Featured can someone define "pastoral authority"?

As Usual, Good post Tom. It seems the healthiest scenarios are when the pastor both has authority and is himself under the authority of the church. When a Pastor is not accountable to anyone, it can lead to all sorts of problems.

 

If you say nothing then you are allowing him to continue unquestioned. That is one of the problems we have today is that nobody is confronted and dealt with as scripture teaches.

 

I don't think anyone here would disagree with you in this aspect (bolded sections). You are right on.

I would say though, that it is also true that God will hold pastor accountable for how the lead the souls under their care. Much Like parents of a rebellious child are called to parent in a certain way that honors God, and God would hold parents accountable for ungodly parenting...but ultimately each child will make their own decisions and bear the responsibility for their own souls.

 

This may be the topic for another thread, but it is related since it involves how we relate to pastoral authority:

Is it ALWAYS necessary to confront a pastor who is leading a church unbiblically?

The exhortations in scripture generally refer to confronting a "brother." This could mean many things, and I would think that if you have been at a church for a length of time and know the pastor, then it is your responsibility to at least try to meet with him and in a humble way, share your concerns.

If, however, you have not been at a church very long before you realize something is amiss, and don't really know the pastor well, and decide you need to leave, is it ALWAYS required by scripture to confront this pastor; or is it better to simply step out and look for a more biblical church?

Large-scale application: If all of the people who regularly attend Joel Osteen's church woke up tomorrow, and in their quiet time, realized he is not teaching a biblical view of sin; is it their biblical responsibility to each of them to go to him and confront him, or would that fall only to those who actually know him...Would it be the best biblically for the majority of those people to simply leave the church and find a better preacher?

 

Who is to determine if the pastor is leading the church ina way that is not biblical? Is scripture truth to be put to a democratic vote?

 

That is the function of having a common confession of faith...so we can all agree somewhat on what truth is.

 

I'm not sure what exactly you are asking. In an extreme example: A Pastor decides that having strippers in the service would really draw in the crowds...I assume you would think this is an unbiblical way to lead a church.

How should a parishioner respond to such a proposal by the pastor?
-Submit to his authority and go along with it?
-Confront him and leave the church if he does not repent?
-Don't confront him and leave the church quietly?

I don't know if that gets at what you are asking or not. To answer your question directly: Scripture determines whether a pastor is leading a church biblically.

 

Agree with what you wrote here, just would add that the pastor would be the "agent" appointed by God, confirmed by his group, whose responsibility is to lead/direct/mature the flock the Lord has granted unto him...

He functions in God ordained authority, but MUT be within scriptual guidelines/principles!

 

Although churches may vary, as a general rule Baptists, particularly Southern Baptists, have operated under congregational form of government. In a strict sense, then, whatever authority the pastor has is delegated to him by the congregation.

Both the pastor and the congregation should have a mutual understanding of the Biblical responsibilities (with commensurate authority) of the pastor.

Those understandings and expectations should be in place before the church ever calls the pastor, and before the pastor accepts a call.

 

At the church Tom and I serve in, the pastor is highly regarded, trusted, and highly respected. The subject of the limits of his authority has never come up. He has been with us over ten years, and whenever a questionable situation comes up, he calls in deacons to ask their advice. I have never seen him act on his own. We have very spiritually mature deacons also who do not, and make it a point not to, act like elders in an elder rule type church. The deacons are servants to the congregation and pastor.

I would think if there is a local church where the question of "can the pastor do this" or "how do we handle the pastor" that something in the overall spiritual life of the church is amiss.

From my experience of being in different churches, abuse of power does not come from the congregation, pastors, or deacons. It comes from elders in an elder type style of government. Elder rule has a way of turning into elder worship, and more often than not, they are elected on the basis of their social status rather than spiritual qualities.

 

Think the chuch pastor serves in needs to realise that he has been given God ordained authority befitting the position, but ONLY so far as he continues to stay in the will of God as in the scriptures!

 

Agreed. But it is vital that the church and the pastor agree on how that authority plays out. And it may not be the same kind of agreement in every church.

Forty years ago, as a young deacon, it didn't take long for me to realize that the deacons in our church exercised great power and influence. One deacon actually went to the brand-new pastor and told him that before the pastor made any changes, he should check with that deacon first. I heard another deacon tell this pastor, "preacher, you'd better court this board of deacons if you want to do well here."

Don't get me wrong. I felt that these older deacons were good men. But they viewed the deacons as a "board" which basically ran the church--more like elders than servants. And the quicker the pastor figured that out, the better off he would be.

Today, our deacons have influence, but it is because they are spiritual men with a servant mentality. We do not consider ourselves a board. We get along well with our pastor, and there is peace and unity in our church.

In that atmosphere, it's no problem at all for the church to grant our pastor wide latitude in the exercise of his authority.

 

How many of you are old enough to remember when the identifying mark of an IFB was a strong pastor? I mean strong.

This is how strong. I read about those kinds of pastors who, when planting a church, actually took ownership of the property. In addition, he had almost unilateral power to decide who would be admitted to membership; and could unilaterally kick somebody out of the church.

Does this sound extreme? To most of us SBCers, I'm sure the answer is yes. But many of those churches flourished, and the members seemed to be okay with it.

I'm not sure how much of that is current practice in IFB churches, but it was not uncommon in the l960s and 1970s.

I guess the point is that each autonomous congregation can do whatever it wants.

 

Important that BOTh pastor/elders agree and adhere to the church 'bylaws", as those would in detail spell out what should be done, and not done!

that is why shied away fromIndependant churches, as just saw too many times where a pastor with charisma and willpower basically had no checks on his authority as had 'yes men' on the board, and there was no higher up in a church organization to appeal too for help in removing him!

 

After four pages does nobody know what pastoral authority is?

 

To be the local shepherd of the local flock, to guide it, mature it, watch over it, as doing it unto the Lord jesus, who is Shepherd over ALL the flock!

 

That is certainly pastoring. Is that pastoral authority though?