somasoul
03-05-2007, 04:37 AM
Church Structure

So about 5 weeks ago my wife and I (Three kids in tow) left our church home, New Hope Community, and began searching for a new place. We really liked New Hope, but we had moved and it was far...........too far to be involved in daily goings on there.

So here we are. Some weeks we have visited two churches on one Sunday, some weeks just one. We've been greated warmly by some and we've literally been told to leave one other (A Calvary Chapel in Rosedale). In all we've had few good experiences, less bad ones, and mostly nuetral ones.

Here's the thing that sticks in my mind though. In the last five weeks we've visited 8 or 9 churches. And ya know what? They are all the same. I mean, the people are different, but the structure is virtually identical. Doors open, anouncements, worship, (Anouncements if they didn't do them before worship), teaching, worship band plays one more song & everyone leaves.

The same damn thing everywhere I go. I can do the play by play each week in a different church without ever been there before.

Where in the Bible is this structure located? Anywhere? Who says each church needs a music minister/director, especially a paid one? Where in the good book is the direction for a paid children's minister? Or paid assistant pastors? Or paid laymen? Or any of the hundred other things churches do similarly? I'm at a loss.

Why the hell are these churches the same in nearly every facet?

So here's what I'm thinking:

What would happen if a church didn't have a paid pastor? Or a paid music director? What would happen if there wasn't some key full time children's minister? What would happen if a church took its focus off Sunday morning altogether and took that effort and applied it to community relations? Applied it to free childcare for single working mothers? What if all that energy that is normally thrust into Sunday morning was directed into cleaning up the sidewalks in the community or giving people rides to work?

Here's the kicker..........

What if instead of a few leaders focusing their energy into "teaching" a horde of Christians each week, what if a few leaders directed that horde, not in preaching, but in doing!? What if Pastors simply organized that horde, and each congregation member wasn't an ass in a seat, but two hands working toward the glory of God? And you got them to do one event each week; feeding the homeless, cooking dinners for the elderly, giving rides, cleaning the streets, and whatever other madness you can think of? The work of God is seemingly endless with few actually at work.

Today I sat in a church with 400 other people knowing that come Monday their is little to no organization in completing the tasks of God as a unit. Today I saw an army of well-meaning folks with nothing to do.

I'm gonna go play video games. I'm such a hypocrite.

terrasin
03-05-2007, 09:40 AM
So here's what I'm thinking:

What would happen if a church didn't have a paid pastor? Or a paid music director? What would happen if there wasn't some key full time children's minister? What would happen if a church took its focus off Sunday morning altogether and took that effort and applied it to community relations? Applied it to free childcare for single working mothers? What if all that energy that is normally thrust into Sunday morning was directed into cleaning up the sidewalks in the community or giving people rides to work?

Here's the kicker..........

What if instead of a few leaders focusing their energy into "teaching" a horde of Christians each week, what if a few leaders directed that horde, not in preaching, but in doing!? What if Pastors simply organized that horde, and each congregation member wasn't an ass in a seat, but two hands working toward the glory of God? And you got them to do one event each week; feeding the homeless, cooking dinners for the elderly, giving rides, cleaning the streets, and whatever other madness you can think of? The work of God is seemingly endless with few actually at work.

Today I sat in a church with 400 other people knowing that come Monday their is little to no organization in completing the tasks of God as a unit. Today I saw an army of well-meaning folks with nothing to do.
Then you would have just another church like the non-denominational church which is run by unscholared people teaching opinion over known theology. I've come to the conclusion that 99% of these preachers and pastors without formal education at a seminary school or some form of theological education are the ones doing the most damage to the church because they don't understand the simple basics of worship, nor do they understand the theological meanings behind a lot of things in the Bible. They would rather go on what they think rather than what people have come up with after 2000 years of study.

Also, the problem with having lots of community projects is that it's hard to get people to do them. One of the things I notice even in my own church is that anytime a function is going on, it's always the same group of people doing it. It's not that we don't welcome others to do them, it's that others never come and say they are willing to help. And we are ALWAYS asking the congregation for help. But some people either don't have the time or don't want to commit to anything. This is one thing I've discussed in length with the pastor and we are making some changes to in order to get others involved.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for, but if your interested in a more traditional service instead of the normal stuff, then I would suggest going to a Lutheran church and checking out a liturgical service. It's different, but you may come to respect and understand the ceremonial and symbolic aspects of it as I have come to.

CJ

dawn of light
03-05-2007, 10:12 AM
My church is run predominantly by voluteers. There is a paid staff out of necessity but its dwarfed by the amount of "unpaid staff" that labour daily and weekly to keep things going. The size of the paid staff is about the same as most churches a fraction of our size.

Actually our pastor is quite well known and a lot of churches have him come and teach their staff on church structure because our church happens to be the fastest growing church in Canada. His basic rule of thumb is that the church is run by voluteers, unless they need someone around so much that they don't have time for another job, in which case, they pay them. It's not about "clergy" and "layity", we're all the church of Christ.

There are two basic reasons for church. To win people to Christ and to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry.

What if instead of a few leaders focusing their energy into "teaching" a horde of Christians each week, what if a few leaders directed that horde, not in preaching, but in doing!? What if Pastors simply organized that horde, and each congregation member wasn't an ass in a seat, but two hands working toward the glory of God? And you got them to do one event each week; feeding the homeless, cooking dinners for the elderly, giving rides, cleaning the streets, and whatever other madness you can think of? The work of God is seemingly endless with few actually at work.
See this idea is all good and all but there must be a balance. The purpose of this kind of ministry is primarily to win people to Christ, secondarily to be a blessing/care for the physical needs of people. Christians WILL NOT do this kind of work unless they have the love of God overflowing from their hearts.

The basic purpose of the Sunday and Wednesday services is to teach and equip the saints (Christians) to do the work of the ministry, to brings people to Christ ourselves, to be a blessing in the community. To teach Christians the principles in the Bible that enable us to grow and become more Godly.

What would happen if a church took its focus off Sunday morning altogether and took that effort and applied it to community relations? Applied it to free childcare for single working mothers? What if all that energy that is normally thrust into Sunday morning was directed into cleaning up the sidewalks in the community or giving people rides to work?
This kind of thing won't get done unless Christians are taught how and why its important. Christians won't do this unless they want to, out of a love for God and people. Christians won't have an ever increasing love for God and people unless they grow themselves. Thus they go to services once or twice a week to learn how to grow themselves. It just so happens that these services get people saved every week also.

Similarly, if all a church does is put on a nice service every week, it's basicly useless.

bob
03-05-2007, 06:35 PM
One of the things I notice even in my own church is that anytime a function is going on, it's always the same group of people doing it. It's not that we don't welcome others to do them, it's that others never come and say they are willing to help.

I can't agree with you more. My Dad proposed at a Business Meeting at our Church the other month that we change the Church constitution to say that if you're not helping out with a ministry of the Church then you're not an active member and boy you should've heard people flip out over it. Its logical that if you're not doing anything through the Church then you're not an active member. But such is the way with people.

As for the same old structure, you have to have some sort of an organized manner within the Church. Something without structure could never work, much like a human without bones could never stand. Sure, a lot of Churches are repetitive, but I usually get a lot out of Church services, the Pastor at the Church I attend is a great man.

DarkestRose
03-05-2007, 10:17 PM
I find it rather humorous at how uncannily similar the church structures are, though I don’t see why you see this a problem. To a certain degree, we need structure for things to work. As long a people’s needs are put before the structural needs, I can dig the organizational setup. If a church began to get bureaucratic about their structure, putting rules and systems before the needs of the people, we would have a problem.

About the church priority thing, I see Sunday mornings as important. We have one day that is set apart as day to rest and worship Jesus. It is good to be able to get together with a group of people and become a community of Christians studying the Bible, praying and worshiping together. And a natural part of that should be serving and should be evangelism. The way I see it, we give what we receive from God. So we spent time being taught, and then we go out and apply what we’ve learned in our lives and in the community.

I definitely think we should be “feeding the homeless, cooking dinners for the elderly, giving rides, cleaning the streets,” and abundantly more for the community. I think Christians should be active in the church and outside the church. But I don’t think we should necessarily look down on inactive people because I’ve found some people want to be engaged in helping others, but just need someone to help them take the first steps. Also, I found that one doesn’t need to be engaged in organized community projects to be reaching out. We make a difference befriending a lonely kid, loving our enemies, etc.

But like Dawn of Light said, the primarily motivation for all of this is to win people over to Christ and strengthen other Christians. On one level, I want to love people, not to make them come to church but because I honestly love them for who they are. On another level, because I love them, I want them to know Jesus. And because I love Jesus, I want Him to be loved by them.

