What is a Pastor?
This was a question way down a previous thread - let's bring it to the top. Much like in most Christian denominations as well as in independant churches, in the CGGC we commonly refer to our local church leaders as pastors.
What is a pastor? Here's the deal though - we are only allowed to use what the New Testament says. No secondary books, no personal experiences, etc.
If you call yourself a pastor, where does this role come from biblically? If you've been reading the blog but never commented, please consider jumping in on this one.
Clear enough?
posted by Dan Masshardt at 11:45 AM
42 Comments:
To recap my understanding of the conversation: New Testament leaders are called and gifted differently yet work in unity for the purpose of building up the people. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers are called to lead. We abbreviate this list of leaders as APEST.
Leaders chosen on the New Testament model may be highly trained and formally educated (example: Saul/Paul) but this is not a requirement. New Testament leaders are called based on their experience and maturity for the purpose of being a witness to the Gospel (Acts 1: 21-22).
Some time after the Christian faith was institutionalized by Constantine in 313 CE the leaders New Testament concept of the “priesthood of all believers” was modified to accommodate the establishment of a professional priesthood. By limiting access to leadership the professional priesthood was able to exercise authority and maintain control.
The Protestant Reformation reestablished the concept of the “priesthood of all believers”. Many of the movements associated with the protestant thinking including the movement founded by John Winebrenner openly embraced the concept. Over time as the new movements became institutionalized the concept of a professional clergy/priesthood reemerged with a new designation of office – Pastor.
Additionally, leaders gifted as shepherds and teachers have become increasingly prevalent in the professional clergy. These leaders have a certain gift mix and mind set that, while essential to the whole body, severely limits leadership if it is exercised to the exclusion of the apostles, prophets and evangelists. Human nature being what it is, the leaders of many movements and denominations have instituted policies limiting access to leadership in order to exercise authority and maintain control.
OK guys – was I paying attention?
David - that was pretty good :-)
More than I had in mind. I think the more specific question in mind is, if we are going to say that 'pastor' is the primary leadership role in the church, as almost all of us commonly do, at least in practice. (even those who believe various leadership roles to be functioning), how do we justify our role from the Bible - our authority in faith and practice.
No church history. No personal experience. Just Bible. Go.
Dan,
I would say that first and foremost, we are "teaching elders" in the Church of God. 1 Timothy 5:17 states, "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." That's what we do - we are elders in the church who direct the affairs of the church and primarily take care off the preaching and teaching of the body at large.
However, it is very appropriate, Scripturally speaking, to refer to ourselves as "Pastors." Why? See 1 Peter 5:1-2 below:
1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 BE SHEPHERDS of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; (The CAPS are my emphasis).
It appears to me that 1 Peter 5:1-2 instructs us to serve as sheperds (or "pastors") over the flock. The command to "be shepherds" is the verbal from of the Greek word for "pastors" in Ephesians 4:11-13 (the APEST passage).
Would I prefer to be called "Elder George Jensen" rather than "Pastor George Jensen"? You bet. In Winebrenner's day, that's what I'd be called and I wish it could be that way. However, because of the association of the term with the Latter Day Saints, it's best that we not use that term for ourselves. We may be viewed as being part of that or some other unorthodox movement.
So since the term "Elder" is not practical, I think the term "Pastor" is fine in lieu of the 1 Peter 5:1-2 passage.
There's my answer - I predict someone' going to blow a cork. Oh well--what else is new.
Blessings,
"Pastor" George Jensen,
TEACHING ELDER
Enola First Church of God
Thanks for your comments George.
Anonymous George,
You take us to an important issue in understanding the New Testament plan.
How does the list of leadership giftings mentioned by Paul in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12 mesh with the reality that there were people in local congregations referred to as elders?
I know of no distinction in the New Testament among elders. IOW, to my limited knowledge, I don't know that the New Testament categorizes some elders as teaching elders and others as something different than that. As far as I know, that terminology comes from sources other than the Bible.
I'm uncertain what to think about your suggestion that we can call ourselves Pastors based on 1 Peter 5:1-2. Certainly, we need to require elders to do the task of shepherding. It seems to me that we might be able to call elders 'shepherds.' But, if we are taking titles from these verses, then we should be compelled to give elders the title 'examples' too, based on verse 3. (Now, that would be intimidating, wouldn't it? Intimidating but every bit as justified from the text.)
