Local ChurchES and the Bible

Hello, Thessalonian from Minnesota! Lovely state.

I have never studied this subject, so I really do not
know what the Bible says about it specifically. I
only know that the English Bible does indicate
that each congregation has its own authority
and rule, which is to follow the Bible, not the rules
of a person or board.

However, I once belonged to a church which had
one main leader and a board of leaders. Its
hierarchy was like this: </font>

• General Overseer [GO] (one man)</font>
• * Board (@ 6 - 10 or so men)</font>
• * * Pastors (in churches all over the U.S,,
  Canada, Europe, Africa, etc.</font>
• * * * Ministerial staff (up to 20 or so in
  each church)</font>
• * * * * The remainder of the congregation</font>

The GO, at one time in that church, actually had
complete power over the churches, but during the
recent tenure of a young GO, that power was
usurped by the board, and he became a mere
figurehead. The church was actually run by, and
rulings made by, one or two very stubborn older
men who wanted their way or no way and made
threats if their ways were no carried out. This is
the way this church is conducted now, and the
people are very tired of it. There have, as a result,
been several huge exoduses.

The problem, as I see it, is that for any
congregation, a board or leader who is not
physicaly present in the individual church can
not be an efficient leader. They not only wield
too much power over too much and too many,
but their decisions are not likely to be able to
meet the local church's problems.

I believe that our Lord, our Lord alone, is the
head of the congregation; the pastors or teachers
are subject to His rules alone just as are those of
the congregation. I believe that the pastors
and teachers are held to the same standard as
are the members of the congregation and that
they are personally responsible to the
congregation as much as the congregation is
responsibleto them. There should, in my opinion,
be no true hierarchy -- no lordship of one person
over another -- but at the same time, the teachers
should be given their due as teachers of the Word.

[ September 18, 2003, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Can someone show me the verse where a Church split off because they didn't agree with the selection of the new youth pastor or music director?

Both of those things have happened in our town in the last couple of years. Where there was one Baptist church there are now three smaller churches . The splits were literally over the choice of youth pastor and music director.

BTW, the new youth pastor lasted about a week. He got a better offer from another church and took it.

 

He is the Head, the thinker, the planner, the one
without whom the body is dead!

Perhaps my answer to this was in my post above,
when I said, "The teachers would be given their due
as teachers of the Word."

Other than this, my answer, without studying the
verse, without consulting the Greek rendering,
would be this:
The trick words are "who rule well" and "who work
hard." Having come from a very negative
church experience, I know what it is like to be in
a congregation whose teachers (or pastors or
preachers) do not "rule well" or "work hard." From
this experience, however, I have learned to move
on to another place, rather than staying on where
one cannot highly respect those those teachers.

When one finds a place where things are in order,
the concept of considering them worthy comes
easy.

If I remember correctly, the word rendered "obey"
in this Scripture means to 'be persuaded by the
Scriptures as these explain them." And the word
rendered "souls" is lives, meaning the natural life
of the body. I believe, too, that "leaders" intends
the teachers as well as those of the older genera-
tion whose lives have proven them worthy of
respect.

I completely agree with this as well. However, once
again, if the teachers are not true godly teachers,
if they are not worthy of the respect, we must
move on to a place where this Scripture can be
fully obeyed.

Some leaderships do not see themselves in the
light of servanthood; rather, they see the congre-
gation as their servants and themselves as
dictators. This is what I left.

Where I attend now, we all submit to one another,
the leadership strongly and continualy demon-
strating this very idea to us consistantly. That is
why I continue there.

How many lakes are in your neighborhood? I
will always love Lake Nokomis the best, and I
do hope you visit Minnehaha Falls this winter.

 

Sorry Thessalonian, I never saw your question.

Right, all these churches were individual local assemblies at that time in history. They were not connected to one another by any hierarchal arrangement, and had no business with one another. They were completely independent on from another, autonomous, each having its own characteristics and own problems that Jesus addresses personally.

There is no worldwide church by the very definition of the word "church." It comes from the word "ekklesia." Ekklesia simply means "assembly" or "congregation." You cannot have a worldwide assembly or congregation. It was hard enough for the church in Jerusalem, which grew in number to about 100,000 to find a place to gather. Where would all the believers in the world assemble together. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly or a worldwide assembly, therefore, by the very definition of the word, there is no worldwide church.

Though many Baptist organizations exist, each Baptist church usually considers itself as an independent unit. The association of Baptists, especially in the Primitive Baptists, is simply for identification and for fellowship. They don't interfere in the affairs of another's church. Even in the Southern Baptist Church, the most denominational of them all, there is a certain independency of each congregation. Most decisions are still made by individual churches. Although the Convention itself does make some moves on its own (like the decision to boycott Disney). Most associations among Baptists still give each church the independency that makes the Baptist church unique from others.

Other denominations vary accordingly, even within their own ranks. For example the Bible Presbyterian has more independency than the mainline Presbyterian. Look how independent Ian Paisley's church is. I think the difference here is the form of government that they have. They may have a different form of government and still be somewhat independent, although as you have observed it is not true with all denominations.

