Pastors Leading the flock???)

Jerry Welch (tlwitness@juno.com)
Fri, 18 Sep 1998 02:17:29 -0500


On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 01:07:52 EDT FITZGEREL@aol.com writes:

>Jerry Welch
> If you were in such a situation, what WOULD you do?  The Bible says 
>that
> if a brother wrongs you, you are to go to him privately.  Would you 
>do
> that, or would you "exempt" him because he was a Pastor?
>
>Pastor Fitzgerel 
>If I didn't understand something the Pastor's I've been under 
>would always explain them to me

And if you asked him and he answered with, "Hey, it's my way or the
highway"?

>Jerry Welch
> Then really, you CAN understand how bad it feels when someone who is 
>like a parent to you personally abuses that authority.
> 
>Pastor Fitzgerel
>Anytime a move is apparent, and I might need to change churches, I 
>wouldn't move to a city where the Pastor was on a completely different
wave 
>link from myself.

That's kind of hard to tell when you first move there, though, isn't it? 
Everyone is, so to speak on their best behaviour, and questions about
specifics would not naturally occur, would they?

>Pastor Fitzgerel
>	I guess Bro. because of the same reason you couldn't make your 
>parents in the flesh do things your way, just because you had to do some
things their 
>way. God holds them responsible and with that responsibility comes some 
>authority and we have to respect that, because that is God's plan.

Where does the Bible say that it is God's plan for ANY Pastor to preach
that Pastor's personal convictions as standards so strongly that they are
considered in some cases as a test of fellowship?

>Jerry Welch
> That is the entirety of my problem here; it is an unscriptural 
>elevation of a Pastor to put him above the possibility of being wrong. 
And 
>the teaching of PERSONAL CONVICTIONS as Doctrine is clearly out of
order. 

Do you believe this? 

> Personal convictions are just THAT; personal, because they are 
>tailored for a unique individual; they are all but worthless to force
others 
>to follow them.  Paul didn't say follow me as I follow my personal
> convictions (which I am sure he had; and that is a part of Paul's
> personal walk with Jesus), but he said "follow me as I follow 
>Christ."
> 
>Pastor Fitzgerel
>	I believe that God deals with  a Pastor along the lines of 
>standards with the Church in mind.

Do you believe that personal convictions are tailored for individuals,
but if that person is a Pastor that his somehow are tailored for the
entire congregation?

>And any God fearing Pastor will be sensitive to that, but
>anybody that thinks that a Pastor can't be wrong or make mistakes, 
>well lets just say their porch light is on, but nobody home.  Just
because some 
>carry it to far, does not mean that it is wrong for a Pastor to preach 
>standards to the Church that God has put him over.  

Even if that abuse of authority causes saints to leave or causes some
people not to even want to come to the Church in the first place? 
Specifically, how about the Church that placed the color of your socks as
a test of fellowship?  

How many saints are to be burdened with extra-Biblical burdens?

>I don't know your situation Bro. Jerry, but if you are a parent 

I am.

>you will find out real fast that parents make mistakes.  And their 
>are some really stupid parents out there, that make the role of 
>parenting look like a real sick joke.
>But parents set boundaries for their children to operate within, 
>because they will get into trouble without these standards or 
>boundaries. Mature adults don't need these social and domestic 
>boundaries, because they learned them in their youth and live 
>their already. Mature saints want be offended when a Pastor 
>teaches against certain things, recognizing that their are new 
>ones coming up,

Using your analogy, mature adults WOULD be offended if they were being
forced to live the same standards that infants were being given, don't
you think?  Which goes back to my point, that such things CANNOT
successfully be universally applied in a congregation.  

And when you say that "Mature saints won't be offended when a Pastor
teaches against certain things", that kind of implies that if you
disagree with any given standard that the Pastor wants to give, then you
"must not be mature", and I disagree with that.

>that need that teaching so that they want get into trouble
>unnecessarily.  What's sad is when we become adults in the Lord and 
>still don't recognize the need for these safe guards that protect us
from 
>our base nature of sin?

Actually, what is sad is when we become adults in the Lord and the Pastor
is still treating everyone like they are infants.  No normal human adult
that I know of would allow themselves to be placed under infants'
standards.  

>Jerry Welch
> IOW, as long as a Pastor is IN the Word, they are within their 
>scriptural boundaries of authority, but once they start adding (or God
help us
> subtracting) from the Word of God, there is no scriptural authority 
>in their actions.
> I have heard many times, "If he is wrong, God will take care of it" 
>but I am sure that if a saint were to get out of line, a Pastor wouldn't

>just ignore it and say that he wouldn't do anything about it; let God 
>handle  it."

You didn't address this point.  Let me ask you this; where are the points
that you DO agree with me, if any?

>Pastor Fitzgerel(then) 
> > That doesn't mean that there hasn't been some mistakes over 
> >the years,
> 
>Jerry Welch
> That have not only hurt saints, but all but driven some of them out.  
>I can quote case after case of Pastoral indifference to the exercise 
>of their authority and, yes, I know, no one can MAKE you sin, but if 
>they are pushing unscripturally at people, they are accomplices.  
> 
>Pastor Fitzgerel
>	Yes, no doubt there are some, but stop and think of all the 
>ones that are saved as the result of the Pastor's actions and burden. 

That's acceptable?  "Well, we lost 100 but we kept 200?"  I say that any
unnecessary burden is UNBIBLICAL and ANY lost saints as a result of these
unscriptural burdens is highly tragic.

>Its easy to criticize Bro. Jerry when we are hurt.

Alot of people must be hurt, because they sure are criticizing!  <G>  I
know what you meant.

>I had someone a few years ago get all upset with a decision that I had 
>made regarding someone else, and almost quit coming to Church.

I read this example, but this is not what I am talking about.  I am
talking about a Church wide edict that affects how their stand with God
is perceived by other people in the Church.  BTW, I agree with your
actions in that case you cited.

>Jerry Welch
> To qualify my position, I don't believe that people should be 
>fighting Pastors or being in contention just to be argumentative.  Also,
I
> >>>DO<<< believe in the office of Pastor.  I just question the
> extra-Biblical burdens (Acts 15:28,29) that are loaded on to saints.
> 
>Pastor Fitzgerel
>	When God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree and 
>Adam told Eve not to touch the tree, do you think that Adam was just 
>trying to bully Eve around or that maybe he was just trying to help 
>make sure that she kept herself out of position to eat of the fruit of 
>the tree.

I see your point, but your example tells me that you perhaps don't
understand what I am saying.  In this example Adam is "preaching"
DOCTRINE; i.e, the Word of God to Eve.  That was what is EXPECTED of
Pastors.  If, however, Adam told Eve ALSO not to eat of the Pear tree
because he personally didn't like them, then he would be preaching his
personal convictions to Eve and to imply that if she ate of a pear tree
was sin, THAT would be wrong.

Do you see what I am saying?

>Its would be hard to eat of the tree and not touch it, so Adam didn't 
>contradict the command of God's word, even though the Bible initially 
>didn't say to Adam that he couldn't touch it 

Actually, the devil quoted God as saying "Thou shalt not eat, neither
shall thou touch it".  You know that just because something is not in the
Bible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

>Not touching the tree was in agreeance with sound doctrine as for as 
>the command went. 

IOW, it was DOCTRINE.

> But you do not deny that it has not hurt anyone, do you?  And it is 
>not GOD'S power structure at fault; it is the additional power that men 
>have grabbed for themselves.  Preach the Word and you are IN the Word.  
>Preach outside the Word and there is no guarantee.  I just cringe
anytime I 
>hear a near Papal description of a Pastor.  It's not healthy for either 
>the Pastor, OR the Saint and it's certainly not scriptural.
> 
>Pastor Fitzgerel
>	I guess it could be stretched that maybe if Adam had just 
>stuck with the command that maybe Eve would not have eaten of the 
>tree.

No offense, but did it help any?

>Maybe his good intentions only served as a stumbling block for 
>his good wife.

See my example about the pear tree.

>If it doesn't do violence to the command than it is in the word, 
>as in agreeance with the word.

That is not necessarily so.  You are placing the burden of proof on the
saint to prove the Pastor wrong, when I believe that we were delivered
from the Law 2000 years ago and every attempt to place more burdens on
the saints attempt to drag us back in.  Do we not have the same Holy
Ghost as the Pastor?  If we are in the Holy Ghost, then we are going to
act accordingly, if not, then no amount of EXTRA laws is going to make us
come in.

>Jerry Welch
> Just be glad and thank God.  I know of a lot of souls outside of 
>Church who shouldn't be there.
> 
>Pastor Fitzgerel
>	Its not His will for any to perish, but that all would come to 
>repentance.

Including some of those Pastors.

> Jerry Welch 
> I do not believe that God has called, ordained or promotes Pastors 
>t preach their personal convictions, much less promote them as equally 
>as they do Doctrine that is contained in the Bible.  By making any such
>claim to scriptural authority, they place themselves on a Pedestal 
>too high for them to have any place in.
> 
> Pastor Fitzgerel
>	I personally don't think its necessary to promote them equally 
>as we do the fundamental doctrine. 

But it happens all the time; as either a test of fellowship, in which
case you cannot hold any position of authority within a Church, or as a
"Holiness Yardstick" by which your relationship with God is judged with.

Either case is wrong.

>But if they are not important, why do you get so upset
>with something that is not important. It must be pretty important to 
>you and to some its more important than being saved.  Sad isn't it.
>
>God Bless You
>Pastor Fitzgerel

I never said that it was not important.  I said that it wasn't DOCTRINE;
that is, it cannot be said to be the Word of God, since God doesn't
change and these standards change from era to era, from state to state
and even from town to town.

God's Word is NEVER so flimsy.

Selah!

Jerry Welch
ICQ: 18489712
www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2810/

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]