I will ask you, though, if you don't buy into the Middle Ages' notion that leadership in the church assumes a priestly mediator who is a member of the clergy who oversees the laity for the church hierarchy, how do you get to the idea that congregations have people from a leadership class known as clergy in a role called elder or shepherd or pastor at all?
I will be profoundly grateful to you if you can do that because I can't see that myself.
If we are serious about our Mission Statement and if we are only establishing ourself on the New Testament plan, we skip the Middle Ages and everything else between the New Testament and today.
As far as I can tell, if we do that, we don't end of with any form of clergy or a laity.
Great conversation.
Of course the clergy/laity distinction is not found in the Bible. It is no good.
Additionally, the idea of a shepherd/elder/apostle or anyone else being a priestly mediator is NO GOOD! I hope that none of us believe that doctrinally. We do, however, act like it sometimes and need to be clear. I recently said at our worship gathering that when I come to pray for you, nothing special happens that doesn't happen when any of your brothers or sisters comes and prays with you. But the shepherds should equip the whole body for this type of ministry.
1 Timothy 5:17 does seem to point to some elders preaching and teaching. The implication is that not all elders preach and teach. maybe we need to spend some time exegeting this passage together.
Some have speculated that apostle, prophet, evangelist are itenerant roles while shepherd and teacher may be local/settled roles. I wonder (questioning not stating) whether shepherds/teachers are simply elders in the local church.
Good discussion!
M,
Additionally, the idea of a shepherd/elder/apostle or anyone else being a priestly mediator is NO GOOD! I hope that none of us believe that doctrinally. We do, however, act like it sometimes and need to be clear.
Any time one of us offers a "Pastoral Prayer" (Gag! I just spoke Christendom. I'm now sick. I hope you're happy.) s/he is serving as a priest and a mediator between God and the people of God.
I guess I baited that hook :-)
There is no doubt that we can and need to do better - often much better. But I want to be constructive here. How about something like this:
"Fellow Shepherds, We relish the truth that Jesus is our great high priest and that he is the ultimate and only mediator between God and humanity. Amen? But sometimes, whether we realize it or not, the way we go about aspects of our worship gatherings can indicate to some people that we are somehow essential in bringing people's prayers to God. Because we know that if people think that we are an essential part of communion with God, we have failed in our responsibility as shepherds, why don't we open up our time devoted to prayer so that anyone/everyone can pray? We do this in other settings already. That way we can reinforce what we know is true but sometimes is not clear because of our practices. Doesn't that make more sense in light of what we know to be true?"
?
M,
You lost me at "Fellow Shepherds."
Those leaders who are not itenerant in your estimation are shepherds and teachers? We are dominated by them you say. I am trying to offer something helpful to help shepherds be shepherds and not function as priests.
bill, you love the truth, I know that. I need to speak what I believe is truth to you. Much of what you say might be true but it is not helpful.
I guess I should stop trying to be helpful and let you be ignored by the shepherd dominated leadership the way they have been doing for decades. I just hope for something better.
I regretfully call myself Pastor Brian because the gulf of explaining my role is too difficult. Apostle Brian would send people running! And as much as I've tried to go by just Brian, it causes confusion too.
But I am not a shepherd, and connecting pastor to shepherd in Ephesians 4 is way too damaging to our church. Our shepherd is a retired man named Steve. Is he Pastor Steve? Nope. Shepherd Steve? Nope. And people are beginning to understand his role, which has really freed me up to be who God called me to be.
So... no solutions, but Bill needs to keep saying it.
Dan, you woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. The communication from Bill has just begun. Your prodding led to the idea of values/virtues, which I believe is the exact right conversation. Bill, pulling back from his blasting, posted a list of values.
Bill isn't going to reduce his prophetic blasting. Should he? If he reduced his blasting, would he be less ignored? I doubt it.
It is for Bill to blast and for others to influence and lead. Bill doesn't want to lead. You've been doing an excellent job. I've been very impressed by you. Keep it up!
I'm sure we are very much like the Israelites wishing Jeremiah would just dial it down a bit.
Brian - I'm sure you are right. I just feel like I'm arguing with bill all the time. I feel sometimes like I'm the one in the way of what he's trying to say.
M,
Those leaders who are not itenerant in your estimation are shepherds and teachers?
