Since several of my readers are preachers (or have played one on TV), I feel the need to speak to the role preachers play in people leaving a given congregation. Preachers have always had an influential role in our brotherhood; there has been a conscious effort over the last few decades to give them even more power. For the record, I’m against it.
It reminds me a bit of the situation of Israel in the days of Samuel. “We want a king like all the nations around us.” We want to make our preachers pastors, senior pastors! This will help us to be like the churches around us. Just as it was a terrible idea back then, it’s a terrible idea today.
It’s interesting to me that about the time the business world moved away from the “Lone Ranger at the top” model, churches decided that was the way to go. Businesses moved to collaborative leadership; churches moved away.
I support the elder model, where the elders lead. Ideally, the ministers provide biblical teaching, helping the pastors to feed the flock. But the elders remain the ones responsible for the congregation.
A big reason for this has to do with tenure. Preachers come and go. There are exceptions, but by and large, preachers are at a congregation for a relatively short amount of time in the history of that congregation. A healthy congregation will have continuity in the eldership, consistently raising up new men to serve alongside those who are already there.
I remember one congregation that I love that went through a rough time back in the 1980s. A minister came in (associate minister) and pushed for the congregation to create a detailed vision statement. This led to months of committee meetings, with almost everyone in the congregation stating their opinion as to where the church should be going. Discussions became heated and hard feelings were created. Finally, a vision statement was created. I don’t know that the ink was dry on that statement before the minister that started the whole process had taken another job. What he left behind was the heartache and strained relationships.
I’ll say a bit more tomorrow about the role of preachers in congregational dissatisfaction. But for now, I’d like to hear your thoughts on elder-led congregations versus minister-led congregations.
Nice slippery answer, Laymond. I expected as much. So with no standard for accepting a text, you can say, “I like this one… I’ll say it’s from God. I don’t like this one… I’ll say it’s the writer’s opinion.”
That’s called elevating yourself above the Bible.
I have been reading this comment thread with interest – I appreciate Tim and the blog. Laymond has indicated a belief that Peter was designated by Jesus to shepherd the church, and since Paul isn’t mentioned in the gospels, his writings should not contain as much authority. I hadn’t seen this mentioned, but 2 Peter 3 tells us in verse 15 that Paul had wisdom given to him and that Peter understood it to be on par with the “rest of scripture” in verse 16. Of course, you would have to accept the authenticity of 2 Peter and consider it part of the canon for that to have an effect, but it seems to me that Peter understood Paul to be inspired. If I want to take Peter as an apostle inspired by God, I need to treat Paul the same way. And I don’t think doing that places either above Jesus.
Sorry for the repeat – totally missed the fact that had already been pointed out like 4 times already. I skimmed over the comments too quickly – it has been a long week!
So I will just add my agreement.
Tim, I believe God elevates me above the bible, when he gave me free will. And he loves me, I don’t recall him ever saying he loved a book.
Tim accused me of having “no standard” for accepting what is written in the bible. . “So with no standard for accepting a text, you can say,” Tim I think you might want to reconsider what you said, I do have standards of acceptance, you don’t, you accept everything, I accept what can be witnessed by what Jesus said, or what God told Jesus to say, or what God spoke through the mouth of the Prophets. As Paul said no-one witnessed his speaking to Jesus, and if there were witnesses why did none step up, and just say “Yes I saw it” I do seem to remember Jesus saying you need witnesses to conferm a statement.
Paul speaks directly against considering him, or Apollos, or Cephas (Peter) or anybody else as “their man” (so to speak). His point is that we all say “I follow Christ.”
That’s in 1 Corinthians. A letter written by Paul that Peter equated with “the Scriptures”. Peter did that. Not me, not Tim, not Nick; Peter.
I want to ask again: Did the situation in Antioch really happen? Was Paul lying? If not, then was Peter right in separating himself from the Gentiles when “certain men from James” came? Or, was he acting like a hypocrite as the text says? (I’m only asking because I just want to know what you think about the situation as told in Galatians)
[Let me just reference something from before; and it is what Laymond mentioned regarding the Gospel of Mark (it is my favorite Gospel account and the one I have done most study on). I believe it to be written first; and I also believe it is based directly on Peter’s own preaching and story-telling.
I highly recommend everyone to read Richard Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony” – particularly chapters 6-9 which deal in part and whole with Peter being the oral source of Mark.
The Griesbach hypothesis (Matthew was written first) is rarely defended today and really difficult to support. But that’s another issue.]
But Laymond, how do you know what Jesus said? How do you know what God told Jesus to say? How do you know what God spoke? Unless you were there, you are relying on the witness of the biblical writers. If “Paul’s close friend” could change things, couldn’t the other writers do the same? Most of the prophets reported things that no one else could confirm, so I guess you toss out all of their testimony as well. Pretty soon we’re back to “Laymond agrees with this, so its Scripture. Laymond doesn’t agree, so it’s not.”
I’m glad you admit to considering yourself to be above the Word of God. That explains a WHOLE lot.
That’s all right, Andrew. I appreciate the input.
In re-reading the comments, I noticed Laymond that you said God gives us an opportunity to decide what we believe. In other words, we have the books, and when it comes to the letters, we get to decide what we want to take out and what we want to accept.
I was just thinking of how many times God called people to do things that didn’t seem to make sense. He called Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and that would not have seemed to make sense. He could have very well said, “That doesn’t sound like something God would want,” yet he submitted. When Gideon was busy turning away soldiers, it probably didn’t seem like those instructions made sense, but he did it anyway. While I don’t claim to have any special audible commands from God like they did, I do believe that we should treat inspired scripture with the same seriousness. So how could I say to myself that I could look through a book that I believe to be inspired and take out parts that I don’t think “sound right” to me or parts where I think Paul “inserted his own opinion?” There is a difference between wrestling with tensions and questions in scripture and deciding what parts do or don’t count. God’s ways are higher than our ways.
Yet this approach to scripture is precisely why it is difficult to discuss the topic – it doesn’t matter what passages are mentioned, they can be dismissed if they do not fit with the pre-conceived goal (to prove that Paul’s words should not be treated on the same level as Peter’s or the gospels).
You say one of your criteria is what Jesus said. Yet you claim that since no one else saw Jesus speak to Paul, then there are no other witnesses. And even though in that same chapter, Paul’s story is corroborated by an appearance of the Lord to Ananias from the Lord (and by the way, Ananias’ initial response was that this command didn’t “sound right” to him), and even though later in the book Barnabas will discuss Paul’s conversion with the disciples, you dismiss Acts by saying it was written by one of Paul’s good friends. These witnesses are apparently not enough.
I just don’t know of a passage where God tells us it is our choice to decide what parts of His Word to accept. To claim that taking all of scripture seriously means that we claim God loves the Bible more than us misses the point. It is precisely because He loves us that He gave us the Bible, and we honor Him by taking it seriously. Just some thoughts.
Andrew said, “I just don’t know of a passage where God tells us it is our choice to decide what parts of His Word to accept.”
Andrew, I just don’t know of a passage that says the bible is the word of God.
you show me yours, and I will show you mine.
Just show me where the bible is mentioned in the bible.
Tim asked, But Laymond, how do you know what Jesus said? How do you know what God told Jesus to say?
Tim, I don’t know for a fact that any of the bible represents the word of God, and I might go so far as to say neither do you. If I am to believe in Jesus Christ I have to assume the apostles did not write to confuse us. But what you are saying, that every word of the bible was breathed out by God as a commandment we all must follow, and if one word is not inspired, then it flaws the entire book. this gives credence to the atheism .
Can we accept Paul’s own word about this.
NIV – 1Cr 7:25 –
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. (actually I believe in the KJV he says “my judgement”)
I believe there are other places where Paul himself said I speak of my own volition.
Lets look at what Luke said about his own writings. His first book.
NIV – Luk 1:1 –
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled* among us,
NIV – Luk 1:2 –
just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. (Who were these eyewitnesses)
NIV – Luk 1:3 –
Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke said he did his own investigation into the matter, and believed what he found)
His second book.
