Assembly of God is a cult

[be_bright (be_bright)]

Unlike other churches in America Assembly of God churches are run by pastors and made for pastors. In fact many of the pastors own their own churches. Check out

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/08/12/Floridian/Strength_in_numbers.shtml
http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/pentecostal/godfraud.html
http://www.christiannews.0catch.com/strader.htm
http://www.christiannews.0catch.com/dan.htm
http://www.christiannews.0catch.com/aog.htm
http://www.cephas-library.com/pentecostal_straders_carpenters_home.html
http://www.cephas-library.com/evangelists_cerullo_smelling_like_a_rose.html
www.christiannews.0catch.com/bakker.htm (http://www.christiannews.0catch.com/bakker.htm)
http://www.strang.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002728.html
http://www.wcie.net/danielstrader/
http://www.rickross.com/groups/brownsville.html
http://www.christiannews.0catch.com/hinn.htm
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/lewd.html
http://www.tampatrib.com/MGAM9GOXVKD.html
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/tulsaworld01.html
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/tulsaworld02.html
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/latimes02.html
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/JoyceMeyer1.html
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/JoyceMeyer2.html

[bear (bear)]

I am not an AG type of person, however, Pastor's are supposed to run the church, not the board!

God has always given a vision to one person, not a group of people. In many church's the board decides everything and then tells the pastor what to do; this is not biblical.

Board run church's were invented, in the USA, during the revolution. The board has a very important role, e.g., it is the law, but they are not over the pastor.

Many will argue that the board gives the pastor accountability; this is untrue. Accountability comes through relationship. A good pastor surrounds himself with men of God, usally pastors, who are in a position of spiritual authority in their life, for accountability. The perfect biblical example is between Paul and Timothy. Paul was an apostle, and as such began many church's, trained the leadership, and gave spiritual oversight to the pastor. Timothy was a pastor, who had several "elders" or associate pastors who were under him. Paul was not Timothy's boss, but was there for leadership and spiritual oversight which equal accountability. One must also realize that Timothy did not answer to a board, nor did any other leader in the scriptures.

Note: Wise pastor's have written, in their church bylaws, grounds for the board to remove him. Usally only in the case of unrepentant sin and teaching heresy.

If a person starts a corporation, and it grows, they have a board; again, by law this is required. However, they are usally the the CEO and Chairman of the Board. That means they are the boss. e.g., Michael Dell, Bill Gates, etc.

As for the AG, their problems are numerous and their own

[saddened (saddened)]

It seems to me that any church that is getting people born again is going to have some rough edges, some troubles, because, well Satan doesn't want people saved. The early Christian church had some troubles too right?

[cybermom (cybermom)]

What a dangerous statement. This is cult fodder if I ever heard it.

Just because you see a few people saved is not enought reason to put a "stamp of approval" upon any church. God looks at our hearts, and will use anyone and/or message to bring someone to salvation. I was saved at a rally of someone who turned out to be a total fraud. Was I saved then? Of course.

I have found out the hard way (in 2 different "churches") that only a fool would continue to attend a church where the leader/pastor has no accountability. Was I a fool for staying there as long as I did? Yes.

I don't mean a board of "yes men" that endorse the leader's every wish or whim. I mean an independent board, with the power to censor a flaky pastor. Or an umbrella organization, whether denominational or otherwise (i.e. Vineyard).

At least then you have some sort of protection from false doctrine. Otherwise, you're at the mercy of the person in charge. And if any leader refuses to submit to accountability, then the person in charge will not be Jesus.

Cybermom

[bear (bear)]

A wise Pastor will set this is place. Once again, however, the biblical model is that the pastor is in charge, not the board.

[bear (bear)]

You have to also remember that you can not deny a biblical truth based on your personal expirience. It sounds to me that the pastor you are using as an example here, was a man without accountability. That is wrong.

Accountability comes through relationship, not having a board in charge. The boards job is NOT to tell the pastor how to run the church.

Often times, a board will supplant the pastor, and that is when all heck begins to break out. The pastor is at the mercy of the board, and that is also wrong.

A board is actually only needed for legal reasons, nothing else. the pastor has the vision, and surrounds himself with a leadership team. In the successful church's that I have had the honor of being a part of, the board was made up of several associate pastors, as well as lay elders. They had the same vision as the pastor, and understood their role. That is biblical.

Church's in America did not have boards until after the Revolution. Early, true church's, followed the biblical example. These pastors had other pastor's with whom they kept an accountable relationship. That is the only way for a pastor to truly be kept accountable; not the board. As in my original post, I will site the example of Paul and Timmothy.

[tomh777 (tomh777)]

I happen to be an "A/G type person." I also happen to agree with Cybermom. Yes the pastor needs to be allowed to be in charge...and yes sometimes unscrupulous boards can make a pastors life miserable. But the reality is part of the function of the board is also to help a senior pastor see the wider picture. If the board acts as "yes men" or believes themselves to be a political entity representing the congregation, there will be problems. In spite of some of the power hungry senior pastors in the A/G, the General Council of the A/G (aka Headquarters, aka the Blue Vatican) has made it clear that they favor a congregational form of church government. However, since they see themselves as a "cooperative fellowship" rather than a denomination, Headquarters usually takes a hand off approach with dealing with power hungry grandiose wackos. I've included a quote from the ag.org website from their position paper on "Apostles and Prophets" below.
}
2<font color="0000ff">2. What is the implication for the local church in the current emphasis on apostles and prophets?
2. What is the implication for the local church in the current emphasis on apostles and prophets?

The Pentecostal and charismatic movements have witnessed various excessive or misplaced theological emphases over the years. We look with grave concern on those who do not believe in congregational church government, who do not trust the maturity of local church bodies to govern themselves under Scripture and the Spirit. Such leaders prefer more authoritarian structures where their own word or decrees are unchallenged.

</font>}

[bear (bear)]

Biblically speaking, boards are not there to help the pastor see a wider picture. He should get this from his leadership team; his staff.

[tomh777 (tomh777)]

Bear,

Yes, yes, I agree with you (at least partially). It is up to the senior pastor and his leadership team to determine the direction of the church. However, once the direction is determined, the wise senior pastor will have people on his board that will have areas of expertise that the senior pastor may not. For instance, to have a tresurer who is a whiz with finances and budgets is a good thing (unless they're Judas of course). In the midst of a building program to have a board member that understands and/or has connections with city government can also be a very good thing in order to deal with permits, building codes, etc. My point is that the senior pastor (and his staff) can't always be expected to know and do everything. Provided the board is supportive of the senior pastor, a board with skills that the pastoral team doesn't have can be very helpful.

I definitely do support the senior pastor being in charge. I just don't support the idea of the senior pastor who says (or implies) "It's my way or the highway."

Gods Peace.

[bear (bear)]

I agree with the first part. In the first church I served in, one board member was a financial wiz. He was also the Associate Pastor in charge of administration. He was a board member, and on staff.

Biblically speaking, now, it is the Pastor' way or the high way when it comes to the final decision. The pastor is the President, Chairman and CEO of his particular church. Now, a wise pastor will listen to his advisers. However, many pastors are run over by the board. That is NOT biblical. This is an opinion formed through my expirience in ministry. Board run church's are not healthy church's.

[tomh777 (tomh777)]

Bear,

Good discussion. I agree with you. A wise pastor should listen to his advisors, and a wise pastor should also demonstrate his leadership ability by not allowing his board to run over him.

However, even though I do agree that the senior pastor has the final decision, it has been my experience that when a pastor projects the attitude "it's my way or the highway" then we're dealing with a person who has serious control issues, a whole lot of insecurity, and who is likely to create a spiritually abusive environment. Given that the idea of the "servant leader" seems to be the biblical model for pastoring it seems better for a senior pastor to be able to both demonstrate being a strong confident leader while also projecting humility as well. One question though...to have a board member also be an associate pastor...isn't that a conflict of interest?

Gods Peace

[bear (bear)]

Hey, I agree that many pastors have control issues. I was not clear in explaining my myself. My way or the high way is not productive. I just believe that the pastor does have the final say, but NOT in a controlling manner.

You are correct when you talk about the servant leader. Every pastor shoould follow that biblical model.

I am woundering what you mean by a conflict of interest? Please expound.

[tomh777 (tomh777)]

By "conflict of interest" I mean that to have a paid employee of the church sit on the board other than the senior pastor is a conflict of interest in the sense that the paid employee stands to gain or lose money based on board decisions. Consequently, the idea is that the paid employees pespective will be altered and judgement biased by financial issues thereby making it difficult for the paid employee to be objective about board decisions.

Please let me know your perspective on this.

Gods Peace

[bear (bear)]

I see your point.

The main purpose of a board is to comply with state and federal law. The board by law, in a church, exists to set the senior pastors income, and approve of major purchases.

As far losing money, the other pastor's on the board do not set there own salary. A % is decided upon for all pastor's in the church. Board members are supposed to have the heart and vision of the pastor, not the other way around. Besides the legal reasons, a church does not really have any need for a board. The church that I am a part of now has an Advisory board. This board consits of the SP, as chairman, the associate pastor's and two lay elders (the word elder in the bible, when compared to its original placement, is the equiv. to our modern day associate pastor's). This board advises the SP on major decisions. The SP then has levels of personal accountabilty through relationships with other pastor's within the church's organization. One is a mentor figure, and the others are peers.

The church is to be run by the career minister, not the businessman, teacher, and construction worker on the board.

I know that the govermental structure in the AG, as well as other organizations is structured like a big business, not the biblical pattern.

Bill Gates in the Chairman of his board. The board does not tell him what to do. They might advise him, but they do not run Microsoft.

This is my opinion. I have seen it both ways, and the most successful; those who carry out God's vision for the church, fall into the structure I mentioned.

God does not give the "vision" to the board, but to the man of God called to pastor. However, the pastor needs to be open enough to be advised, yet strong enough to know when to make the final decision.

[tomh777 (tomh777)]

Bear,

Good post. I strongly agree with your last 2 sentences. However, please clarify for me in what ways the governmental structure of the A/G is similar to big business.

Thankst

[bear (bear)]

Sure.

I did not mean that in a derogatory way, for I believe that the AG is a well run, Godly organization. In many businesses, the CEO is a hired gun, a gun that can be fired if the board does not like their production. The most successful businesses are those in which the CEO is also the chairman, and he is usaully the founder.

