Something I wondered, even as a child, was how the COC justifies having a preacher (albeit he has no authority), youth ministers, associate ministers, outreach ministers, and so on and so forth. How does any of that fit into "the pattern"? I've heard "expedience", I've heard "Well we are called to share our gifts and that's what they do", I've heard "Paul worked under the Ephesian elders as an evangelist", and then there is "the preacher is not a pastor". I've also heard "well some elders suck at being elders, so we need people able to do (insert church task here). Of course, to ask a minister about the necessity of ministers is to ask about their "job". I have asked about this at other times and places. Of course, everyone's individual congregation is "right". I've was told once by a preacher, "Well one of our elders does preach each Sunday night!" I'm thinking yeah, but what about the other ones?? I find more consistency in the churches who just go ahead and call their preacher "pastor", because that's what they really are.
But I thought there was more to sharing gifts with the church than getting paid to do so. Saying Paul was an evangelist doesn't work either because he was an Apostle. That's quite a large difference between that and an not ordained spokesman. It just seems to me like if elders are supposed to be able to teach, rule, and administer the sacraments (ordinances), and care for the church, why does a group of men pay one man to do so? It doesn't make much sense to me. Anyone else?
The "Pattern" and "Ministers"
Re: The "Pattern" and "Ministers"
Some Church of Christs don't believe in the paid pulpit minister but instead the elders or men able to will take turns to preach.
Also, most men are simply too lazy (or simply don't give a rat's rear) to prepare a lesson and deliver it. That's why my good Methodist neighbors told me that they have to hire women to preach. The men just don't have aninterest in it like they used to.
Also, most men are simply too lazy (or simply don't give a rat's rear) to prepare a lesson and deliver it. That's why my good Methodist neighbors told me that they have to hire women to preach. The men just don't have aninterest in it like they used to.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx
Re: The "Pattern" and "Ministers"
Fellow Traveler; I totally agree with your assessment. I too have asked those questions many, many times. I was told a ‘laborer is worthy of his wages’. I was also told that we need someone who works full time on ‘the work of the Church’. Yes, you are correct that they are Pastors (they have no good arguments for not calling themselves Pastors). Essentially, the coC is a lot like any other Christian Church. They are not differentiated like they profess and they just hate to be told that. Also, it gives them another reason to ask you for your money (supporting the local preacher and preachers teaching in other locations & abroad). Yes, it’s job creation.
On the flip side, I wouldn’t want my local brothers to constantly preach since 9 out of 10 of them are horrible at public speaking.
On the flip side, I wouldn’t want my local brothers to constantly preach since 9 out of 10 of them are horrible at public speaking.
-
margin overa
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:17 pm
Re: The "Pattern" and "Ministers"
There are a few CofCs, like B.H. said, who rely entirely on the men of the congregation to preach. Those churches, IME, tend to be quite small, often just a few families.
Yes, the reliance on the paid professional minister is one of the many ways the CofC is just like the denominations they carry on about. When preaching is one of the 5 acts of CofC worship (and let's be honest, it's the actual focus of the CofC worship service, again, just like almost any given Protestant denomination), who wants to hear stumblebum members hem and haw their way through a sermon week after week?
The church building itself and the preacher's salary eat up almost all of most mid-sized churches' giving (most CofCs I've belonged to, those 2 items in the ledger represented between 70-90 percent of all the church's income, depending on the mortgage and associated building expenses) - another set of circumstances without a "pattern" to point to in the NT.
Yes, the reliance on the paid professional minister is one of the many ways the CofC is just like the denominations they carry on about. When preaching is one of the 5 acts of CofC worship (and let's be honest, it's the actual focus of the CofC worship service, again, just like almost any given Protestant denomination), who wants to hear stumblebum members hem and haw their way through a sermon week after week?
The church building itself and the preacher's salary eat up almost all of most mid-sized churches' giving (most CofCs I've belonged to, those 2 items in the ledger represented between 70-90 percent of all the church's income, depending on the mortgage and associated building expenses) - another set of circumstances without a "pattern" to point to in the NT.
Re: The "Pattern" and "Ministers"
Technically, there is no "pattern" for a worship service much less a one way lecturer that consumes the majority of the assembling which supposedly one is not to forsake as that is the opportunity for members to interact and encourage other to good works. But if you think questioning the existence of 5 acts of worship is a waste of time then imagine how useless it is to ask the question if there is such a thing as group "worship" or a "worship service".
If preaching is an act of group worship, then God was being worshipped on Mars Hill when Paul preached? How can one man rambling be an act of group anything unless the man is a cleric and operating in the role of a representative towards the object of worship?
If preaching is an act of group worship, then God was being worshipped on Mars Hill when Paul preached? How can one man rambling be an act of group anything unless the man is a cleric and operating in the role of a representative towards the object of worship?
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: The "Pattern" and "Ministers"
The argument for not calling the preacher "pastor" is that "pastor" is another word for the role we call "elder" and not all preachers meet the qualifications for elders. There's also the objection to honorific titles for any religious leader based on Matt. 23:8-10.
I say language changes over time, so whatever. I'm still going to greet the Catholic priest I know as Father John, not because he has authority over me, but because it's polite.
I say language changes over time, so whatever. I'm still going to greet the Catholic priest I know as Father John, not because he has authority over me, but because it's polite.
Re: The "Pattern" and "Ministers"
So if they qualify as an Elder then we can call them 'Pastor' correct? Of course not, even when biblical it's against the teachings of the coC and they are the final authority (on everything).
Re: The "Pattern" and "Ministers"
Well you wouldn't call them Pastor even if it was OK because of the weaker brother stumbling and eating meats sub-rule 23.3, sect 2. Come on people, we don't just make these rules up for no reason. 
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: The "Pattern" and "Ministers"
klp wrote:Well you wouldn't call them Pastor even if it was OK because of the weaker brother stumbling and eating meats sub-rule 23.3, sect 2. Come on people, we don't just make these rules up for no reason.
Oh If I haven't heard that argument a million times!
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: The "Pattern" and "Ministers"
KLP I am calling you reverend KLP.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx