Aug 102012
 

Kellen Criswell of Refuge Church and Director Calvary Church Planting Network discusses the importance of “Qualifications” of a Pastor: In this series of posts we’ve been discussing the assessment points (or qualifications) of pastoral ministry. The first two can be found here if you aren’t caught up on the context. But whereas in the last post we talked about what you are if you successfully pass the biblical assessment points for pastoral ministry, today we’ll consider what you aren’t. Surveying the assessment points once more in 1Timothy 3:1-7 we learn that qualified church leaders aren’t the following six things:

Brian Brodersen of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa discusses God’s judgment and the need for revival: Many times in the history of the nation of Israel, it seemed as if they had come to the end; that the people were on the brink of extinction because of their sin. The Book of Judges, for example, covers an approximately 335-year period of time—a time of great moral confusion. Throughout the Book, we are repeatedly told, “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6). Sound familiar?

David Rosales of Calvary Chapel Chino Valley discusses how a pastor needs to prove himself a “faithful” man: And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Ti 2:2) God still seeks to use faithful men. Are there any faithful men out there today that God can use? Prove yourselves strong today, and serve Him!

Bob Coy of Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale discusses how Calvary Chapel “picks leaders”: Here at Calvary Chapel, we look for people who are faithful, who have a good home life, and we look for those who are with us. I want to actually make sure that God is in charge of this decision, so I pray with and ask other godly men who they think are the ones who are really with us.

 Posted by at 8:35 pm

  121 Responses to “LinCC-a-thon: Here’s what Calvary Chapel Pastors are saying (8/10/12 edition)…”

  1. First!

    I remember our Pastor telling us that we shouldn’t drink publically because it may cause someone else to “stumble”. I didn’t drink wine socially for over 7 years because I was afraid that someone from my church would see me and perhaps it would “stumble” them. Thankfully, I am over that! Also, Jesus drank wine with his disciples on the Last Supper/Passover meal. For a church that used to pride itself on not being “legalistic”, I think they were in that regard. I don’t think anyone can serve if they admit they even drink socially.
    Funny, I just started reading a DA Carson book, and he mentions him.
    Very good info here. A familiar name in the comment section.
    I am afraid I have to stop posting. My husband is not happy about it. He has expressed that before and I think I have to be obedient to him. I will continue praying and reading (If he allows me to do this). I think he wants me to move forward.

  2. Gonna add some more later tonight (I hope).

    Should be interesting to discuss what CC preaches vs. what they practice.

  3. “And you shouldn’t be the guy who starts and runs http://www.I-hate-and-criticize-everyone-who-doesn’t-agree-with-my-every-little-non-essential-doctrinal-nuances.com You shouldn’t be the guy that insists on talking about his brothers but never to them. ”

    do you think there’s a bit of ‘this one’s for you, alex’ in that? “touch not God’s Annointed!” sounds a bit touchy about criticism here and there.. just wants to ‘seed’ the ground for the ‘squashing’ dissent (the ‘touchy’ ref to the ‘touch not’ and the ‘seed’ ref to the ‘squash’ were my humble and futile attempts at humour… forgive them if they are too ‘corney’)
    -mike

  4. One of the teachers at CCBC used to teach that wine in the Bible days wasn’t as strong as it is today. He taught it was like mildly fermented grape juice. I asked a lot of questions and even confronted him about the passages that spoke to the wine as being strong enough to get drunk on. At the time, I NEVER drank, because I didn’t want anyone to stumble. I’ve since changed and even while on staff at the church I drank occasionally. I’m a strong believer that we teach the biblical truth. We need to teach biblical freedom and not to push our weaker brothers into things that offend their conscience.

  5. Sorry to hear that Hannah, you will be missed.

  6. BLESS you Hannah… i believe many of us can relate to your husband’s reasoning…

    thank you for all you input and prayers!!!

  7. Sorry to hear your husband does not approve of your participation. Hopefully, you are choosing to submit, rather than be subjugated into the “obedient” thing. There is a difference and i’m trusting that you know what it is. I will miss you. You have been a blessing to me and I appreciate hearing what you have shared with us individually and as a group. Prayers are with you – far be from me to get between you and your husband, like some have done in enabling my own to run amok. May the Lord continue to bless you, strengthened you, and protect as you speak the truth and stand stedfast to His Word.