The AG is not as bad as some denominations, such as the Methodist, or in the north where I am from, the RCA and CRC. In these organizations, the pastor is replaced every couple of years; it is the way they are set up. In these church's, a board must bring stability. I do not believe that the practice of pastor swapping in healthy, or of God's design. It is a different story when the pastor chooses to leave for another work. However, I think that the pastor should choose his successor, not the board. The only time that the board shoul take on this role is in the event of the pastors sudden death, or his removal due to a issue of sin.

I believe that the biblical model is the Pastor at the head; the leader, the visionary, the Chairman, the CEO and President. I have been in ministry for several years, and I would never work for a board run church.

What I have witnessed with the AG church's in my area is that the pastor, once successful, does run the church. The purpose of his board is what I have mentioned before.

I know, from history, how board run and congregational forms of church government were formed. I also know, from a study of the most successful and largest church's in our country, that pastor lead church's are what have caused the above.

We will not agree, I am sure, but I do see your point. No pastor should be without accountability. I just happen to follow the Paul and Timothy model, not one designed in the 1700's.

[inkorrekt (inkorrekt)]

I am not a member of Assemblies of God. Assemblies of God is not a cult. They may have some theological differences. In spite of this, this church does not fit in the definition of a cult. Leader of this denomination is Jesus Christ. So, this church is a Christian Church and not a Cult. On the other hand, Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are Cults. They are not Christian.

[arron (arron)]

no it is not a cult

[cybermom (cybermom)]

Tho we haven't become members yet, my family and I attend an AG church. My pastor is a Godly man whose only desire is to bring people to a saving knowledge of Jesus disciple his congregation. Is my church a cult? DEFINITELY NO!.

Of course, I can't speak for every AG church out there. I feel that our responsibility as believers is to test all spirits. I think Christians need to be sober and alert, as the Bible says, about the teachings they receive and the leaders who guide them; I speak from experience, having attended 2, count them, 2 abusive churches, one of which is now a full-blown cult. But as I've posted before, I will never attend another church where the pastor is the sole authority with no governing body (ie denomination, umbrella organization, etc) to discipline him if he begins to deviate from Scripture. This also includes an elected church board (I know that's a dirty word among some) which isn't made up of "yes men" who will let the pastor do whatever he wants out of fear of his anger/displeasure. So if there happens to be an AG church that fits the critieria of a potentially unhealthy authority structure, then I'd stay away. But I'd stay away from ANY church like that.

Cybermom

[bear (bear)]

There is not one biblical reference to an elected board. The pastor is the visionary, not the board.

I here the term "yes men" used by many people. Most of them have heard that term from others, etc, and really do not have any clue as to what a yes man is. It is cliche, and works to make their point.

The pastor is the Chairman of his board, which, by the way, exists for legal purposes only. Board members should be SELECTED by the pastor, for they must have his heart and vision for the church. The pastor is the CEO of the church. This is God ordained. The idea of the board running the church was introduced into the church during the 1700's.

I believe that all pastor's need a mentor, or an organization to be a part of. However, that organization gives accountability to the pastor on a personal level, not giving direction to the church.

I agree that if anyone belongs to a church where the pastor is a control freak, they must leave. That too is not biblical.

I have always been a part of, and worked for, a church that was pastor lead. I have never been is a control freak environment, due to the fact that our organization has structure. We have over 20 church's in our fellowship; all independent, yet all one. It works great.

[cybermom (cybermom)]

bear,

I've been in 2 "churches" where the leaders were control freaks, and did rule their little kingdoms with iron fists. Nothing was said or done without their direct involvement; one leader even went so far as to not only tell one of the assistant pastors what to teach when he needed to fill in, but gave a sermon that he had already taught for the person to teach that day. He didn't even trust his own staff to write their own sermons (maybe he was afraid they'd do a better job!) Everything was preplanned, written out and scripted by the leader.

And I DO know what is meant by "yes-men" since I experienced it firsthand. My first church had such a board made up of cronies and puppets; the pastor had such control over everyone there that the board didn't dare cross him. He spent (and continues to spend) the money anyway he sees fit; when he admitted adultery and did not step down, there was no one who could make him. So he didn't; he is still the leader there, and the sin continues. So maybe it is a cliche, but unfortunately, it is a reality.

I feel that the pastor should be the leader of the church and should be the one to give it direction; but there HAS to be a system of checks and balances JUST IN CASE. I've lived the worst case senario, and will never attend another church where the pastor answers to no one.

Cybermom

[bear (bear)]

Yes, checks and balances do need to be in place. It is sad that some pastor's act in the way that you described.

[arron (arron)]

the pastor is the one who is overseer of the church. this how ever does not give him a right to control people or their lives in a cultic way. the pastor must not rule with dictatorship style rule.

[bear (bear)]

I agree.

He should also not be at the mercy of a board. So many church's level out, or decline, due to the pastor being nothing more than the chaplain. Again, this model can not be found any place in the scriptures.

[bear (bear)]

Also, many people interpret a strong leader with being a control freak. I know that CF pastor's exist, but strong leadership is a good thing.

Here is an example: someone, board member or not, proposes a new program, direction, etc. This pastor, who knows his God ordained vision for the church, does not see this new direction fitting in to that vision. When the idea is shot down, the party or parties resposible for the idea, may get upset. They see this action as the pastor wanting to control, when in fact, the pastor has done the right thing. This is the rule, while the CF pastor is the exception.

A church must know its purpose, and stick with it. Otherwise, the church will do everthing, and not do anything well. That is not biblical.

I know that it is hard for a persom who has come out of a CF situation to see the light at the end of the tunnel. However, an individual who has lived through such an event must do two things. 1. Let God heal their heart and 2. get over it.

Control is not always a negative thing. Control, in its simple form, means to steer. In other words, to give direction. Let us not get wrapped up in control freaks. Let us find a church where the pastor is a Godly man, who leads correctly, and most importantly, is aloud to carry out the vision that God, not his board, has given him.

A board is good for certain things, like approving major purchases, deciding the pastor's salary, etc. However, as the CEO, the pastor should be able to direct financial matters. As long as the records are reviewed, there should not be a problem.

The board should be made of of people that have the pastor's heart; hand selected by the pastor.
It is arrogant for one to suggest that they are "yes men". They are only yes men if the pastor is a CF.

M. Dell, of Dell computers, is the president and CEO of his company. He has a board, however, his board does not tell him what to do. If they did, Dell would not be a multi-billion dollar company.

[cybermom (cybermom)]

bear

You have obviously never attended a cult. You have no first-hand experience of the mind games that go on - don't question, don't reason, don't argue, the pastor would NEVER do THAT, etc. etc.

What about the pastor who really doesn't care about the "God ordained vision" for the church, but only cares about HIS wealth, position, and comfort? Who feels that the church is there to fulfill HIS agenda. Who answers to NO ONE. Who spends the money and uses the people (esp. the women) at will.

How dare you suggest that when a pastor is called a control freak it is because someone disagrees with him? Have you read ANYTHING about cults? Do you have any personal experience whatsoever? Don't you know that when people begin to realize there may be a problem and start asking questions, they become the problem? Any pastor with nothing to hide would welcome questions from his congregation. The 2 cult leaders I followed didn't allow questioning. To question them meant questioning God. In their minds, they are God's "special messengers" and are not to be challenged in any way.

Instead of sitting there pontificating concerning things you know nothing about, go back thru some of the threads here on this site. Try beginning at the Family Harvest thread. Read the many posts of the financial and personal abuse many people have LIVED through. I would, if I were you. Because if you believe that a pastor shouldn't have to answer to anyone, and should have the only and final authority in any church, you're the PERFECT candidate for abuse happening to you. Wake up.

Cybermom

[dlws (dlws)]

cybermom,
did you use to post on momsonline?

[arron (arron)]

the assembly of GOD is not a cult. why do so many get on pentecostal boards or rather boards about the church and put forht their doctrines and try to put down pentecostal all over the place. there are pentecostal that i dont agree with but i am not going to put them down all together and say they are not saved and have a demon. (like some have a acused me )

[cybermom (cybermom)]

dlws

No, I've never posted on momsonline. Never heard of them. What makes you think that I have?

aaron,

For once I agree with you!

Cybermom

[dlws (dlws)]

cybermom,
I use to post on momsonline and your name looked familiar.
DLWS

[cybermom (cybermom)]

No. I've never been to that site. Maybe it's just a common name. It's hard to find an original screen name these days!http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Cybermom

[bear (bear)]

Cybermom,

I never said that anytime someone calls a pastor a CF is when the pastor disagrees with them. I used one example of what sometimes happens, and it does happen.

I do not disagree that a pastor needs to answer to someone. I agree that abuses must be confronted.

I disagree that the boards role is to control the pastor; it is not biblical. I believe that every pastor must be in a fellowship where there is accountability on a relationship level.

Your obvious tone is a prime example of someone who has been through an abusive leaders control. It can be assumed that you also are sensitive in this area.

I believe that you have taken what I have posted the incorrect way, so I apologize for any wording in my posts that would suggest any harshness.

My whole point has to do with church governmental structure from a biblical percpective, not debating with you over abuse issues. You see, I agree with you 100% about abuses.

I do agree that the pastor has the final say when it comes to implementing the vision, who gets hired or fired, etc. I also believe that a wise pastor seeks out godly counsel, and has mentors in his life to safeguard him from abuses.

As far as your comment "wake up", I will accept that as your frustration, and leave it alone.

To end, I will say that I have been in organizations that are abusive. From the time I was ten until nineteen, I was a part of the Jehovah's witnesses. I have learned to not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. I have seen most pastor lead church's run successfully. I have also seen many board run church's fail for one reason: The board was made up of control freaks.

Many AG church's are pastor lead.

[cybermom (cybermom)]

bear

First of all, I made hasty assumptions about you that were wrong and I apologize for them; if you were involved in the JW's, then you do have first hand experience with cults. You know what it's like to be controlled by those in leadership - in fact, by the entire organization. Reading over my post, I was harsh, and for that too I apologize.

Yes, the whole issue of board led/pastor/ led churches is a hot-button issue for me. I have seen the worst-case senario, and it has definitely made me gun-shy. I don't feel, tho, that an independent board with input is necessarily controlling a pastor; I would like to think it is a form of checks and balances, like the federal government. (ooo, that could be controversial!http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif)

I have had 2 experiences of pastor-led churches; one was part of an umbrella organization, and my current one is AG. Both were/are positive experiences. Perhaps if more churches were part of these types of organizations then most of the issues of controlling/abusing pastors would not exist.

I guess my main concern with boards is that, in the independent churches I attended, they were merely "rubber stamps"; the pastor said it, and they approved it. No questions, no thought, just knee-jerk agreement. They had no authority, knew it, and just went along with the program in EVERY area. They were only there because they had to be, for all the non-profit, churchy stuff. And in my first church, they were AFRAID of the pastor, and of crossing him.

I hope this explains where I'm coming from. I agree with you to a point. We'll probably never see eye to eye, but I do need to be kind, and I realize that my last post to you was not.

Cybermom

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

FOUR YEARS AGO I LEFT A CHURCH THAT HAS MANY, MANY CULTIC ATTRIBUTES. I AM NOW IN A CHURCH WHICH IS A BRANCH CHURCH OF THE A/G AND THEY ARE NOTHING LIKE THE PLACE I LEFT. NO PASTOR WORSHIP. JESUS IS PREMMINATE. OUR PASTOR TEACHES NO SPECIAL DOCTRINES LIKE TOUCH NOT MINE ANNOINTED SO AS TO COVER THE SINS OF THE MINISTRY. THEY PUT THE SUNDAY COLLECTION IN THE FOLLOWING WEEKS BULLETIN FOR ALL TO SEE AND FEEL FREE TO ASK ABOUT ANYHTING YOU WANT TO KNOW. I HAVE BEEN IN THIS CHURCH FOR ABOUT 2 MONTHS AND IT'S AWESOME. GREAT YOUTH LEADERSHIP, AND NOW I AM APPLYING FOR PRISON MINISTRY. THE A/G IS JUST FINE AS FAR AS I CAN SEE. WHEN YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW A REAL CULT OPERATES GO TO THE greater grace site here on FN, THEN YOU MIGHT BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE AND THEY ARE TO MANY TO COUNT. PEACE, GTP

[cybermom (cybermom)]

Amen, GTP

The only churches I've experienced that use the ole "touch not..." cop-out have been abusive, authoritarian cults. From what I read in MY Bible, it says we're all anointed! And a normal pastor leading a healthy church will teach the same.

I'm glad you've found a safe, healthy church. God bless you as you seek to be used by Him.

Cybermom

[bear (bear)]

I have to also agree. I am sickened by the "touch not..." mentality.

It is sad that some pastors are on a power trip that hurts their congregation. It is even more sad that it hurts their staff.

I believe in calling my pastor "Pastor". I do this out of respect for the office he holds. However, whenever a pastor insists on being called by this title, and repremands those who do not, there is a hint of abusive power at the root.

In my years of ministry, I have never insisted that some one call me "Pastor" (I have always served in an Associates role). I do not mind, but I would rather have them call me by my first name, Bear! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[arron (arron)]

i feel that pastore should be honered enough not to be called by their first names, but they should not demand it. and no one should name themselves... aprophet or an apostle and deman that we call them that.

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

THANK YOU EVERYONE,
LOOK, I WAS MARRIED IN THE C.O.G OUT OF CLEVLAND TENNESEE. THEY ARE ALSO ARE NOT A CULT. PENTECOSTAL DOESN'T EQUAL CULT. WHAT DOES IS PASTOR WORSHIP, WHEN THE PASTOR EXCEPTS STANDING "O"'S EVERYTIME HE STEPS ON STAGE, BUT WHEN ASK TO GIVE THE LORD SOME APPLAUSE, THE FOLKS ACT AS IF THEY CAN'T WAIT TO GET IT OVER, AS THEY STAY SEATED. JESUS CHRIST DESERVES THE STANDING "O'S" NOT THE PASTOR'S. I AM A PASTOR, BUT STILL, WHEN I HAVE RECEIEVED A ROUND OF APPLAUSE, I ALWAYS POINTED UP AND SCREAMED HALLEILUJAH, GLORY TO GOD, THANK YOU JESUS. I WOULD NEVER ALLOW ANYONE TO GET CONFUSED ABOUT THAT. ALSO A CULT PUTS PEOPLE IN BONDAGE TO THE BUILDING, THE PULPIT AND A MAN. THOSE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF A CULT.
1. BONDAGE TO A BUILDING: HEB 10:25 IS OFTEN USED TO TELL PEOPLE THAT IF THEY LOVE THE LORD GOD WITH ALL THEIR HEART, MIND, AND DTENGTH, THEN WHEN THE DOORS OPEN THEY WILL NOT FORSAKE THE ASSEMBLY. THEY NEVER TELL YOU THAT THE ASSEMBLY IS ALWAYS WHERE TWO OR MORE ARE GATHERED TOGETHER IN HIS NAME. WHEN THE AUTHOR OF HEBREWS WROTE THAT SCRIPTURE AN ASSEMBLY WAS A HOUSE MEETING. NO PASTORS, JUST ELDERS. NO STARS, JUST BODY MEMBERS. EVERYONE HAD A SONG, A PROHECY, A PSALM E.T.C.

2. PASTORS TALKING ABOUT WHAT A PRIVLEDGE IT IS TO SPEAK FROM A CERTAIN PULPIT, ALUDING TO THE FACT THAT THE PASTOR WHOSE CHURCH THE PULPIT HAPPENS TO BE IN IS SOMETHING SPECIAL. THEY ALSO USE PULPITS FOR PERSONAL GAIN AND AGENDA'S. THE PULPIT IS FOR GOD'S WORD TO BE PREACHED AND TAUGHT. ALSO, IT IS THE LORD'S PULPIT, NOT MAN'S. IF THE LORD OWNS THE CATTLE ON A THOUSAND HILLS, THEN I BELIEVE THE PULPIT IN ANY OF HIS CHURCHES ARE HIS TOO, ALONG WITH ALL THE MEMBERS.
3. BONDAGE TO A MAN: " LET GOD BE TRUE AND EVERY MAN A LIAR." THIS ISN'T SAYING YOUR PASTOR IS A LIAR. WHAT IT DOES SAY IS THAT GOD IS PREMINATE, NOT YOUR PASTOR. GOD IS TO BE EXALTED AND WORSHIPPED, NOT YOUR PASTOR. YOUR PASTOR IS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTIBLE FOR HIS/HER ACTIONS. THEY ARE TO BE TRANSPARENT. 1 TIM GIVES US THE GUIDELINES. ANY PASTOR WHO TELLS YOU THAT HE IS ACCOUNTIBLE TO GOD ALONE, IS A LIAR AND TO BE WATCHED. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THE PASTOR IS TO BE MICROMANAGED, BUT HE SHOULD BE ACCOUNTIBLE AND SHOULD BE AROUND MEN/WOMEN WHO ARE TRUE AMBASSADORS OF CHRIST. A TREE IS KNOWN BY IT'S FRUIT DOESN'T REFER TO THE AMOUNT OF MEMBERS THAT COME OUT TO A PARTICULAR ASSEMBLY MEAN THAT THE CHURCH IS BLESSED BY GOD OR NOT. A PASTOR IS KNOWN BY HIS FRUIT. THE ATTENDANCE OF A CHURCH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PASTOR, BUT WHAT THE LORD IS ALLOWING AT THE TIME. HE WILL BUILD HIS CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHURCH MEMBERSHIP, BUT WHO WHEN STANDING BEFORE THE KING OF KINGS AND THE LORD OF LORDS WILL ENTER INTO THE GLORY OF THE LORD. HIS CHURCH IS HIS BRIDE. WE WILL NEVER KNOW HOW BIG HIS BRIDE REALLY IS, UNTIL IT IS REVEALED. "THERE WILL BE MANY IN THAT DAY WHO WILL SAY TO ME, LORD, LORD, DIDN'T WE......AND I WILL SAY TO THEM, DEPART FROM ME, YOU THAT WORK INIQUITY, I NEVER KNEW YOU." YOU KNOW WHY HE NEVER KNEW THEM? BECCAUSE THEY NEVER TOOK THE TIME TO KNOW HIM, TO BUSY DOING WHAT THEY BELIEVED WAS HIS WORK AND MINISTRY. THE LORD IS SO MUCH MORE INTERSTED IN THE SERVANT, THEN HE IS THE SERVICE. MORE INTERESTED IN THE WORKER, THAN THE WORK. HE CAN MAKE ROCKS CRY OUT, SO HE REALLY DOESN'T NEED US, BUT HE WILL USE US IF WE ARE HUMBLE AND BROKEN BEFORE HIM.
SORRY FOR THE MINI-SERMON. JUST WANTED TO CLEAR UP SOME MISCONCEPTIONS. GONE TO PA. TOM

[bear (bear)]

Tom,

It is easier to read your post if you would use the proper letter case.

True, pastor worship is wrong. However, you are incorrect about the structure of the early church.

A pastor is an "Elder". When you say that theey did not have any pastor's, only elders, you are not exactly correct.

You said that every one had a song, prophecy, psalm, etc. In 1 Corinthians, Paul spoke againt everyone having these things in every meeting.

House church's were just smaller groups of a larger church, e.g., the church in Ephesus under the direction of Timmothy. Timmothy was a pastor, he had other pastor's (elders) who were under his direction. This is a historically documented fact.

[arron (arron)]

no assemblys of GOD are not a cult. it may be some members have cultic tendences but it is not true of the church itself we have members who get absolutly fanatical or weird in some of their beliefs but we are not cultic either. this is found in all churches some who are totally out of it about their way of worship

[sweetsue (sweetsue)]

This thread was suppost to be about the Assemblies of God, and has turned into a rant about Jews, non-jews, Hitler, the Anti-christ, and Lord knows what else. Anyway, back to the thread....

.As someone on the "inside" of one of the largest Southwest US Assemblies of God Churchs, I can tell you that we have been accused of being a cult many times. How can we be? Look at all the worldwide members we have, over 16 million! Just because it says in the Bible that in the last days, many will be decieved and led astray, that doesn't mean AOG members. We believe in restoration when a minister is found out to be on prescription drugs, having an affair with a couple hotties in the chior, or other minor things that are no big deal to God. As for removing them from their duties, we can't do that without being guilty of causing the man to not be able to provide for his household, which according to the Word, makes him worse than an INFIDEL! Bubba, all these people who think that an associate pastor or a Christian counselor who is having a little, harmless affair is worse than many of the people on this thread who gissip, backbite, and spread rumors are mistaken. After all, Satan is the Father of Liars, and God is the God of Love, so who's closer to redemption. Having an evangelist in the pulpit that is on his third wife, and conducting "private social interviews" for his fourth isn't nearly as bad a having a bunch of overweight, middle-aged useless men sitting in the congregation thinking about when the donut shop closes. At least he's doing something constructive along with a little destructive......and that balances out. Don't you think that God would have us live a balanced Christian life?

As far as many of the previous posts about homosexuality, I can personally tell you that our church doesn't believe in removing someone from leadership just because he likes men or boys in "that" way. We believe in restoration, once again, and know that God is a forgiving God, so when a person sins, even a homosexual,
as long as they say "God forgive me", they can go on just as though they had done nothing wrong, because according to the Word, "he who cometh to God will in no-wise be cast out". The verse about "He who covereth his sins shall not prosper" is highly overrated....covereth from whom? I confess my sins, lusts, shortcomings, fantasies, and darkest thoughts to my Pastor, who is a representative of Jesus on earth, and in doing so, I am forgiven by Jesus, and don't have to tell anything to my husband or family, as it is all UNDER THE BLOOD. (I heard that in a sermon, although I can't find the exact scripture anywhere) What my husband, or ex-husband, knows or doesn't know won't hurt him, unless I actually contract some disease or virus from my male church friends, if you know what I mean.

The Assembly of God has been accused of "double Standards" many times....one set of rules for the ministers and one set for the congregation. Of course, all ministers aren't perfect, yet they have to teach the Word anyway, so the rules they teach have to be the right ones. As for the rules they live by, well......like I said, nobody's perfect. How would you like to be judged for all your past or present sins? Most of my girlfriends, some married, most divorced and remarried (some to pastors) lead exemplary Christian lives publicly, but in private, we can talk about all kinds of stuff! I even went last year to a Strip club to see what it was all about......boy, where do they buy those outfits! Anyway, our church endorses just about any "ministry" that someone wants to start to be able to minister to people in various lifestyles. Strippers for Jesus, God's BadBoy Bikers, CJ PUnkRockErs, all kinds of alternative lifestyles, we like them all in our church. How are we going to reach the world if they hate us?
We have to be more appealing in order to attract them, so we duplicate their music, and change the words a little. The old-fashioned idea that Music was made for worship, and that worship belonged only to God is really stupid. When I play soft, sensual ballads, even with Christian lyrics, I can just imagine being caressed by my lover (not my husband), and the lingering smile on my face looks angelic at the least......nobody but me and Jesus ever know.

Just in case you think we are too passive, I want you to know that our church does judge, however. If you want to take communion, you have to let the Pastoral Staff know, and we will tell you if your lifestyle or choices preclude you from taking it. You are not coming here to test our spirits, we are supposed to be checking yours, so our pastors are qualified by their ordination papers with the Assemblies of God to tell you whether you are eligible. Some obscure scripture says "Let a Man examine himself......" but it has been my experience with men in general that they are totally incapable of examining themselves, which is why most of them get married. They need us, we don't need them, we only need Jesus. The whole idea of self-examination by a man is absurd.....why do we need couselors and teachers then? Women, however, are much more in tune with the heart of God because we are emotionally developed beings that tap into heart of God with our hearts, not our heads. This is why many of the new Assemblies of God churches are led by women, who don't need a husband the "lead" them.....we just step over his uselesss carcass and go directly to God for our direction.

Because our pastor doesn't reveal the sins and misdoings of those still in the church, going through a divorce, even if I was the one to file, doesn't keep me from church leadership here. I am free to counsel other women, (and boy, with some of the stuff their husbands are pulling, believe me, they need it!), lead women's ministries, and even act as an emissary to other churches on our churchs' behalf. As long as I stick with my "story" of abuse, neglect and abandonment, I am a strong woman survivor, and have a hope of attracting another man, this time with a little power and money, hopefully.

Anyway, hoped that helped......

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

Bear,
You might want to try reading some stuff by Frank Viola. www.ptmin.org (http://www.ptmin.org) One book in particular is "Rethinking the Wineskins" If you go to the web-site I believe you will find some things that will truly enlighten your experience with the Lord and just as important what it is to function in the Body of Christ.If you go to the web-site go onto the articles thread and look up an article entitled " Where Did The Pastor Come From" Very interesting stuff there!

Sweetsue,
I think it wise to re-read the last 10 posts or so and I think you will find your on the wrong AOG thread.
Shalom all Tom

[bear (bear)]

Tom,

Yhank you for the info.

I have conducted extensive research in regards to the office of a pastor. I am also very well versed in the history of the church, so one website, with one persons opinion, may not put much of a dent in my dogma.

Having been a pastor for many years, I understand what it takes to make a church grow, numerically and healthy. Growth is "fruit"; it is expected.

As I have traveled around the world, I KNOW the function of the body of Christ. That is why I continue to serve Him.

Thank you again.

[bear (bear)]

Sweet Sue:

1. Your view of men is unbiblical.

2. You have bitterness and unforgivness in your heart. It shines very brightly. This will eventually hurt you.

3. If you filed for a divorce, you should be removed from ministry.

4. Women are not more in tune with God. That is absurd, unbiblical, and coming from a heart full of bitterness.

5. Your liberal theological view is going to backfire one of these days.

[arron (arron)]

all i will say is the the assembly of GOD is not a cultic. there have been many ordained by the assemblies that have left and gone off and started their own, i repeat 'THEIR OWN churches. and teach things contrary to the assemblies theaching and standard, but the assemblies are not a cult. a lot of others in all kinds of churches have done the same starting a work and teaching contray to what they were taught to begin with. when a man get it in his head that he is better than the pastor then he starts a new work and forsakes the teaching of the ones who taught him to live right.

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

Bear,
Thank you for writing back. I say this with all respect. We can all learn. Being a Pastor for years does not give us a lock on truth. I ask you to not only go to thuis web-site, but to investigate what the man says. I have checked him out and the verses he uses in defense of his position. Do I agree with everything he says. No, but we need to be entreatible, teachible and not have the attitude that our "DOGMA" as you put it can not be swayed or influenced because we know it all. I too am a Pastor, who has studied many years and I again will ask you to go back to the above web-site and tell me what is wrong. If you think that after reading Franks work that it is easy for a "PASTOR" ( oh wow)" to admit that his job isn't as important as he might have seen it, well my friend, you have another thing coming.I respond to truth and this man speaks truth. Did you even read the article I pointed out? Tell me where the man lie's. Also you told me that Paul says in 1 Cor, that we are not all to come together with a song, a psalm etc. Please give me verse. I want to see what you are talking about. Have you read "Rethinking the Winskins" or anything on the "Emerging Church"? My friend, a Pastor is not more special than anyone in Christ body. Go to www.xenos.org (http://www.xenos.org) and you'll see a thriving of over 15,000 that didn't have a "building" for over ten years. They made it without a Senior Pastor. They didn't make it without elders. In Him Tom. Why does it make it easier to read when I don't capitalize? First time I have heard this. I have seen many jump on folks about using that type of lettering with BOLD print, but not otherwise. Teach us Pastor, I'm all ears.

"Growth is Fruit" What kind of fruit? You failed to mention that. Please don't tell me growth is fruit unless you can tell me that many mega-churches are as off as Jim Jones was. That isn't fruit, fruit is what is produced in the believers life...the fruit of the spirit. I have never heard of the fruit of church growth. Pastor could it be that you have read too much of Carl F George's " Prepare Your Church for the Future"? Again thank you. What's that?
The Pastor is in the Bible . . . Right?

The word “Pastors” does appear in the NT:

And he gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as PASTORS and teachers (Ephesians 4:11, NASB).

The following observations are to be made about this text.

* This is the only verse in the NT where the word “Pastor” is used.[3] One solitary verse is a mighty scanty piece of evidence on which to hang the entire Protestant faith! In this regard, there is more Biblical authority for snake handling than there is for the modern Pastor. (Mark 16:18 and Acts 28:3-6 both mention handling snakes. So snake handling wins out two verses to one verse.)[4]

* The word is used in the plural. It is “Pastors.” This is significant. For whoever these “Pastors” are, they are plural in the church, not singular. Consequently, there is no Biblical support for the practice of Sola Pastora (single Pastor).

* The Greek word translated “Pastors” is poimen. It means shepherds. (“Pastor” is the Latin word for shepherd.) “Pastor,” then, is a metaphor to describe a particular function in the church. It is not an office or a title.[5] A first-century shepherd had nothing to do with the specialized and professional sense it has come to have in modern Christianity. Therefore, Ephesians 4:11 does not envision a pastoral office, but merely one of many functions in the church. Shepherds are those who naturally provide nurture and care for God’s sheep. It is a profound error, therefore, to confuse shepherds with an office or title as is commonly conceived today.[6]

* At best, this text is oblique. It offers absolutely no definition or description of who Pastors are. It simply mentions them. Regrettably, we have filled this word with our own Western concept of what a Pastor is. We have read the modern idea of the modern Pastor back into the NT. Never in the imagination of a hallucinating man would any first-century Christian conceive of the modern pastoral office! Catholics have made the same error with the word “priest.” You can find the word “priest” used in the NT to refer to a Christian three times.[7] Yet a priest in the first-century church was a far cry from the man who dresses in black and wears a backwards collar!

Richard Hanson makes this point plain when he says, “For us the words bishops, presbyters, and deacons are stored with the associations of nearly two thousand years. For the people who first used them the titles of these offices can have meant little more than inspectors, older men and helpers . . . it was when unsuitable theological significance began to be attached to them that the distortion of the concept of Christian ministry began.”[8]

In my books Rethinking the Wineskin and Who is Your Covering?, I show that first-century shepherds were the local elders (presbyters)[9] and overseers of the church.[10] And their function was completely at odds with the modern pastoral role.[11]

Where Did He Come From?

If the modern Pastor was absent from the early church, where did he come from? And how did he rise to such a prominent position in the Christian faith? It is a painful tale, the roots of which are tangled and complex. Those roots reach as far back as the fall of man.