In that sense, the church is sent out to love God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength, and secondly, to love our neighbors.

I agree with everything that Dawn of Light said, actually.

somasoul
03-07-2007, 05:29 AM
Then you would have just another church like the non-denominational church which is run by unscholared people teaching opinion over known theology.

I've come my way through the non-denominational church and this isn't what I have experienced at all. Most of our Pastors, if not all, have been required to attend some sort of seminary.

Also, the problem with having lots of community projects is that it's hard to get people to do them. One of the things I notice even in my own church is that anytime a function is going on, it's always the same group of people doing it.

Agreed. This is why I think I would make it a condition of membership to belong to some sort of ministry and give "X" amount of hours to it every month.

And we are ALWAYS asking the congregation for help.

I wouldn't ask. I would demand. The church would congregation lead and members of the church could decide the course of actions. The only way to become a member would be to participate in some sort of ministry.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for, but if your interested in a more traditional service instead of the normal stuff, then I would suggest going to a Lutheran church and checking out a liturgical service.

Not interested in that at all. Looking to be post-post-modern.


My church is run predominantly by voluteers. There is a paid staff out of necessity but its dwarfed by the amount of "unpaid staff" that labour daily and weekly to keep things going. The size of the paid staff is about the same as most churches a fraction of our size.

This is my idea. The various "preachers" and music ministers would be unpaid. If need arose to pay someone, someone to handle the money or someone to be a fulltime pastroal counseler, then we'd pay them out of need.

There are two basic reasons for church. To win people to Christ and to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry.

It seems to me that a lot of churches fail in both these things.

The basic purpose of the Sunday and Wednesday services is to teach and equip the saints (Christians) to do the work of the ministry, to brings people to Christ ourselves, to be a blessing in the community. To teach Christians the principles in the Bible that enable us to grow and become more Godly.

I'm not saying to get rid of Sunday worship, I'm saying "Let's re-examine how much focus and effort goes into one program each week. Then let's take some of that energy and pour it into other, more pressing, things."

I'm not abandoning Sunday, I'm just redircting some of Sunday's energy.

It just so happens that these services get people saved every week also.

In a penecostal church the same people are saved again come Sunday. Many churches don't create converts for years on end. Again, not abadoning service, just redirecting.........rethinking.

I can't agree with you more. My Dad proposed at a Business Meeting at our Church the other month that we change the Church constitution to say that if you're not helping out with a ministry of the Church then you're not an active member and boy you should've heard people flip out over it. Its logical that if you're not doing anything through the Church then you're not an active member. But such is the way with people.

No, Bob, I can't agree with YOU more.

It amazes me how christians cry out about this sinful world we live.......yet go and run into their protected little communities and create exclusive little "clubs" without any focus on ministry to the poor.........lost.......gays. Maybe the world would be more Christlike if we stopped "beliving" in Jesus.........and started acting like him.

As for the same old structure, you have to have some sort of an organized manner within the Church.

We'd still have structure.........maybe more structure. It just wouldn't be the same structure.

I find it rather humorous at how uncannily similar the church structures are, though I don’t see why you see this a problem.

It's a problem when the structure gets in the way of the purpose of structure. When the bureaucracy gets in the way of the true purpose.

I'm not saying that other structures would be free of this, they certainly wouldn't. But a fresh step in a new direction often brings unseen things to light.

So we spent time being taught, and then we go out and apply what we’ve learned in our lives and in the community.


I think the church should provide an outlet for these endeavors. I don't think most people set aside time to evangelize in any way.

*Dang, this got long*

DarkestRose
03-07-2007, 06:32 AM
I don't quite know what I think of demanded church activity. I think that people should be active in and out of the church, but demanding it takes away from the willingness of the heart. I don't quite know how we could get everybody to willingly do something though.

Also, some churches do glorify God, win people to Christ, equip their members for ministry and help out in the community a lot. And I think it is worth considering them before stating that we need to revamp the entire system, because there are a lot of really good churches, like Imageo Dei in Portland, OR.

Also, if this is honestly important to you, then the best thing to do would just be to start applying it to your own life and being a sort of catalyst, in my opinion. Because I don't know how easy it is for any one person to find a church that fits their value system perfectly. It might take some gradual influencing.

somasoul
03-07-2007, 06:35 AM
I don't quite know what I think of demanded church activity. I think that people should be active in and out of the church, but demanding it takes away from the willingness of the heart. I don't quite know how we could get everybody to willingly do something though.

