 and the parallels that in Christ, leadership is more about serving than ruling. That idea may also be present in the fact that "leadership" (proistemi) in Rom. 12:8 (cf. 1 Thes. 5:12 and the "overseer and deacon" passages in 1 Tim.) can also mean "giving aid," and footnotes, if not the translations themselves, sometimes show ambivalence about how to translate it.

OTOH, Heb. 13:7 -- using a word for "leader" not used elsewhere in the Epistles in that sense -- does show some sort of "ruling" aspect of leadership.

"Angels of the churches" in Revelation --

-- Witherington (found online): "If you compare Revelation to other early Jewish apocalyptic literature it is clear enough that John is not talking about something different than what you [the interlocutor to whom Ben was replying] call created spirit beings, nor are the authors of the OT. In fact all turn of the era Jewish apocalyptic literature have angelic mediators conveying the revelation to a human recipient (see Rev. 1). So yes indeed, John is writing using one of God's Fed Ex messengers, expecting that the angel of that church will help interpret his words to that church.

-- Keener, IVP BBC: "There are four major views on the 'angels' of the churches. One is that they are 'messengers' bearing the scroll to the churches; although this meaning is possible (1 Macc 1:44), it is unlikely that John would have seven separate copies of the book or would send seven different messengers (see comment on Rev 1:11). A second view is that they are public readers in each congregation, like a corresponding kind of 'messenger' in the synagogues. According to second-century teaching, if such a reader slipped in his reading of the biblical text, the whole congregation was held accountable before God because he acted as their agent. Third, they may be the guardian angels of each congregation, analogous to the Jewish view (rooted in Daniel) that not only each person but each nation was assigned a guardian angel, and the angels of the evil nations would be judged together with the nations they led astray. Finally (related to the third view), they may represent heavenly counterparts to earthly realities (the churches), symbolizing the heavenly significance of the churches as the lampstands did; this view would also fit apocalyptic imagery."

-- Fee, in his commentary on Revelation, takes the references to be referring to actual spiritual messengers.

None of them even mentions the possibility that "angels" could mean "pastors" in that context. The closest seems to be the "public readers" in Keener's note.

[tabibito]

As general classes, which of the elders, pastors et al, by whatever title referred to in the Bible, was not charged with the responsibility to impose discipline where necessary?

[Cow Poke]

As general classes, which of the elders, pastors et al, by whatever title referred to in the Bible, was not charged with the responsibility to impose discipline where necessary?

Jesus gives that to the members of the Church. Doesn't specify a particular leader or group. It's only after steps 1 & 2 have failed that it even comes to the assembly.

[tabibito]

Jesus gives that to the members of the Church. Doesn't specify a particular leader or group. It's only after steps 1 & 2 have failed that it even comes to the assembly.

Ah yes, there is that. But there is also the matter of authority being bestowed on a minister (by whatever title is deemed appropriate). True enough, that authority has purpose, "building up and strengthening" as its aim, but where that authority is challenged, it can be exerted to impose order.

[Cow Poke]

Ah yes, there is that. But there is also the matter of authority being bestowed on a minister (by whatever title is deemed appropriate). True enough, that authority has purpose, "building up and strengthening" as its aim, but where that authority is challenged, it can be exerted to impose order.

Paul told Titus (1:13) to stand firm against the opposition and "rebuke them sharply".

Personally, I believe that the Pastor needs to set the tone for how the leadership of the Church should respond to problems when (not if) they occur. The Pastor, Deacons and Elders need to be in agreement that unity is vital to the Church, and will not tolerate attacks (that usually come from within).

[tabibito]

Paul told Titus (1:13) to stand firm against the opposition and "rebuke them sharply".

Personally, I believe that the Pastor needs to set the tone for how the leadership of the Church should respond to problems when (not if) they occur. The Pastor, Deacons and Elders need to be in agreement that unity is vital to the Church, and will not tolerate attacks (that usually come from within).

First in order of time, first in order of intensity, first in order of destructiveness. Most outsider attacks ride on the coat tails of wayward Christian "teachers."

[Thoughtful Monk]

Ah yes, there is that. But there is also the matter of authority being bestowed on a minister (by whatever title is deemed appropriate). True enough, that authority has purpose, "building up and strengthening" as its aim, but where that authority is challenged, it can be exerted to impose order.