With the fall came an implicit desire in man to have a physical leader to bring him to God. For this reason, human societies throughout history have consistently created a special spiritual caste of religious icons. The medicine man, the shaman, the rhapsodist, the miracle worker, the witch-doctor, the soothsayer, the wise-man, and the priest have all been with us since Adam’s blunder.[12]

Fallen man has always had the desire to erect a special priestly caste who is uniquely endowed to beseech the gods on his behalf.[13] This quest is in our bloodstream. It lives in the marrow of our bones. As fallen creatures, we seek a person who is endowed with special spiritual powers. And that person is always marked by special training, special garb, a special vocabulary, and a special way of life.[14]

We can see this instinct rear its ugly head in the history of ancient Israel. It made its first appearance during the time of Moses. Two servants of the Lord, Eldad and Medad, received God’s Spirit and began to prophesy. In hasty response, a young zealot urged Moses to “restrain them!”[15] Moses reproved the young suppressor saying that all of God’s people may prophesy. Moses had set himself against a clerical spirit that had tried to control God’s people.

We see it again when Moses ascended Mount Horeb. The people wanted Moses to be a physical mediator between them and God. For they feared a personal relationship with the Almighty.[16]

This fallen instinct made another appearance during the time of Samuel. God wanted His people to live under His direct Headship. But Israel clamored for a human king instead.[17]

The seeds of the modern Pastor can even be detected in the NT era. Diotrephes, who “loved to the have the preeminence” in the church, illegitimately took control of its affairs.[18] In addition, some scholars have suggested that the doctrine of the Nicolaitans that Jesus condemns in Revelation 2:6 is a reference to the rise of an early clergy.[19]

Alongside of man’s fallen quest for a human spiritual mediator is his obsession with the hierarchical form of leadership. All ancient cultures were hierarchical in their social structures to one degree or another. Regrettably, the post-apostolic Christians adopted and adapted these structures into their church life as we shall see.

The Birth of One-Bishop-Rule

Up until the second century, the church had no official leadership. In this regard, the first-century churches were an oddity indeed. They were religious groups without priest, temple, or sacrifice.[20] The Christians themselves led the church under Christ’s direct Headship.

Among the flock were the elders (shepherds or overseers). These men all stood on an equal footing. There was no hierarchy among them.[21]Also present were extra-local workers who planted churches. These were called “sent-ones” or apostles. But they did not take up residency in the churches for which they cared. Nor did they control them.[22] The vocabulary of NT leadership allows no pyramidal structures. It is rather a language of horizontal relationships that includes exemplary action.[23]

This was all true until Ignatius of Antioch (35-107) stepped on the stage. Ignatius was the first figure in church history to take the initial step down the slippery slope toward a single leader in the church. We can trace the origin of the modern Pastor and church hierarchy to him.

Ignatius elevated one of the elders above all the others. The elevated elder was now called “the bishop.” All the responsibilities that belonged to the college of elders were exercised by the bishop.[24]

In A.D. 107, Ignatius wrote a series of letters when on his way to be martyred in Rome. Six out of seven of these letters strike the same chord. They are filled with an exaggerated exaltation of the authority and importance of the bishop’s office.[25]

According to Ignatius, the bishop has ultimate power and should be obeyed absolutely. Consider the following excerpts from his letters: “All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father . . . No one is to do any church business without the bishop . . . Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be . . . You yourselves must never act independently of your bishop and clergy. You should look on your bishop as a type of the Father . . . Whatever he approves, that is pleasing to God . . . ”[26]

For Ignatius, the bishop stood in the place of God while the presbyters stood in the place of the twelve apostles.[27] It fell to the bishop alone to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, conduct baptisms, give counsel, discipline church members, approve marriages, and preach sermons.[28]

The elders sat with the bishop at the Lord’s Supper. But it was the bishop who presided over it. He took charge of leading public prayers and ministry.[29] Only in the most extreme cases could a so-called “layman” take the Lord’s Supper without the bishop present.[30] For the bishop, said Ignatius, must “preside” over the elements and distribute them.

To Ignatius’ mind, the bishop was the remedy for dispelling false doctrine and establishing church unity.[31] Ignatius believed that if the church would survive the onslaught of heresy, it had to develop a rigid power structure patterned after the centralized political structure of Rome.[32] Single-bishop-rule would rescue the church from heresy and internal strife.[33]

Historically this is known as the “monoepiscopate” or “the monarchical episcopacy.” It is the type of organization where the bishop is distinguished from the elders (the presbytery) and ranks above them.

At the time of Ignatius, the one-bishop-rule had not caught on in other regions.[34] But by the mid-second century, this model was firmly established in most churches.[35] By the end of the third century, it prevailed everywhere.[36]

The bishop eventually became the main administrator and distributor of the church’s wealth.[37] He was the man responsible for teaching the faith and knowing what Christianity was all about.[38] The congregation, once active, was now rendered deaf and mute. The saints merely watched the bishop perform.

In effect, the bishop became the solo Pastor of the church[39]—the professional in common worship.[40] He was seen as the spokesperson and head of the congregation. The one through whose hands ran all the threads of control. All of these roles made the bishop the forerunner of the modern Pastor.

From Presbyter to Priest

By the mid-third century, the authority of the bishop had hardened into a fixed office.[41] Then Cyprian of Carthage (200-258) appeared, furthering the damage.

Cyprian was a former pagan orator and teacher of rhetoric.[42] When he became a Christian, he began to write prolifically. But some of Cyprian’s pagan ideas were never abandoned.

Due to Cyprian’s influence, the door was open to resurrect the Old Testament economy of priests, temples, altars, and sacrifices.[43] Bishops began to be called “priests,”[44] a custom that became common by the third century.[45] They were also called “Pastors” on occasion.[46] In the third century, every church had its own bishop.[47] And bishops and presbyters together started to be called “the clergy.”[48]

The origin of the unbiblical doctrine of “covering” can be laid at the feet of Cyprian also.[49] Cyprian taught that the bishop has no superior but God. He was accountable to God alone. Anyone who separates himself from the bishop separates himself from God.[50] Cyprian also taught that a portion of the Lord’s flock was assigned to each individual shepherd (bishop).[51]

After the Council of Nicea (325), bishops began to delegate the responsibility of the Lord’s Supper to the presbyters.[52] Presbyters were little more than deputies of the bishop, exercising his authority in his churches.

Because the presbyters were the ones administering the Lord’s Supper, they began to be called “priests.”[53] More startling, the bishop came to be regarded as “the high priest” who could forgive sins![54] All of these trends obscured the NT reality that all believers are priests unto God.

By the fourth century, this graded hierarchy dominated the Christian faith.[55] The clergy caste was now cemented. At the head of the church stood the bishop. Under him was the college of presbyters. Under them stood the deacons.[56] And under all of them crawled the poor, miserable “laymen.” One-bishop-rule became the accepted form of church government throughout the Roman Empire. (During this time, certain churches began to exercise authority over other churches—thus broadening the hierarchical structure.)[57]

By the end of the fourth century, the bishops walked with the great. They were given tremendous privileges. They got involved in politics which separated them further from the presbyters.[58] In his attempts to strengthen the bishop’s office, Cyprian argued for an unbroken succession of bishops that traced back to Peter.[59] This idea is known as “apostolic succession.”[60]

Throughout his writings, Cyprian employs the official language of the Old Testament priesthood to justify this practice.[61] Like Tertullian (160-225) and Hippolytus (170-236) before him, Cyprian used the term sacerdotes to describe the presbyters and bishops.[62] But he went a step further.

It is upon Cyprian’s lap that we can lay the non-NT concept of sacerdotalism—the belief that there exists a Divinely appointed person to meditate between God and the people. Cyprian argued that because the Christian clergy are priests who offer the holy sacrifice (the Eucharist) they are sacrosanct (holy) themselves![63]

We can also credit Cyprian with the notion that when the priest offers the Eucharist, he is actually offering up the death of Christ on behalf of the congregation.[64] To Cyprian’s mind, the body and blood of Christ are once again sacrificed through the Eucharist.[65] Consequently, it is in Cyprian that we find the seeds of the medieval Catholic Mass.[66] This idea widened the wedge between clergy and laity. It also created an unhealthy dependence of the laity upon the clergy.

The Role of the Priest

Up until the Middle Ages, the presbyters (now commonly called “priests”) played second fiddle to the bishop. But during the Middle Ages there was a shift. The presbyters began to represent the priesthood while the bishops were occupied with political duties.[67] The parish (local) priests became more central to the life of the church than the bishop.[68] It was the priest who now stood in God’s place and controlled the sacraments.

As Latin became the common language in the mid-fourth century, the priest would invoke the words hoc est corpus meum. These Latin words mean “This is my body.”

With these words, the priest became the overseer of the supercilious hokum that began to mark the Catholic Mass. Ambrose of Milan (339-397) can be credited for the idea that the mere utterance of hoc est corpus meum magically converted bread and wine into the Lord’s physical body and blood.[69] (The stage magic phrase “hocus pocus” comes from hoc est corpus meum.) According to Ambrose, the priest was endowed with special powers to call God down out of heaven into bread!

Because of his sacramental function, the word presbyteros came to mean sacerdos (priest). Consequently, when the Latin word “presbyter” was taken into English, it had the meaning of “priest” rather than “elder.”[70] Thus in the Roman Catholic church, “priest” was the widely used term to refer to the local presbyter.

The Influence of Greco-Roman Culture

The Greco-Roman culture that surrounded the early Christians reinforced the graded hierarchy that was slowly infiltrating the church. Greco-Roman culture was hierarchical by nature. This influence seeped into the church when new converts brought their cultural baggage into the believing community.[71]

Human hierarchy and “official” ministry institutionalized the church of Jesus Christ. By the fourth century, these elements hardened the arteries of the once living, breathing ekklesia of God—within which ministry was functional, Spirit-led, organic, and shared by all believers.

But how and why did this happen?