NIV – Act 1:1 –
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach
NIV – Act 1:2 –
until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. (to the apostles)
NIV – Act 1:3 –
After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
You fight hard for the things you want Paul and Luke to say, but you don’t believe they are telling the whole truth. I don’t mean this to be Judgemental, but how can you call me a hypocrit, without plucking the log from your own eye? You either believe what these authors said about their own writings, or you don’t. I do.
Laymond,
I’m reminded why I don’t enter into discussions with you.
As for putting words into other people’s mouths, I never said:
(1) “every word of the bible was breathed out by God as a commandment we all must follow.”
(2) that you are a hypocrite.
The fact that Paul admitted giving his own opinion on a certain matter in no way discredits his authority. You made up a definition of “inspiration” and tried to make it mine. Sorry. Plus, I’ve been talking about authoritative, rather than inspired. I’m sure you’ve got a dictionary somewhere.
Luke did research. Duh. So did writers of the Old Testament. Makes his writings no less authoritative. Matthew did so as well.
Now, since you would have asked had you thought to do so, my understanding of inspired doesn’t mean dictated by God. Nor does it mean that “every word is a command to be followed.” I’m not looking for Paul’s cloak to take to him, nor do I plan to travel to see him before winter.
Now, it’s about time that I pointed out the really interesting part of this whole discussion. Go back and read the original post. It’s about whether elders lead or whether ministers lead a congregation. I’m not sure if you read more than the title. As usual, this whole discussion thread has been on a Laymond topic, not the topic that was actually under discussion. I’m sorry I humored you. I’ll try not to make that mistake again.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
No Tim, you never said “you hypocrite ,you” but you did say the same, in many more words.
Nice slippery answer, Laymond. I expected as much. So with no standard for accepting a text, you can say, “I like this one… I’ll say it’s from God. I don’t like this one… I’ll say it’s the writer’s opinion.”
That’s called elevating yourself above the Bible.
“I’m glad you admit to considering yourself to be above the Word of God. That explains a WHOLE lot.”
Andrew says:
July 15, 2011 at 10:43 am
I have been reading this comment thread with interest – I appreciate Tim and the blog. Laymond has indicated a belief that Peter was designated by Jesus to shepherd the church, and since Paul isn’t mentioned in the gospels, his writings should not contain as much authority.
( just one correction, I gave scripture to the fact that Jesus did just that)
laymond says:
July 14, 2011 at 8:33 am
Tim, I waited until others quit commenting, and you moved on before posting this comment on who should shepherd the church.—————————
Tim Archer says:
July 14, 2011 at 8:50 am
Laymond,
I guess it depends on how you see the Bible. If, for example, you elevate some books over others, then you’re reasoning is accurate. If, however, we can believe Luke, Paul was also a chosen instrument of God, designated as the apostle to the gentiles… to us.
But help me with what you propose. Make it simple. Which books of the New Testament would you accept? I’m guessing not Luke’s writing (which is the largest portion of the New Testament). Not Paul (the author who wrote the second largest amount). Which of the authors would you propose that we confidently read? Probably not John, because he kept saying that Jesus was God.
Tim, I do believe you were the one to get off the subject, not me.You were the one to call names (slippery) not me. You were the one to say I said I was above the word of God (by the way that is accusing me of saying I am above Jesus, IMO) as a matter of fact I don’t recall using any degrading language about you or anyone else.
Tim, I meant to say heretic, not hypocrite, and I said it again in my last comment. sorry , no you didn’t call me a hypocrite, just a heretic.
Read your first comment Laymond. (OK, the second) You took this off on the whole Peter-Paul thing which was NOT what the post was about.
I called your answer slippery, not you. The answer was slippery, evading answering the question.
And I never called you a heretic. I called believing that Jesus was not born of a virgin heresy. You did several leaps of assumption from there (if you’re saying that, then you must be saying x, and if you’re saying x, then you really mean y) and went ballistic on me. Told me never to talk to you again. Feel free to look all of that up.
And if you mean you’ve never said anything degrading about anyone DURING THIS THREAD, you’re right, you’ve been relatively well behaved. But I can’t say the same for other threads.
God Bless you Tim.
God bless you, Laymond