I think I would work it so that to become a member and vote on church issues, like how to spend the money or whether or not to start a new ministry, it would be required to participate in ministry.

Also, some churches do glorify God, win people to Christ, equip their members for ministry and help out in the community a lot. And I think it is worth considering them before stating that we need to revamp the entire system, because there are a lot of really good churches, like Imageo Dei in Portland, OR.

I don't live in Portland.

Here's my zipcode. Google maps me a good church in my area:
21214

DarkestRose
03-07-2007, 06:37 AM
Also, I didn't quite get exactly why you replied to my post the way you did, because I stated that I didn't think structure was bad unless bureaucracy gets in the way, and then you responded that it was bad when bureaucracy gets in the way, which was what I said.

Now I want to know why swapping one structure for another is better.

DarkestRose
03-07-2007, 06:50 AM
About seventeen miles (in Columbia, MD) is Kittamaqundi Community Church, which is about the best I could find. I've never been to Baltimore before, so it's kinda hard to pick a church over the Internet. http://www.kc-church.com/Home.html

dawn of light
03-07-2007, 08:05 AM
I think I would work it so that to become a member and vote on church issues, like how to spend the money or whether or not to start a new ministry, it would be required to participate in ministry.
Doesn't this make it a little exclusive? What about the single mom who works two jobs to give her children a nice home? You'd demand that she spend even more time away her children in order to become a member of the church? Or the little old man who is too old and frail to do any work but does everything he can to make it to services twice a week? This excludes the willing but not able.

Our church has something similar to what you're proposing actually, Tim. Our church is too large to have an official membership registry, there are always new people coming and checking it out, some people stick around, some people don't. Some teens come to the youth service only but not of Wednesdays or Sundays, some people come only once or twice a month. So you're considered a member and part of the church if you decide that it's your "church home". To be a ministry member is another thing. This requires an application form, one class about the basic structure of the church, beliefs and stuff like that. Also there are basic background checks for people, like references, and criminal record and child abuse registry check in order to work with kids. Also an application for a specific ministry of your choice comes with the regular application. This way anyone can be a part of the church without feeling excluded, but those who choose to can be a part of ministry membership, which requires that you be a part of a ministry. Of course there is a wide variety of time that you can dedicate to being in a ministry. The minimum is about a few hours a month for one ministry, but lots of people are in anywhere from 2-5.

DarkestRose
03-07-2007, 11:38 AM
Doesn't this make it a little exclusive? What about the single mom who works two jobs to give her children a nice home? You'd demand that she spend even more time away her children in order to become a member of the church? Or the little old man who is too old and frail to do any work but does everything he can to make it to services twice a week? This excludes the willing but not able.

That is actually a good point. I hadn't thought of that.

somasoul
03-07-2007, 02:06 PM
Now I want to know why swapping one structure for another is better.


Alright, DR, let me answer both or your questions in one fell swoop.

About seventeen miles (in Columbia, MD) is Kittamaqundi Community Church, which is about the best I could find. I've never been to Baltimore before, so it's kinda hard to pick a church over the Internet. http://www.kc-church.com/Home.html

First off, Columbia is two counties away, a solid 30-40 minutes from where I live.

White people, especially in the non-denominational church, seem to be willing to drive miles and miles to church. How can I effective in my own community, where I spend the majority of my time, when I travel these distances? How can we as Christians make effective change in our neighborhoods when we leave our zip-codes?

This is part of the common structure I would like to change.

Doesn't this make it a little exclusive? What about the single mom who works two jobs to give her children a nice home? You'd demand that she spend even more time away her children in order to become a member of the church?

My new structure would never let this happen. By taking away pastoral salaries I would hope to free up money. The book of Acts says the Christians shared everything they had so no one was in need. I'd take the tithes and give them out so a single mother didn't have to struggle.

If someone was unable to serve, we could make exceptions. We could write this in the constitution that if an exception was brought up, the existing church members could vote whether or not the exception was valid.

Our church has something similar to what you're proposing actually, Tim. Our church is too large to have an official membership registry, there are always new people coming and checking it out, some people stick around, some people don't. Some teens come to the youth service only but not of Wednesdays or Sundays......[yada yada yada]

Right. I'd probably do something similar.

Again, I haven't worked out all the kinks, which all things have. What I want to do is develop something that creates and maintains change in the community, within the CHURCH, and within our specific church's parishoners.

DarkestRose
03-07-2007, 02:15 PM
I knew it was a far place away, but my map thing told me it was closer. Anyway, it was more postmodern, which I thought would be an attractive element to you. As I stated, I've never lived in Baltimore and am completely unfamilar with the area.

bob
03-07-2007, 04:17 PM
I think I would work it so that to become a member and vote on church issues, like how to spend the money or whether or not to start a new ministry, it would be required to participate in ministry.


That's exactly what we're trying to do at MBC and this lady freaked out because her kid wouldn't be able to vote any longer, but he never shows up to any business meetings and doesn't show up to Church service or participate in any Church ministry, so how does that qualify him as an Active Member? Christians are just too lazy, myself being one of them. But I'm trying to improve that.

The fact of the matter is that if you come in contact with one person in a day, you have a ministry. Everyone has opportunities, we should have a Church environment that encourages these interactions.

unshakeable15
03-08-2007, 05:15 PM
My new structure would never let this happen. By taking away pastoral salaries I would hope to free up money. The book of Acts says the Christians shared everything they had so no one was in need. I'd take the tithes and give them out so a single mother didn't have to struggle.
This is something i've been struggling with after reading "Irresistible Revolution" by Shane Claiborne. He talks about how the average parishioner gives (if i'm remembering correctly) 5% in tithe. Seeing that the 10% in the OT is a recommendation for the NT church (i'll get to that), it's a sad state of affairs.

Claiborne says he thinks it's because people can't stand behind what their church uses the money for. My church, for example, is is pretty sad shape financially, because of lack of giving across the board. So we've cut budgets to ministries. Yet, the early church didn't have ministries to support with tithe; they used their tithe to care for the widows, the orphans. Those who had more gave so those who had less could get more.

The tithe wasn't seen as an obligatory 10% because it was motivated out of love for your brothers and sisters who were in need. i think we need to get back to this.

DarkestRose
03-08-2007, 08:43 PM
That is true. (I read that book, and it’s really good, but not at all comfortable to read.)

I’m not definitely sure if I would opt for cutting all pastor pay. I’m not quite sure how much time, money, etc. goes into full-time pastoral work. I wonder if that might be a “paying out of need” circumstance. I do, however, agree that tithes need to be spent toward the needs to the church (members), community, etc. I think also the church needs to strive to be more like the church in the Book of Acts, where we do give of our possession, as well as out of the heart, according to people’s needs, instead of just ten-percent.

I do think that some paid staff is necessary. For instance, our church’s children’s minister does have a fair amount of administration aspects, etc, and it more time consuming that one would think. (The Sunday school classes are run by volunteers at my church, however.) And I don’t like the idea of taking people’s jobs away unless it’s completely necessary. For instance, I think that church members volunteering could do janitorial work, but I’d hate to un-employ someone in the process. Yet, at the same time, I agree that the tithes should be freed up to supporting people instead of a building fund. So I don’t really know how I would want to see that work out.

I also don’t think it’s fair to accuse, in generalized terms, all churches as doing nothing. There are churches that are focused on helping needy members in the church, reaching out to the community, and engaging in out-of-state/overseas ministries. There are churches that bring many people to Christ and equip Christians to live their lives as ministries and worship to God. While I too feel disillusioned with the American church, I don’t think it’s fair to push that sentiment onto every church when there are great churches as well as churches that need to re-align direction.

I still feel ambivalent about forcing people to volunteer their time in order to vote on church issues. I think the people should be active in the church, should be serving others and reaching out to the community. I think that should be a natural expression of our faith. But I just don’t like the idea of people volunteering for the wrong reasons, like in order to be able to vote on church issues or because they were forced to. God isn’t worshiped by that, and their heart isn’t truly invested in helping people. Also, I feel like there needs to be a balance between worship and serving. I think emphasizing serving over worship could create a Martha syndrome where we get so busy doing stuff for Jesus that we forget to take time to sit at His feet.

I do think that a change in structure is a good idea, but I think it also has a few problematic potential turnouts.

skilletfreak101
03-09-2007, 08:23 AM
I wouldn't ask. I would demand. The church would congregation lead and members of the church could decide the course of actions. The only way to become a member would be to participate in some sort of ministry.




i think it depends on the type of person at the church. there are those who truly do have a heart of worship for God and actually get involved with God's work, and then there are those who just go to church and don't get involved with anything. My church has both of these types of people. My pastor does sometimes demand that us Christians get our act together, but I've noticed that almost every time he does that, a ton of people leave the church. If I were a pastor, I would get pretty pissed off when I preach to people and they get absolutely nothing out of it.

skynes
03-09-2007, 10:13 AM
My pastor does sometimes demand that us Christians get our act together, but I've noticed that almost every time he does that, a ton of people leave the church.