We may trace it to the time of the death of the itinerant apostolic workers (church planters). In the late first and early second centuries, local presbyters began to emerge as the resident “successors” to the unique leadership role played by the apostolic workers.[72] This gave rise to a single leading figure in each church.[73] Without the influence of the extra-local workers who had been mentored by the NT apostles, the church began to drift toward the organizational patterns of her surrounding culture.[74]

Prominent teachers in the church who had adopted pagan thinking also had a great influence. Following on the heels of Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian made the case that the organization of the church should be modeled after the Roman Empire. As a result, imperialism and an impregnable hierarchy made inroads into the Christian faith.[75]

As we have already seen, the role of the bishop began to change from being the head of a local church to becoming the representative of everybody in a given area.[76] Bishops ruled over the churches just like Roman governors ruled over their provinces.[77] Eventually, the bishop of Rome was given the most authority of all and finally evolved into the “Pope.”[78]

Thus between the years A.D. 100 and A.D. 300, church leadership came to be patterned after the leadership of the Roman government.[79] And the hierarchy of the Old Testament was used to justify it.[80] The one-bishop-rule had swallowed up the priesthood of all believers.

Ignatius effectively made the bishop the local authority. Cyprian made him a representative of all the churches by his doctrine of apostolic succession.[81]

Constantine and Roman Hierarchy

Keep in mind that the social world into which Christianity spread was governed by a single ruler—the Emperor. Soon after Constantine took the throne in the early fourth century, the church became a full-fledged, top-down, hierarchically organized society.[82]

Edwin Hatch writes, “For the most part the Christian churches associated themselves together upon the lines of the Roman Empire[83] . . . The development of the organization of the Christian churches was gradual [and] the elements of which that organization were composed were already existing in human society.”[84]

We can trace the hierarchical leadership structure as early as ancient Egypt, Babylon, and Persia.[85] It was later carried over into the Greek and Roman culture where it was perfected.

Historian D.C. Trueman writes, “The Persians made two outstanding contributions to the ancient world: The organization of their empire and their religion. Both of these contributions have had considerable influence on our western world. The system of imperial administration was inherited by Alexander the Great, adopted by the Roman Empire, and eventually bequeathed to modern Europe.”[86]

Will Durant makes a similar point saying that Christianity “grew by the absorption of pagan faith and ritual; it became a triumphant church by inheriting the organizing patterns and genius of Rome . . . As Judea had given Christianity ethics, and

Greece had given it theology, so now Rome gave it organization; all these, with a dozen absorbed and rival faiths, entered into the Christian synthesis.”[87]

By the fourth century, the church followed in the same steps of the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine organized the church into dioceses along the pattern of the Roman regional districts.[88] (The word “diocese” was a secular term that referred to the larger administrative units of the Roman Empire.)[89] Later, Pope Gregory shaped the ministry of the entire church after Roman Law.[90]

Again Durant laments, “When Christianity conquered Rome the ecclesiastical structure of the pagan church, the title and vestments of the pontifex maximus . . . and the pageantry of immemorial ceremony, passed like maternal blood into the new religion, and captive Rome captured her conqueror.”[91]

All of this was at gross odds with God’s way for His church. When Jesus entered the drama of human history, He obliterated both the religious professional icon as well as the hierarchical form of leadership.[92] As an extension of Christ’s nature and mission, the early church was the first “lay-led” movement in history. But with the death of the apostles and the men they trained, things began to change.[93]

Since that time, the church of Jesus Christ has sought its pattern for church organization from the societies in which it has been placed. This despite our Lord’s warning that He would be initiating a new society with a unique character.[94] In striking contrast to the Old Testament provisions made at Mt. Sinai, neither Jesus nor Paul imposed any fixed organizational patterns for the New Israel.

Constantine and the Glorification of the Clergy

From A.D. 313-325, Christianity was no longer a struggling religion trying to survive the Roman government. It was basking in the sun of imperialism, loaded with money and status.[95] To be a Christian under Constantine’s reign was no longer a handicap. It was an advantage. It was fashionable to become a part of the Emperor’s religion. And to be among the clergy was to receive the greatest of advantages.[96]

Constantine exalted the clergy. In A.D. 313, he gave the Christian clergy exemption from paying taxes—something that pagan priests had traditionally enjoyed.[97] He also made them exempt from mandatory public office and other civic duties.[98] They were freed from being tried by secular courts and from serving in the army.[99] (Bishops could be tried only by a bishop’s court, not by ordinary law courts.)[100]

In all these things the clergy was given special class status. Constantine was the first to use the words “clerical” and “clerics” to depict a higher social class.[101] He also felt that the Christian clergy deserved the same privileges as governmental officials. So bishops sat in judgment like secular judges.[102]

Clergymen received the same honors as the highest officials of the Roman Empire and even the Emperor himself.[103] The brute fact is that Constantine gave the bishops of Rome more power than he gave Roman governors![104] He also ordered that the clergy receive fixed annual allowances (ministerial pay)!

The net result of this was alarming: The clergy had the prestige of church office-bearers, the privileges of a favored class, and the power of a wealthy elite.[105] They had become an isolated class with a separate civil status and way of life. (This included clergy celibacy.)[106]

They even dressed and groomed differently from the common people.[107] Bishops and priests shaved their heads. This practice, known as the tonsure, comes from the old Roman ceremony of adoption. All those who had shaved heads were known as “clerks” or “clergy.”[108] They also began wearing the clothes of Roman officials.[109]

It should come as no surprise that so many people in Constantine’s day experienced a sudden “call to the ministry.”[110] To their minds, being a church officer had become more of a career than a calling.[111]

A False Dichotomy

Under Constantine, Christianity was both recognized and honored by the State. This blurred the line between the church and the world. The Christian faith was no longer a minority religion. Instead, it was protected by Emperors. As a consequence, church membership grew rapidly. Truck loads of new converts were made who were barely converted. They brought into the church a wide variety of pagan ideas. In the words of Will Durant, “While Christianity converted the world; the world converted Christianity, and displayed the natural paganism of mankind.”[112]

As we have already seen, the practices of the mystery religions began to be employed into the church’s worship.[113] And the pagan notion of the dichotomy between the sacred and profane found its way into the Christian mindset.[114] It can be rightfully said that the clergy/laity class distinction grew out of this very dichotomy. The Christian life was now being divided into two parts: Secular and spiritual—sacred and profane.

But by the fourth century, this false idea was universally embraced by Christians. And it led to the profoundly mistaken idea that there are sacred professions (a call to the “ministry”) and ordinary professions (a call to a worldly vocation).[115] Historian Philip Schaff rightly describes these factors as creating “the secularization of the church” where the “pure stream of Christianity” had become polluted.[116] Take note that this mistaken dichotomy still lives in the minds of most believers today. But the concept is pagan, not Christian. It ruptures the NT reality that everyday life is sanctified by God.[117]

Clement of Rome (died in 100) was the first Christian writer to make a distinction in status between Christian leaders and non-leaders. He is the first to use the word “laity” in contrast to ministers.[118] Clement argued that the Old Testament order of priests should find fulfillment in the Christian church.[119]

Tertullian is the first writer to use the word “clergy” to refer to a separate class of Christians.[120] Both Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria (150-215) popularized the word “clergy” in their writings.[121]

By the third century, the clergy/laity gap widened to the point of no return.[122] Clergymen were the trained leaders of the church—the guardians of orthodoxy—the rulers and teachers of the people. They possessed gifts and graces not available to lesser mortals.

The laity were the second-class, untrained Christians. The great theologian Karl Barth rightly said, “The term ‘laity’ is one of the worst in the vocabulary of religion and ought to be banished from the Christian conversation.”[123]

The terms “clergy” and “laity” do not appear in the NT.[124] Neither does the concept that there are those who do ministry (clergy) and those to whom ministry is done (laity). Thus what we have in Tertullian and the two Clements is a clear break from the first-century Christian mindset where all believers shared the same status.

The distinction between clergy and laity—pulpiteer and pew-sitter—belongs to the other side of the cross. With the New Covenant in Christ, clergy and laity are abolished. There is only the people of God.

Along with these mindset changes came a new vocabulary. Christians began to adopt the vocabulary of the pagan cults. The title pontifex (pontiff, a pagan title) became a common term for Christian clergy in the fourth century. So did “Master of Ceremonies,” and “Grand Master of the Lodge.”[125] All of this reinforced the mystique of the clergy as the custodians of the mysteries of God.[126]

By the fifth century, the thought of the priesthood of all believers had completely disappeared from the Christian horizon. Access to God was now controlled by the clergy caste. Clerical celibacy began to be enforced. Infrequent communion became a regular habit of the so-called laity. The church building was now veiled with incense and smoke. Clergy prayers were said in secret. And the small but profoundly significant screen that separated clergy from laity was introduced.

In a word, by the end of the fourth century on into the fifth, the clergy had become a sacerdotal caste—a spiritually elite group of “holy men.”[127] This leads us to the thorny subject of ordination.

The Fallacy of Ordination

In the fourth century, theology and ministry were the domain of the priests. Work and war were the domain of the laity.[128] What was the rite of passage into the sacred realm of the priest? Ordination.[129]

Before we examine the historical roots of ordination, let us look at how leadership was recognized in the early church. The apostolic workers (church planters) of the first century would revisit a church after a period of time. In some of those churches, the workers would publicly acknowledge elders. In every case, the elders were already “in place” before they were publicly endorsed.[130]

Elders naturally emerged in a church through the process of time. They were not appointed to an external office.[131] Instead, they were recognized by virtue of their seniority and contribution to the church. According to the NT, recognition of certain gifted members is something that is instinctive and organic.[132] There is an internal principle within every believer of recognizing the various ministries in the church.

Strikingly, there are only three passages in the NT that tell us that elders were publicly recognized. Elders were acknowledged in the churches in Galatia. Paul told Timothy to acknowledge elders in Ephesus. He also told Titus to recognize them in the churches in Crete.

The words “ordain” (KJV) in these passages do not mean to place into office.[133] They rather carry the idea of endorsing, affirming, and showing forth what has already been happening.[134] They also carry the thought of blessing.[135] Public recognition of elders and other ministries was typically accompanied by the laying on of hands by apostolic workers. (In the case of workers being sent out, this was done by the church or the elders.)[136]

In the first century, the laying on of hands merely meant the endorsement or affirmation of a function, not the installment into an office or the giving of special status. Regrettably, it came to mean the latter in the late second and early third centuries.[137]

During the third century, “ordination” took on an entirely different meaning. It was a formalized Christian rite.[138] By the fourth century, the ceremony of ordination was embellished by symbolic garments and solemn ritual.[139] Ordination produced an ecclesiastical caste that usurped the believing priesthood.