I think so. It seems to me that the two duties of elders are to shepherd and to teach.
Much of what you say might be true but it is not helpful.
How can being aware of more truth be harmful?
I am John the Baptist. My description of the Messiah is that his winnowing fork is in His hand and he will...gather His wheat into the barn and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Few people find that sort of message helpful but, when John spoke it, that sort of message was the Lord's word.
The reality of the Body of Christ is that some of us, when we live passionately in our callings, burn for truth for its own sake. The closer I draw to the Lord, the more I become like that.
I do the best I can to value the passion that shepherds have for relationship. What shepherds do with my passion for truth, is up to them. And, between them and the Lord.
I genuinely appreciate your attempts to serve a mediatorial role for me with other shepherds but there are times that the truth has to be spoken with zeal and without compromise. That, I believe, is my calling.
Guys,
You can speak APEST and have it understood. It can become reality in your time and place. One of the most pleasing moments in my ministry took place two weeks ago when I heard a 15 year old kid explaining:
"pb isn't a shepherd. He's a prophet. He focuses on truth and that's why our church isn't like other churches."
I'm not sure this kid even knows what a so-called 'pastor' is.
Bill,
I don't think we should be compelled to call our Teaching Elders (or whatever you want to call us) "Examples" or "Shepherds" or "Pastors" or anything else. I simply believe that "Pastor" is an acceptable title for what we do. My justification for that is based on the passages I mentioned.
Furthermore, I don't believe in "clergy" who serve over the "laity" in some way. I do, however, believe in the principle of having leadership in the congregations. I am convinced that the job of the Elders is to oversee, shepherd, and direct the affairs of the congregation, and to pray with people for healing using oil (in the Name of the Lord). It seems to that the biblical model is for each congregation to have some group in the church to "be in charge" - and that's the Elders.
So my job, in my mind, is to use my leadership gifts to guide this ship here at Enola. I DO NOT believe I have special powers concerning the Lord's Supper. I DO NOT believe I have magical abilities when I dunk people in the tank during baptisms. I DO NOT believe that my prayers are more powerful than others.
All I am saying is that I think we do need "Leaders" to be in charge of the congregations. That seems to be the biblical model. I would prefer the term "Elder" but for reasons previously mentioned, I think any term - "Example" or "Shepherd" or "Overseer" or "Bishop" or "Pastor" would be fine.
Beyond what I said previously, I lean towards the term "Pastor" because it has a familiar ring with our brothers and sisters in other denominations AND it even has a ring with outsiders. I can't tell you how many times I've had the opportunity to share with a nonbeliever because it caught their interest when they heard I was a "Pastor" (even if they did have in their minds some priestly dude with a long robe and the title, "clergy" -- that's certainly NOT what I had in mind for myself when I talked to them).
As far as the APEST goes, I want to do everything I can as an Elder/Pastor/Example/Shepherd or a whatever you want to call me to encourage people to be the best A,P,E,S or T. I know we have each kind at Enola (I think we're weaker in some areas than others - but we have them all) and I try my best to get them to use their gifts according to their calling.
I guess what I am saying is that I think the Bible does call for leadership in the church (yes, that is somewhat hierarchical). That doesn't mean those of us who believe that necessarily buy into some kind of "medieval clergy class system." I for one don't buy into it.
George C. Jensen
George - thanks for being a part of the conversation.
Bill - I have no wish for you to be softer on truth or more gentle with us. My concern sometimes is that we are not hearing what you are saying clearly. In my mind, the only responses to a prophetic word should be to repent or reject. Sometimes some of us respond with a 'huh?'
That's why I've tried to steer you away from just throwing out 'medieval Christendom' as a criticism. People don't get it.
George,
George,
All I am saying is that I think we do need "Leaders" to be in charge of the congregations. That seems to be the biblical model. I would prefer the term "Elder" but for reasons previously mentioned, I think any term - "Example" or "Shepherd" or "Overseer" or "Bishop" or "Pastor" would be fine.
Here’s a rule of thumb that I think is instructive:
If you preach sermons and/or offer pastoral prayers you are functioning from the medieval model of leadership, not the New Testament model.