I don't find any evidence in the Bible of anything else but independent local churches.
DHK

 

Trying2 --

Churches split over lesser things -- </font>

• drums or no drums</font>
• contemporary or traditional music</font>
• organ or piano</font>
• KJV or NASB</font>
• dancing or no dancing</font>
• ties or no ties (men)</font>
• skirts or pants (women)</font>
• swimming or no swimming</font>
• raising ones hands or not raising them</font>
• . . . .</font>

 

Thessalonian:
The church is mentioned in three ways in the Bible. She is the bride of Christ. Therefore she is universal. Christ has only one bride. Eph. 5:23-31. All the saved make up the church universal, as they are added by God to her. Acts 2:47. Christ, having one body and one wife, has one church. I Cor. 12:13,14, Mt. 16:18, Col. 1:18, Eph. 1:22,23, Col. 1:12.

The church is also mentioned as local and autonomous. Phil. 1:1-4, I Cor. 1:1,2, I Thes. 1:1,2. Paul refers to them as these congregations os the churches of God In Christ in Judea. I Thes. 2: 14.

The church is also the heavenly church of the eternally saved of all times. Hebs. 11:23, I Cor. 15:24, Mt. 8:11.

The autonomous churches of Christ united in their efforts to carry on the work of the Gospel. The congregations of Macedonia, Achaia, and Corinth, united by their common faith and salvation ( Jude 3) contributed to the needy church at Jerusalem. II Cor. 8,9:2.

Elders of congregations are wise when they unite with others of like precious faith to carry on the work of the Lord. I Cor. 15:58.

 

Frank,

You shared a lot of good things by way of truth about the church. We all would think more clearly if we studied your statements. You backed up what you said with Scripture. I have always thought that denominational labels with fall off on the way to Heaven or burn off on the way to Hell.

Believe it or not but some Catholics, Protestants and other Christians are making up the true Bride of Christ.

There are too many 'baby Christians' in the Christian Churches that are still in their spiritual cribs.

 

Yes, and I am curious as to the Scriptural basis for such division.

If we do not see it in Scripture, perhaps it is not something that a church body should do.

When we see disagreement in the New Testament concerning the Church we also see a resolution of the disagreement. And it seems to me that it is brought about by someone in some position of apparent authority.

So what changed? And why?

 

Trying2 --

There is no Scriptural basis of which I am aware.
Churches and synagogues are made up of people;
the leadership is made up of people; people make
mistakes.

I mentioned having been in a church that was not
right. There have been several exoduses from
that church as its congregation went from @220
to @ 80 in less 2 months -- the first exodus. If
the pastor we had had when it was 220 had stayed
in town and started a new chhurch, when the
leaders had removed him from that church, we
clearly would have formed a new church with him
as our pastor, but he chose to move out of state.
I do understand splitting off and forming a new
congregation.

If we had done this, people would have looked
upon us and been critical of us. What they would
not have known is that this pastor was the most
straight-teaching pastor we had ever had in that
church. He had integrity such that we had not
experienced. He genuinely loved people, and
he was a true servant, whose enthusiasm made
us love to serve.

It was the church's out-of-town church leadership
which subjected themselves to the vicious lies and
gossip against him, which removed him, not the
people. There were only about nine persons in
the whole congregation who disliked him, but
they were very loud and rambunctious with
their hatred of him. They caused him to be
removed.

I tell you all this in order to ask you: Do you
think we would have been wrong, then, to have
formed a split-off congregation with a different
name? Who was wrong here: us or the errant
out-of-town leadership?

As it turned out, when he left the state, we all
assimilated ourselves into existing congregations.

 

How is that they had the authority to make such decisions?

Before they made a decision that you did not care for, did you recognize their authority to make such decisions?

If they had made a decision in this case that you would have liked, would you have questioned their authority?

Existing congregations with the same doctrines as the one you all left?

If not, why the change in doctrine?

If yes, why so many local churches with the same doctrine? Does the New Testament give us examples of more than one local church in a town?

This all goes back to having a church like the ones in the New Testament. Does what you are describing follow the model of the NT Church?

Jesus prayer that we would all be one.

 

This particular organization was formed by one
person in one city, then the church branched off
into other cities and states. They kept the same
name and incorporated, with the original city's
church maintaining the responsibility of over-
seeing all the other churches, to keep them in
line and to unify them.

We were naive. While we saw these people
making trouble, it never occurred to us that evil
could win. However, it was our perception of
evil. Ask any one of us who were either
kicked out of this church (I was kicked out) or
who left under their own power, and they all, to
the last one, will tell you that it was a good thing,
that they are much better off, and that now they
see the error of this church clearly. We were the
fortunate ones!

Yes. I was already questioning MANY things
before this.

</font>[/QUOTE]

No -- different. We realized how wrong they were.

None.

I have seen this argument before and find it to be
of no consequence.

No, it did not.

All believers will never be one as we are now. It
will take a whole new atmosphere for this to
occur, but it shall.