From where do you suppose the Christians got their pattern of ordination? They patterned their ordination ceremony after the Roman custom of appointing men to civil office.[140] The entire process down to the very words came straight from the Roman civic world![141]

By the fourth century, the terms used for appointment to Roman office and for Christian ordination became synonymous.[142] When Constantine made Christianity the religion of choice, church leadership structures were now buttressed by political sanction. The forms of the Old Testament priesthood were combined with Greek hierarchy.[143] Sadly, the church was secure in this new form—just as it is today.

Augustine (293-373) lowered the bar more by teaching that ordination confers a “definite irremovable imprint” on the priest that empowers him to fulfill his priestly functions![144] For Augustine, ordination was a permanent possession that could not be revoked.[145]

Christian ordination, then, came to be understood as that which constitutes the essential difference between clergy and laity. By it, the clergy was empowered to administer the sacraments. It was believed that the priest, who performs the Divine service, should be the most perfect and holy of all Christians.[146]

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389) and Chrysostom (347-407) raised the standard so high for priests that danger loomed for them if they failed to live up to the holiness of their service.[147] According to Chrysostom, the priest is like an angel. He is not made of the same frail stuff as the rest of men![148]

How was the priest to live in such a state of pure holiness? How was he to be worthy to serve in “the choir of angels”? The answer was ordination. By ordination, the stream of Divine graces flowed into the priest, making him a fit vessel for God’s use. This idea, also known as “sacerdotal endowment,” first appears in Gregory of Nyssa (330-395).

Gregory argued that ordination makes the priest, “invisibly but actually a different, better man,” raising him high above the laity.[149] “The same power of the word,” says Gregory, “makes the priest venerable and honorable, separated . . . While but yesterday he was one of the mass, one of the people, he is suddenly rendered a guide, a president, a teacher of righteousness, an instructor in hidden mysteries . . .”[150]

Listen to the words of one fourth century document: “The bishop, he is the minister of the Word, the keeper of knowledge, the mediator between God and you in several parts of your Divine worship . . . He is your ruler and governor . . . He is next after God your earthly god, who has a right to be honored by you.”[151]

Through ordination, the priest (or bishop) was granted special Divine powers to offer the sacrifice of the Mass. Ordination also made him a completely separate and holy class of man![152] Priests came to be identified as the “vicars of God on the earth.” They became part of a special order of men. An order set apart from the so-called “lay members” of the church.

To show this difference, both the priest’s life-style and dress were different from that of laymen.[153] Regrettably, this concept of ordination has never left the Christian faith. It is alive and well in modern Christianity. In fact, if you are wondering why and how the modern Pastor got to be so exalted as the “holy man of God,” these are his roots.

Eduard Schweizer, in his classic work Church Order in the New Testament, argues that Paul knew nothing about an ordination that confers ministerial or clerical powers to a Christian.[154] First-century shepherds (elders, overseers) did not receive anything that resembles modern ordination. They were not set above the rest of the flock. They were those who served among them.[155]

First-century elders were merely endorsed publicly by outside workers as being those who cared for the church. Such acknowledgment was simply the recognition of a function. It did not confer special powers. Nor was it a permanent possession as Augustine believed.

The modern practice of ordination creates a special caste of Christian. Whether it be the priest in Catholicism or the Pastor in Protestantism, the result is the same: The most important ministry is closeted among a few “special” believers.

Such an idea is as damaging as it is nonscriptural. The NT nowhere limits preaching, baptizing, or distributing the Lord’s Supper to the “ordained.”[156] Eminent scholar James D.G. Dunn put it best when he said that the clergy-laity tradition has done more to undermine NT authority than most heresies![157]

Since church office could only be held through the rite of ordination, the power to ordain became the crucial issue in holding religious authority. The Biblical context was lost. And proof-texting methods were used to justify the clergy/laity hierarchy.[158] The ordinary believer, generally uneducated and ignorant, was at the mercy of a professional clergy![159]

The Reformation

The Reformers of the 16th century brought the Catholic priesthood sharply into question. They attacked the idea that the priest had special powers to convert wine into blood. They rejected apostolic succession. They encouraged the clergy to marry. They revised the liturgy to give the congregation more participation. They also abolished the office of the bishop and reduced the priest back to a presbyter.[160]

Unfortunately, however, the Reformers carried the Roman Catholic clergy/laity distinction straight into the Protestant movement. They also kept the Catholic idea of ordination.[161] Although they abolished the office of the bishop, they resurrected the one-bishop-rule, clothing it in new garb.

The rallying cry of the Reformation was the restoration of the priesthood of all believers. However, this restoration was only partial. Luther (1483-1546), Calvin (1509-1564), and Zwingli (1484-1531) affirmed the believing priesthood with respect to one’s individual relationship to God. They rightly taught that every Christian has direct access to God without the need of a human mediator. This was a wonderful restoration. But it was one-sided.

What the Reformers failed to do was to recover the corporate dimension of the believing priesthood. They restored the doctrine of the believing priesthood soteriologically—i.e., as it related to salvation. But they failed to restore it ecclesiologically—i.e., as it related to the church.[162]

In other words, the Reformers only recovered the priesthood of the believer (singular). They reminded us that every Christian has individual and immediate access to God. As wonderful as that is, they did not recover the priesthood of all believers (collective plural). This is the blessed truth that every Christian is part of a clan that shares God’s Word one with another. (It was the Anabaptists who recovered this practice. Regrettably, this recovery was one of the reasons why Protestant and Catholic swords were red with Anabaptist blood.)[163]

While the Reformers opposed the Pope and his religious hierarchy, they still held to the narrow view of ministry which they inherited. They believed that “ministry” was an institution that was closeted among the few who were “called” and “ordained.”[164] Thus the Reformers still affirmed the clergy-laity split. Only in their rhetoric did they state that all believers were priests and ministers. In their practice they denied it. So after the smoke cleared from the Reformation, we ended up with the same thing that the Catholics gave us—a selective priesthood!

Luther held to the idea that those who preach needed to be specially trained.[165] Like the Catholics, the Reformers held that only the “ordained minister” could preach, baptize, and administer the Lord’s Supper.[166] As a result, ordination gave the minister a special aura of Divine favor that could not be questioned.

Tragically, Luther and the other Reformers violently denounced the Anabaptists for practicing every-member functioning in the church.[167] The Anabaptists believed it was every Christian’s right to stand up and speak in a meeting. It was not the domain of the clergy. Luther was so opposed to this practice that he said it came from “the pit of hell” and those who were guilty of it should be put to death![168] (Behold your heritage dear Protestant Christian!)

In short, the Reformers retained the idea that ordination was the key to having power in the church. It was the ordained minister’s duty to convey God’s revelation to His people.[169] And he was paid for this role.

Like the Catholic priest, the Reformed minister was viewed by the church as the “man of God”—the paid mediator between God and His people.[170] Not a mediator to forgive sins, but a mediator to communicate the Divine will.[171] So in Protestantism an old problem took on a new form. The jargon changed, but the poison remained.

From Priest to Pastor

John Calvin did not like the word “priest” to refer to ministers.[172] He preferred the term “Pastor.”[173] In Calvin’s mind, “Pastor” was the highest word one could use for ministry. He liked it because the Bible referred to Jesus Christ, “the great Shepherd of the sheep” (Heb. 13:20).[174] Ironically, Calvin believed that he was restoring the NT bishop (episkopos) in the person of the Pastor![175]

Luther also did not like the word “priest” to define the new Protestant ministers. He wrote, “We neither can nor ought to give the name priest to those who are in charge of the Word and sacrament among the people. The reason they have been called priests is either because of the custom of the heathen people or as a vestige of the Jewish nation. The result is injurious to the church.”[176] So he too adopted the terms “preacher,” “minister,” and “Pastor” to refer to this new office.

Zwingli and Martin Bucer (1491-1551) also favored the word “Pastor.” They wrote popular treatises on it.[177]As a result, the term began to permeate the churches of the Reformation.[178] However, given their obsession with preaching, the Reformers’ favorite term for the minister was “preacher.”[179] And this was what the common people generally called them.[180]

It was not until the 18th century that the term “Pastor” came into common use, eclipsing “preacher” and “minister.”[181] This influence came from the Lutheran Pietists.[182] Since then the term has become widespread in mainstream Christianity.[183]

Even so, the Reformers elevated the Pastor to be the functioning head of the church. According to Calvin, “The pastoral office is necessary to preserve the church on earth in a greater way than the sun, food, and drink are necessary to nourish and sustain the present life.”[184]

The Reformers believed that the Pastor possessed Divine power and authority. He did not speak in his own name, but in the name of God. Calvin further reinforced the primacy of the Pastor by treating acts of contempt or ridicule toward the minister as serious public offenses.[185]

This should come as no surprise when you realize what Calvin took as his model for ministry. He did not take the church of the apostolic age. Instead, he took as his pattern the one-bishop-rule of the second century![186] This was true for the other Reformers as well.[187]

The irony here is that John Calvin bemoaned the Roman Catholic church because it built its practices on “human inventions” rather than on the Bible.[188] But Calvin did the same thing! In this regard, Protestants are just as guilty as are Catholics. Both denominations base their practices on human tradition.

Calvin taught that the preaching of the Word of God and the proper administration of the sacraments are the marks of a true church.[189] To his mind, preaching, baptism, and the Eucharist were to be carried out by the Pastor and not the congregation.[190] For all the Reformers, the primary function of a minister is preaching.[191]

Like Calvin, Luther also made the Pastor a separate and exalted office. While he argued that the keys of the kingdom belonged to all believers, Luther confined their use to those who held offices in the church.[192] “We are all priests,” said Luther, “insofar as we are Christians, but those whom we call priests are ministers selected from our midst to act in our name, and their priesthood is our ministry.”[193]

Sadly, Luther believed that all are in the priesthood, but not all can exercise the priesthood.[194] This is sacerdotalism, pure and simple. Luther broke from the Catholic camp in that he rejected a sacrificing priesthood. But in its place, he believed that the ministry of God’s Word belonged to a special order.[195]

The following are characteristic statements made by Luther in his exaltation of the Pastor: “God speaks through the preacher . . . A Christian preacher is a minister of God who is set apart, yea, he is an angel of God, a very bishop sent by God, a savior of many people, a king and prince in the Kingdom of Christ . . . There is nothing more precious or nobler in the earth and in this life than a true, faithful parson or preacher.”[196]

Said Luther, “We should not permit our pastor to speak Christ’s words by himself as though he were speaking them for his own person; rather, he is the mouth of all of us and we all speak them with him in our hearts . . . It is a wonderful thing that the mouth of every pastor is the mouth of Christ, therefore you ought to listen to the pastor not as a man, but as God.”[197] You can hear the echoes of Ignatius ringing through the words of Luther.