The preaching of sermons, as I understand history isn’t just from the Middle Ages it is from the late Middle Ages. The word isn’t even 1,000 years old. Here are some biblical realities about the preaching of sermons:
1. The model of communicating within the body was not the Greek word kerusso. i.e., preaching or proclaiming. That word was reserved for communicating with gentiles. The model for communication within the body is the Greek word dialegomai. (Acts 20:7 & 9) It is a tribute to the dominance of the priestly model of leadership that we have no useful translation of the word in today’s church. You will note the similarity between that word and our word ‘dialog.’ Dialegomai can be translated ‘argue’ or ‘reason.’
2. The only forms of communication mentioned in the New Testament as being appropriate for gatherings of believers are tongues and their interpretation, and messages of revelation, knowledge, prophecy and teaching. None of them are anything like a sermon.
3. By the command of Paul, the absolute minimum number of people who should speak in a gathering of believers is two. (1 Corinthians 14:29 is a command.) If you or you associate are more likely to speak than other gifted disciples in your gatherings, you’re being priestly.
4. People who speak in Christian gatherings are not called preachers. The only person the New Testament calls a preacher is Noah. If you call yourself or accept the title, ‘preacher’ you are being priestly.
Regarding prayer: In the New Testament, it was not the role of elders to speak to the Lord on behalf of a gathering of believers in prayer. In the New Testament, prayer was communal. It was practiced by all—men and women alike. (1 Cor. 11) Acts 1:14 says that they all joined together in prayer. Acts 2:42 describes one of the four things the early body continued in literally as ‘the prayers,’ implying the reality that they were all praying all the time in their all gatherings as a matter of course.
There is nothing I see in the New Testament that justifies the preaching of sermons by a so-called pastor nor is there anything that even closely resembles a pastoral prayer. If you accept either practice, you are functioning in a mediator’s role in your congregation from a priestly model of leadership.
----
I'm sure this seems whacked out to you. I invite you to do with what I've written what the Bereans did to what Paul said when he dialegomai-ed with them.
Fran,
Welcome back.
I also, though, resonate will Dan's reticence to see everything the early church did (or didn't do) as prescriptive
As you know, I pretty much disagree, although, I've said that I'm not insisting that organic and simple be our only answer.
The reality is, though, Fran, that the CGGC has a Mission Statement that calls us to see the New Testament as perspective. If you disagree with the Mission Statement, that's grand. You have tons of company.
The Mission Statement is:
As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ, we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples
by establishing churches on the New Testament plan and proclaiming the gospel around the world.
(Matthew 28:16-20, Ephesians 3:8-11, Acts 1:8)
Dan and you--and I'd guess almost everyone in the CGGC--disagrees with the "New Testament plan" part. I think it amounts to us telling an institutional lie.
Would you say something to the people about changing it? It clearly is doing us no good.
And, in fact, to the degree that anyone pays attention to it, it's simply a cause of dissension and distraction.
Bill,
How far are you really willing to go with what you describe as a "New Testament" model? If you keep going far enough with this, aren't you soon going to have to throw out some other things that have a flavor of "medieval Christianity" like Christmas or Easter? They were definitely inventions of the church (that is, possibly Constantine--didn't the church in his time create these holidays after the Empire was Christianized in order to replace some of the pagan festivals that abounded?. You'd know more about this than I would, obviously). I don't think the folks in 60 A.D. were sitting in the catacombs on Dec. 25 having a Christmas gathering. Since Christmas or Easter are not a part of the "New Testament Church," do we need to throw them out too?
Let's go further - the "New Testament Church" (again, 60 A.D.'ish) didn't articulate the Doctrine of the Trinity or establish the Canon of Scripture. Even though we know that the Doctrine of the Trinity is Scriptural, do we have to nix the words, "One God in the Three Persons of Father Son and Holy Spirit" because that phrase came though one of the ecumenical councils and not the NT church? The "New Testament Church" also didn't have the canon of Scripture conveniently printed on the pages of a bound codex book. Should we not bring our Gutenberg-esque codex Bibles because they are a product of the post-NT church era?
I am seriously concerned where this insistence on the NT Church which nixes anything with a medieval form of leadership could lead next. Beyond leadership, are there other things (like those I mentioned) that you are going to have to throw out in order to be consistent? Is everything we do that has a hint or a flavor of medieval Christianity or Constantine no good?
If not, then how do you determine what's "baby" and what's "bath water?" I would really like to know!
-George C. Jensen
Enola, PA
George,
How far are you really willing to go with what you describe as a "New Testament" model?
This question and your whole post are solid gold. Thank you.
I have been a restorationist since before I met with what used to be called MTO and, as you well know, I am not afraid to think radically.
So, yes, I would throw out Christmas and Easter. When you ask if WE need to throw them out, I'd say that, with this Mission Statement, we have no choice. We must--or, of course, we could reconsider the Mission Statement.
Your questions on the "Doctrine of the Trinity" and the Canon are more valuable than pure gold. As far as the Canon issue is concerned, you've identified a problem for Winebrenner is his 27 points. As far as the Trinity is concerned, the term traces to Tertullian. The term is not New Testament. I believe the concept clear is in "Scripture." But, I've got to tell you that, consistent restorationist that I am, I don't use the term. And, I have no problem if none of us ever use it again.
I am seriously concerned where this insistence on the NT Church which nixes anything with a medieval form of leadership could lead next.
Then you have a problem with Winebrenner and you have a problem with the General Conference Ad Council who wrote the Mission Statement and foisted on the rest of us innocents. I didn't write the Mission Statement. I think the notion that "we commit ourselves" to its principles in the kind of bold lie that only a group of shepherds can tell--a lie and that can only cause confusion and dissension in the CGGC if people actually take it seriously and consider its implications, as you are.
-----
On the points that I made about preaching sermons and offering pastoral prayers, those are things which I think are theologically corrupt because they create a priesthood in the Body that we conveniently rename a pastorate. But, the truth is the same. If you pray a pastoral prayer you presume to be a mediator between your congregation and God. If you preach a sermon, you are presuming to speak to you congregation from God.
I can't say that there is no limit to how far I would go with the New Testament plan idea, but I know that I would eliminate any mediator between God and people than Jesus Christ.
Interesting discussion.
Bill - "If you preach a sermon, you are presuming to speak to you congregation from God."
Does not the N.T. prophet speak a word from God?
How is this different?
I would defend proclamation so far as it is faithful in bringing the scripture with clarity to God's people in the local context.
The great protestant idea is that the 'preacher' (I know you hate this term) is only authoritative so far as he or she is faithful to the Scripture. We point to Jesus who is revealed in the Bible, not to ourselves as mediators (at least we should be very bold about that).
There is no protestant doctrine that I'm aware of that officially raises the status of the minister or pastor APEST leaders etc. We have the priesthood of all believers, Sola fide, Sola Scriptura etc. (lots of solas).
The role of Christian leaders is never to point people to themselves or build reliance on them, but to be faithful proclaimers of Jesus.
Just some thoughts...
btw, are there any other restorationists in the cggc? Any other groups really trying to live by this consistently the way you are bill?
m,
Does not the N.T. prophet speak a word from God?
Not every week at the same time in the 'worship service.' Not to the exclusion of anyone else who believes s/he has a word of revelation, prophecy, knowledge or instruction. Not as a clergy person.
The great protestant idea is that the 'preacher' (I know you hate this term) is only authoritative so far as he or she is faithful to the Scripture. We point to Jesus who is revealed in the Bible, not to ourselves as mediators (at least we should be very bold about that)
Good point. New Testament plan Christianity is a rejection of Protestantism. Do you remember me quoting Winebrenner's point that in order to accomplish his vision would require "another great reformation."
Winebrenner really believed that. Our Mission Statement is a direct rip off of the sermon in which Winebrenner called for another reformation. That's precisely why I say that the Mission Statement's assertion that the CGGC is committed to establishing churches on the New Testament plan is, just very simply, a lie.
Almost all of you are evangelicals. Evangelicals are all about what you have described--going back to the Reformation. New Testament plan Christianity is the view that the Reformation was nothing more than a minor tweaking of Roman Catholicism.
There is no protestant doctrine that I'm aware of that officially raises the status of the minister or pastor APEST leaders etc
There are no APEST leaders in Protestantism. Protestants generally believed that the APE gifts died out after the writing of the New Testament.
btw, are there any other restorationists in the cggc?
There are. I'll let them come out of the closet. I won't out them, considering how much of a ruckus what I believe causes--even on this blog.
Bill, those are helpful clarifying comments - thank you for reminding me. I recall now that some of this was discussed here before, but it's been a little while.
I do not consider the reformation authoritative, but see it as a little more than a tweak as you say.