Your church was probably better off without them then.

On the paid Pastor thing. How is he supposed to support his family? Pastoring a church is a full-time job in itself. With visitations, counselling, the amount of prayer and preparation running a church takes. Then there's the studying and preparing the Sunday sermon.

When is the Pastor supposed to work for money to support his family? Or do you suggest that the Pastor does ministry free and his wife and kids work to support him?

DarkestRose
03-09-2007, 12:02 PM
To a point, I can trust that church members will take care of those who need financial support. At the same time, there are going to have to be some people with jobs who are able to both support their families, support church members and volunteer their time in helping people, we can't just cut all of their jobs because they happened to work in the church and we wanted to use the tithes for something else.

Touching on what Josh said, I wouldn't worry too much about people who leave the church because they are upset at the calling to get involved. People need to know that a relationship with God is more than just coming to church every Sunday morning. God mentioned that He has great works for us to, plans to prosper us...to give us a hope and future. It's something for us to all be a part of, and hopefully the people who leave the church will come around to have a passion to serve God and a desire to help others.

And, I honestly don't think the entire chruch structure needs to be changed. I don't think the routine of Sunday morning is flawed, nor do I have a problem with the church's staff. I think we simply need the church to reach out more to the needs of church members, the needs to the community, and the needs of those in other states or countries. Christians do need to be more willing to volunteer their time, their money, or whatever when it is needed. We need tithes to affect people more, but I think that would work out if Christians gave more because the church cannot give out of funds it doesn't have. But honestly, this seemes less a problem of structure and more an issue of church priorities.

skilletfreak101
03-09-2007, 12:30 PM
Your church was probably better off without them then.


i totally agree

skynes
03-09-2007, 01:45 PM
To a point, I can trust that church members will take care of those who need financial support.

I don't, I've seen first hand that the church at large couldn't care less for those in need. They care more for their bureaucracy than people.

But honestly, this seemes less a problem of structure and more an issue of church priorities

I don't think this is a structure problem either. I think people are just too selfish. Why spend money on the church when that same money can pay for a trip to Disneyland? Why feed the homeless, when it can buy a shiny new car?

DarkestRose
03-09-2007, 02:15 PM
I do want to mention that I do think Somasoul brought up some good points on Christians volunteering their time to support others and that the church needs to re-focus on what tithes should be spent on (just so I'm not criticizing everything he's said).

unshakeable15
03-12-2007, 07:45 PM
As for paid pastors, could it be that we have our pastors do too much as it is? Is it really up to pastors to Teach, Counsel, Instruct and Lead the church body? Or, should we have separate people who do all of those (with some cross-over, sure). Why is it that the guy up front every Sunday is the one in charge? i thought that the Kingdom of God was upside down? Shouldn't the guy who sets up the chairs before the prayer meeting be the one in charge? Or the guy who scrubs the toilet? Or the one who prays for everyone individually?

If you split up the job of a pastor into its separate pieces, then it's a managable job for a volunteer (so long as their day job isn't as time consuming as, say, a lawyers).

i'm not going to protest outside of churches where pastors are paid (i'd have to protest my own!), but i think it's important to re-examine how things are run. (i did see people protest at an event once because Ron Luce, the speaker, was paid to preach the Gospel).

lamb_servant72
03-13-2007, 05:48 AM
Excellent point, Mike. I believe Paul spelled it out in Ephesians 4:11.

He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as pastors, and some as teachers.

There are many churches who are trying to restructure and learn how to implement this five-fold ministry in the church, instead of using one man to do all of these tasks. I don't believe God intended it to be a one man show.

Verse 12 "For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ."

Reeper
03-29-2007, 04:33 AM
^ See eldership. Good book on it by Alexander Strauch called Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership. Only problem with this type of leadership is that everyone must be on the same page. Lots of churches now a days have lost their way. Many don't even have a mission statement, let alone know what their chruch's mission is. So, I think most people find it easier to just have one guy do everything. That way at least there is unity between everything. At least that's the theory. I do agree though that churches should go to an eldership type of leadership. My church is in the process of transitioning to that. It is tricky though.

Peace