These ideas corrupted Luther’s view of the church. He felt it was nothing more than a preaching station. “The Christian congregation,” said Luther, “never should assemble unless God’s Word is preached and prayer is made, no matter for how brief a time this may be.”[198] Luther believed that the church is simply a gathering of people who listen to preaching. For this reason, he called the church building a Mundhaus, which means a mouth or speech-house![199] He also made this statement: “The ears are the only organs of a Christian.”[200]

Dear Protestant Christian, behold your roots!

The Cure of Souls

Both Calvin and Luther shared the view that the two key functions of the Pastor were the proclamation of the Word (preaching) and the celebration of the Eucharist (communion). But Calvin added a third element. He emphasized that the Pastor had a duty to provide care and healing to the congregation.[201] This is known as the “cure of souls.”

The “cure of souls” goes back to the fourth and fifth centuries.[202] We find it in the teaching of Gregory of Nazianzus. Gregory called the bishop a “Pastor”—a physician of souls who diagnoses his patient’s maladies and prescribes either medicine or the knife.[203]

Luther’s early followers also practiced the care of souls.[204] But in Calvin’s Geneva, it was raised to an art form. Each Pastor and one elder were required to visit the homes of their congregants. Regular visits to the sick and those in prison were also observed.[205]

For Calvin and Bucer, the Pastor was not merely a preacher and a dispenser of the sacraments. He was the “cure of souls” or the “curate.” His task was to bring healing, cure, and compassion to God’s hurting people.[206]

This idea lives in the Protestant world today. It is readily seen in the modern concepts of “pastoral care,” “pastoral counseling,” and “Christian psychobabble.” In the modern church, the burden of such care falls on the shoulders of one man—the Pastor. (In the first century, it fell on the shoulders of the entire church and to a group of seasoned men called “elders.”)[207]

The Primacy of the Pastor

In short, the Protestant Reformation struck a blow to Roman Catholic sacerdotalism. But it was not a fatal blow. The Reformers still retained the one-bishop-rule. It merely underwent a semantic change. The Pastor now played the role of the bishop. He came to be regarded as the local head of a church—the leading elder.[208]As one writer put it, “In Protestantism, the preachers tend to be the spokesmen and representatives of the church and the church is often the preacher’s church. This is a great danger and threat to the Christian religion, not unrelated to clericalism.”[209]

The reforms made by the Reformers were not radical enough to turn the tide that began with Ignatius and Cyprian. The Reformation embraced the Catholic hierarchical structure with unthinking acceptance. It also maintained the unscriptural distinction between the ordained and unordained.

In its rhetoric the Reformers decried the clergy-laity split. But in their practice they fully retained it. As Kevin Giles says, “Differences between Catholic and Protestant clergy were blurred in practice and theology. In both kinds of churches, the clergy were a class apart; in both, their special status was based on Divine initiatives (mediated in different ways); and in both, certain duties were reserved to them.”[210]

The long-standing, post-Biblical tradition of the one-bishop-rule (now embodied in the Pastor) prevails in the Protestant church today. Because the clergy/laity faultline is etched in stone, there exists tremendous psychological pressures that make so-called “lay” people feel that ministry is the responsibility of the Pastor. “It is his job. He is the expert,” is the thinking.

The NT word for minister is diakonos. It means “servant.” But this word has been prostituted because men have professionalized the ministry. We have taken the word “minister’ and equated it with the Pastor with no Scriptural justification whatsoever. In like manner, we have mistakenly equated preaching and ministry with the pulpit sermon. Again, without Biblical justification.

Following the trend of Calvin and Luther, Puritan writers John Owen (1616-1683) and Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) elevated the Pastorate as a permanent fixture in God’s house.[211] Owen and Goodwin led the Puritans to focus all authority into the pastoral role.[212] To their minds, the Pastor is given “the power of the keys.” He alone is ordained to preach,[213] administer the sacraments,[214] read Scripture publicly,[215] and be trained in the original Biblical languages, as well as logic and philosophy.

Both the Reformers and the Puritans held the idea that God’s ministers must be competent professionals. Therefore, Pastors had to have extensive academic training to fulfill their office.[216]

All of these features explain how and why the Pastor is now treated as an elite class . . . a special Christian . . . someone to be revered (hence the title “Reverend”). The Pastor and his pulpit are central to Protestant worship.[217]

Adib..adiba addiba dib dib dib, ahhh that's all folks.. Thank you for the chance to share truth. Tom Mitchell

[bear (bear)]

Tom,

1. All caps are hard to read, that is all.

2. I stressed MY dogma, never implying that "I know it all". That is an unfair response!

3. While I am aware that a pastor is not any different than the next person, their calling is.

4. No, I did not read the book, but I did check out the web site.

5. On the day of Pentecost, in the year 33, 3,000 were saved. That is fruit. Most house church's are small minded. Read the parables of Jesus, as I know that you have, and we see what is expected of us.

4. Leadership is important. Someone needs to be the leader.

5. The pious "clergy" class is somewhat of a joke. I know that God never intended pastor's to be on the proverbial pedestal. However, the bible is full of men of God, who where the chosen leaders.

6. There is not anything wrong with mega-church's, so long as their focus remains.

Ephesus, under the direction of Timmothy, was a mega-church. Historical facts tell us that they had close to 100,000 members. Yes, they met in homes, but they were a part of a large body, with Timmothy at the helm. All of the other elders reported to Timmothy.

I am very open to learn, so please do not be sardonic with me. I am open to those who can debate in a contructive manner.

[bear (bear)]

Tom,

I checked out xenos, and they seem to have it going on.

It is good to see that they have a lead pastor, and in their case a co-lead pastor. I am sure that one of them takes the senior role, for that is natural. Even in a business, co-partners are not 100% equal. One always takes more of a lead.

I think that xenos is doing a great job.

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

Bear,
They tell you right in the beginning that they are led by elders and a mangement team. Wasn't that way at first. Always elders, plural. Not one man, that kind of thinking can get you in all sorts of stuff. If I have said anything to offend you, I apologize, please forgive me. Now, please since I posted the above letter, would you like to comment on it. I have already been in a few churches where the Pastor believed he was the "Star of the Show" Being alone in leadership can do that. It leaves you open for much. Bear, someone does need to be a leader, and if we would go back to allowing Christ to be the Head of His own Church, we would be a lot better off. Shalom Tom. Back during Pentecost, they were all in "one accord" tell me how many churches that happens in today? Sadly my friend, not many, not many if any. We can't even agree on where we should park let alone experiencing the Life of the Lord the early church was experiencing.

[chozen1]

Awhile back I purchased some Apostolic Faith Mags put out by Bro Seymour and some of Bro Parhams books.The copyright is expired and I plan to make copies, I have a schedule of classes for a semester at Bethel Bible College in Topeka if you would like more info
el_shadai@hotmail.com

[arron]

chosen... when you publish your books i would like to know so i can get some

[praetorian]

I am not a member of Assemblies of God. Assemblies of God is not a cult. They may have some theological differences. In spite of this, this church does not fit in the definition of a cult. Leader of this denomination is Jesus Christ. So, this church is a Christian Church and not a Cult. On the other hand, Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are Cults. They are not Christian.

So, what divining Rod, do you use, as PROOF for a statement like this?

I hope Inkorrekt is still around!

BTW: If you and or someone else answers this, please send me a courtesy email at: praetorian_g@hotmail.com in order for me to know that there is a response!

Thanks,

Tony

[truth_child]

no the assemblies is not a cult

[deception]

You don't need them is what he'd probably say... He's an elderly man that's been behind a house church movement for years. Almost unnoticed, but people like Frank Viola have learned from his teachings.

Gene Edwards (http://www.house-church.us/) wrote some books on how to meet in homes. It's true most pastors have vested interest in their congregational buildings. They own it. They market it to get more members. More members more money. They convince you how the "tithe" is scriptural, but it's not. It goes to building bigger buildings, etc.

The first century church met in homes, as a community. Their love for each other was visible. Can you see love in the church? Definitely not on Sunday mornings. Maybe by a handshake... but is that the amount of love God wants us to share when we meet together?

Sure, dig deep in the church, and you may find some loving relationships... but this doesn't happen on Sunday. So why do we need Sunday? 90% of our money goes to building up Sunday, with fancy buildings, marketing, staff, planning, equipment, etc. It's not needed.

Here is an excerpt from that book,

------------

Unfortunately, most house churches eventually degenerate down to being a few songs, a few prayers, and then Bible study. That will not “turn the world upside down.”
How to Meet in Homes, on the other hand, points you to the dynamics of first-century meetings.
Virtually everyone who is launching out into this adventure of church in homes underestimates the complexities, challenges and differences. This book comes from one who has been in the trenches.
How to Meet in Homes takes a totally different tact on how to begin meeting. For example, it does not suggest you start the church with Bible study! It suggests you begin first by getting to know one another . . . by sharing your testimony.
Here you have a whole new world of how to “do” church. Its contents are radical in nature.


--------------------

[easeltine]

Tony,

John Chapter 1 and Hebrews 1 are still very powerful Scriptures showing the Deity of Jesus Christ.

This is what the Father God says about the Son:

"But to the Son He says:

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."
And:
You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth...
Hebrews 1:8-10

God calls the LORD Jesus Christ God!
Polytheism is the worship of more than one God.
The Bible says in Isaiah 44:6 - Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

Jesus Christ is God Almighty come in the flesh, and the Trinity is the only possible explanation for the Oneness of the Father and the Son. For the Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty, and Holy Spirit is Almighty, yet there are not three Almighties but One Almighty God. By the very definition of Almighty one cannot have more than one Almighty.