It is not Protestantism itself but the idea that the Scripture is authoritative and not the 'official' church interpretation of it. Alister McGrath describes it as "Christianity's dangerous idea" in his book on the reformation. Dangerous because people looking to the Bible as the authority means that the church loses it's ability to control interpretation and practice.
I believe that idea of reformation (much like repentance) is a continuous thing that is never completed.
I affirm being an evangelical so far as I understand the term, along with Mark Noll, Bebbeington etc, as focusing on the authority of the Bible, the necessity of personal faith(usually understood as conversion), and the necessity of evangelism(or however you want to use a term).
I have no personal desire to be a restorationist as you use the term.(I know this seperates me from Winebrenner, the mission statement etc.) That being said, I respect those who are.
It seems to me that being a restorationist could lead to a type of fundamentalism that I'm unwilling to adopt (at least at this point.) Winebrenner's insistence of celebrating the Lord's supper sitting down in the evening is an example.
That being said, I can still embrace many of the ideas you share. I do change, it just takes me longer than most. :-)
M,
Some evocative comments.
I do not consider the reformation authoritative, but see it as a little more than a tweak as you say.
Just so you know, and on an intellectual level I know you do: For Winebrenner and his contemporaries in the early Church of God, the Reformation was nothing more than a failed tweaking of the religion of Rome. Such is the case for anyone who's all about the "New Testament plan."
Among the things that make you and me participants in different paradigms, this may be the core.
Can you see what an uncomfortable position I am in? I am the one here--in this progressive CGGC community--who agrees with the founding vision of the Church of God. As far as I can tell, I am the only one here who shares our early assessment of the Reformation. Also, I think I'm the only one here who takes the Mission Statement to heart literally. Yet, I may very well be a minority of one in the whole CGGC.
I affirm being an evangelical so far as I understand the term, along with Mark Noll, Bebbeington etc, as focusing on the authority of the Bible, the necessity of personal faith(usually understood as conversion), and the necessity of evangelism(or however you want to use a term)
Again, just so you know that you are at odds with Winebrenner and the historic meaning of the Mission Statement. Just so you know that, in a mission-dominated body, you'd be on your way to losing your frock for saying what you've said.
I have no personal desire to be a restorationist as you use the term.(I know this seperates me from Winebrenner, the mission statement etc.) That being said, I respect those who are.
180 years ago, Winebrenner'd've told you to go to the Methodists or the United Brethren or the Reformed or the Lutherans. You'd have nothing to do with him nor he with you. You directly oppose the foundational belief about the church upon which this movement was founded.
bill,
You said: "For Winebrenner and his contemporaries in the early Church of God, the Reformation was nothing more than a failed tweaking of the religion of Rome. Such is the case for anyone who's all about the "New Testament plan."
Is is so helpful. And it probably is the chief paradigm switch that you speak of.
I am not unwilling to consider this. Like I said, I do not (at least in my deepest desire) care to be 'faithful' to the reformation. Wasn't the point of the reformation to be more faithful to Scripture than the church had been? Again, I'm not committed as much to any concept of the reformation as much as the idea, which seems to at a superficial level be a similar commitment to the Bible.
I don't think the reformation went far enough, but I applaud the reformers for their desires. Whether it failed, I don't know. My thought is that it was a start and in that sense it seems like Winebrenner picked up a 'reformation spirit' in the sense, calling for another reformation. The mistake both we and Winebrenner might have made is to think that any reformation is an event or a short season rather than a continual pursuit.
You have pointed out ways that I am at odds with Winebrenner and yourself. Thank you for that. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of that. I am willing to change if/when I become convinced of a different view.
One problem with all of this is that nobody knows any of this until they are at the end of seminary. With is the big problem that it is not a part of the ethos of our churches.
So many ideas here.
What is interesting here about what you are saying is that the problem with our we believe is that it is sectarian. What you are proposing seems far more sectarian (from the point of view most people think from.) This to me seems to parallel the Nevin controversy fairly closely. And it is a question of paradigm the way you say.
As for me, I speak openly about where I'm at. That's not to say I'm unwilling to change.
M,
One problem with all of this is that nobody knows any of this until they are at the end of seminary.
Then maybe seminary--an institution that has no roots in the New Testament--is a core part of the problem.
What you are proposing seems far more sectarian (from the point of view most people think from.)