But of course there are the cases where the minister is the one out of order. Unfortunately your position allows the minister to exert his authority to prevent righteous criticism and correction. Remember, the one group Jesus was constantly trying to correct where the religious authorities - the ones with the power.

[tabibito]

But of course there are the cases where the minister is the one out of order. Unfortunately your position allows the minister to exert his authority to prevent righteous criticism and correction. Remember, the one group Jesus was constantly trying to correct where the religious authorities - the ones with the power.

The system of having individual congregations serves well as far as I can see. Where one goes off the rails it won't affect the congregation that meets down the road a bit. Leaders should be appointed from the congregation's own membership, and subject to "impeachment" procedures with strict guidelines. That substantially reduces the risk of a false gospel in one congregation spreading to others. But it doesn't matter what system is implemented, it will be horribly deficient if it does not conform to the pattern that God intends for the churches.

Once the churches decided that they would do away with apostles and prophets, the more direct oversight from the Holy Spirit was eliminated. The problem arose in large part because the clergy imagined they had authority over the prophets - who were in fact fuses/circuit breakers, so to speak - and attempted to subject the prophets to that authority. The only way that churches will be properly brought into function as embassies of heaven is for people to push themselves biazo style (alone if needs must - not an ideal approach) to become saints under the old definition of the term. Without the apostles and prophets, churches remain unable to serve as they should. So - prayer that God send workers out to the harvest fields is a must do for anyone who wants to see God's will being done.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I read an article on Religion News.com (link below) that discussed all the various scandals that have affected the churches and para-church ministries and how much damage has been done to the name of Christ and people. The author uses the dread word 'deconstruct' to stay our whole church organization needs to be torn down and rebuilt. As might be expected, the article is long on teardown and lacking on what the new church would look like. The author also almost completely passes over the content of church teaching as an issue.

Despite the extreme solution advocated, the article does bring up some good points. I'm pretty sure predating Covid, I was having questions about how we do church in America these days. While I haven't reach an answer, here's some thought I have.

1. We have to remember the church is there to be an advocate for God. We are not there for our own amusement.
2. I think we can't afford head pastors with no accountability. Church constitutions where what the pastor wants, the pastor gets have to go. This means church boards and members must be willing to disagree with the pastor as necessary.
3. Church leadership position can't be given out as a reward for generous giving, long term attendance, or friend/family of the pastor.
4. When issues occur in the church, we have to resolve them Biblically. No more sweeping them under the rug. So many of the issues that have damage the church, occurred years ago and are now coming to light.
5. We need to accept, especially conservatives, that our positions will be viewed with increasing hostility by society. We need to do better at offering an alternative to society and better training on dealing with the hostility.
6. Going along with 5, church as a social club will become either unstainable or not different from society. While fellowship is important, it's not the sole purpose of church.
7. I have been doing reading on why men don't go to church. I think we need to change how men are talked about and treated in the church body. They won't go somewhere where they are made the point of jokes or diminished as individuals. This again goes back to number 5.

That's all I can think of for now. I'm sure there is more that will come to me. How to get this to happen, especially in established churches, will be difficult.

Agree, disagree, or something to add? Please do so.

Link to the article: https://religionnews.com/2021/08/04/...o-deconstruct/

Thanks everyone for participating. The discussion on church discipline was interesting and you're welcome to continue. I want to try to pull back to the OP.

One thought I've had is the expectations on the congregation need to be raised. Too often, we have gotten into easy church. If you're breathing and want to be member, welcome. As I recall in the early days of the church, the new membership class lasted for a year. The last membership class I went to was very casually done. I think the church leadership needs to start expecting more commitment out of the congregation. Yeah, let them join at low commitment but keep nudging them to increase their commitment and participation (beyond their offering!!!). Ok it doesn't seem like a great formula to get a large congregation but I'm not sure that is a goal we are called to reach.

I'll also agree that this can pull a church into becoming a cult. Certainly it would have to be carefully done. One thought is: no shaming or shunning people who chose to leave.

Also, I recognize this is hard to accomplish, especially an established church. If your a pastor or on the leadership team, you can lead the church through the change. What does a non-leader do? My attempts have not ended well so I'm not a good person to ask about this. Unfortunately I keep coming down to voting by walking out.