How so?
on disciples: I'm sure your description will be better than mine. I just ripped mine off from Jesus. That's what he said we should do when we make disciples(along with baptizing them).
on seminary: I didn't attend Winebrenner so I can't speak to what is taught there throughout the courses. Either way, seminary is too late to learn if these things are supposed to be so central to who we are.
on sects: I'm not accusing you of being sectarian - I hope that's clear. What I am talking about is perception. When I hear someone saying that we've lost the truth over 2000 years and now here it is - the word cult comes to mind.
If we claim that almost the entirety of church history was deeply mistaken, (even if it's true) it seems to put us at odds with almost every other body of believers existing today.
Didn't Nevin accuse Winebrenner of being another sectarian, breaking off to be 'more faithful' just like every other split off group since the Reformation? Of course Winebrenner saw it completely differently, the way you do. I respect that, I'm just saying, like with Nevin, people aren't likely to understand easily.
I'm still trying to myself.
M,
I take my developing definition from Jesus too.
Mine's just truer to Him than yours.
; - )
Bill - great! Can't wait to hear it. (Love your wit/humor in the midst of being serious by the way).
I didn't think through that as being a definition - I just think that sometimes we get fancier than we need to be. I liked what you said in your eight charactaristics: "following Jesus involves a total commitment to him."
Either way, it seems evident to me that nobody on this blog is measuring discipleship by worship attendance. Is that a false assumption, anyone here?
Let's measure discipleship by fruit-bearing -- persons using their gifts to function as salt and light -- persons helping make more disciples through evangelism -- persons attending to the least, the last, and the lost. Worship attendance just like membership means nothing if people are not functioning as maturing, fruit-bearing disciples of Jesus Christ.
One more thought. Is the "New Testament plan" really as distinct and uniform as some imply? Doesn't the New Testament plan have the variation of the context which was the particular mission field in which a "church" was established.
Steve,
Is the "New Testament plan" really as distinct and uniform as some imply? Doesn't the New Testament plan have the variation of the context which was the particular mission field in which a "church" was established.
This is a question I would have asked Winebrenner had I been around in the day.
It's one that the CGGC should have been answering in community before the Ad Council's ink had begun to dry.
But, it is still not to late to answer it.
Dan said, "it seems evident to me that nobody on this blog is measuring discipleship by worship attendance. Is that a false assumption, anyone here?"
My guess is no one is measuring discipleship, at least, not to any effective level.
Brian - How does one 'measure' discipleship at all? I'm sure that there are ideas - I'd like to here them. Maybe when Bill offers his definition it will offer some idea.
One thought is that maybe we don't count it because it is far more qualitative than quantitative.
It's easy to count butts in seats, it's harder to count who's becoming a more obedient follower of Christ.
Dan,
If you look at the example I gave in Measurable Examples of a Disciple Post,these measures are exactly qualitative. Has the Disciple adopted these positions? If so, this is a disciple.
I'm not arguing these are the exact right measures, but my biggest aha is for qualitative measures rather than quantitative measures.
Brain - good point. I like your idea. I'm not that excited about that particular list, but it is indeed a good example.
In this paradigm? What if a person fits 2 or the 3? Are they a disciple? :-)
Dan,
I am a fan of someone giving it a real attempt that does hit at some things.
If they hit 2 out of 3, they are more of a disciple than a 1 out of 3 or worse a zero. Yes, 2 out of 3 is success for the day. Getting the other one later would be continued success.
Agreed.
I love this search for understanding what a disciple is, even though I don't think that's the best question. (more about that later.)
Am I correct in supposing two things:
1. That we acknowledge that there is an implied official CGGC definition rooted in our 35,000 by 2000 program (35,000 people in worship by the year 2000) and that that definition of a disciple is:
Anyone who contributes to the annual average attendance figure in a congregation so that even someone who visits one time is a year, even if it is to participate in the Easter Egg hunt after worship is considered a disciple.
2. We all believe that that definition is theologically corrupt.
I don't think that many people has a clue how to count disciples, to be honest.
We count attendance because it's something that can be counted, graphed, etc. I'm not necessarily saying that we should stop counting, but stop saying that we are counting what really counts.
What I'm saying is that I'm not sure that people who sit in church every week, go to Bible studies, put money in the plate etc. are disciples.
And I think that most of us agree with that, no?
Post a Comment
<< Home