    Linda Pappas

  8. Criswell attempts to make a good first point. The deaf ears that need to hear it are not going to hear it. People have been fired from CC staff for drinking a glass of wine. I can think of two pastors in particular in Colorado who absolutely forbid the use of any alcoholic drink for any reason, and would immediately terminate anyone found drinking a drop without question. Both pastors are recovering alcoholics. One of the commenters after that post introduced my wife and I to some very fine wine. The commenter would never touch a drop himself, as he is a recovering alcoholic. Fair enough, but the taboo surrounding alcohol in the American church culture is over the top fabricated, let alone CC. Lies about fermentation are so outrageous, and the overuse of “drunkenness” is geometrically blown out of proportion. The Biblical context means such a person is an alcoholic. I would contend that there is probably not even an issue with being “drunk”. The point is that “given to wine” means you are a slave to it, an alcoholic.

    The rest of the points are typical qualification qualities for sociopathic CC pastors. 6 is a point that needs to be perpetually addressed in CC. Some teen guy gets saved, goes to CCBC, and is off to have a church of 10,000 by the next year. Even in my time at CC, I saw more than two hands can count, “God called me to this area to plant a CC…” and 6 months later, they are gone. They are young, dumb, idealistic, and operating on no experience of reality.

    This problem is not limited to CC, of course. I know two guys who sunk a church. One of them, I know fairly well. Both were fresh out of seminary with a head full of “This is how the church is going to work…” and blew up a (A29) church instead.

    Part of the thing that frustrates me with newbies, is that a guy like me, who actually has 12 years of real world pastoral experience, has nothing of value to say to guys who are fresh off the seminary train. I have met one perspective pastor in my life, (and I know hundreds) who specifically asks me questions, because he knows I have been there to some degree, and may be able to shed a little light on things…

  9. Hannah

    Ditto re Linda’s comments. The last Blogger here who knew Yiddish. Would your hubby change his mind if I took him for some good kosher deli? Will miss you. Many mitzvah’s to you and your family.

  10. Hannah, we’ll miss you, thanks for sharing all you have with us over here.

    Reuben, agreed.

    SIncerely, Kellen gives a good word. Much of what I read from him is spot on.

    Unfortunately, unless the “New” Calvary Chapel Ecclesiastical Structure actually not only teaches the Qualifications but actually applies them as a Standard…nothing will change in Calvary Chapel.

    There’s a very good reason the Qualifications are in Scripture….and when they are relegated to an Ideal-only and relegated to suggestions…and the Leadership of a Church Movement who creates Pastors doesn’t apply them…you get what you get in CC.

  11. Re: Rueben @ 8 said,

    “Some teen guy gets saved, goes to CCBC, and is off to have a church of 10,000 by the next year. Even in my time at CC, I saw more than two hands can count, “God called me to this area to plant a CC…” and 6 months later, they are gone. They are young, dumb, idealistic, and operating on no experience of reality.”

    I saw another version of that same theme. Very young inexperienced, but well connected in CC, start churches that did grow large, but these pastors did not mature very much in the area of loving others, resolving conflicts … you know the stuff that shows others we are Christians … the second half of “love God and love others.” The net result is large CC churches that are very immature, poorly led, and reproducing more like themselves. The damage is incalculable.

  12. Hannah, you’ll be missed and welcome to pop in anytime it’s appropriate for your situation.

  13. As for qualifications … whatever happened to not putting novices in positions?

    The number of people I’ve seen get saved, or for the first time get serious about walking with Jesus, who have little to no real understanding of Scripture or application of it, suddenly find themselves thrust into ministry. Before you know it, they’ve been given a title of “pastor.”

    Of course, it’s also true that each person with the title of pastor in a church is a financial benefit. Can’t remember exactly how that works, but that’s why it gets as ridiculous as being “custodial pastor.”

  14. Even more so infuriating a thing to witness, is the appointment of “fresh meat” from CCBC sent out to “fix” an established struggling church.

    Did the former CCOF even have that right? Not if you ask them, but the practice was widespread, and implemented without regard for the congregations.

    It is a total fallacy, ordaining and appointing kids with zero experience to pastoral positions.

    Greatful, your example is all too common. Three names popped into mind immediately. All three were appointed by celebrity pastors, were former youth pastors, and thrust into ministry without question. Two of them were “sent out” because contentions arose, and the celebrity simply did not want to deal with the confrontation. So the move of “grace” was to kick them out of the nest, and throw a dart at a city devoid of the descending dove, pay for the domain name, and give them a party sendoff.

  15. Reuben said, “It is a total fallacy, ordaining and appointing kids with zero experience to pastoral positions.”

    Yep. Repeating the same mistakes from the Shiloh days.

    Bob Grenier went from drug dealer and drug smuggler (his own testimony in his book “A Common Miracle”) one day, to literally nearly over night becoming a Pastor.

    …what could go wrong?

  16. Reuben said,
    “It is a total fallacy, ordaining and appointing kids with zero experience to pastoral positions.”

    so i guess the question is “who i the beginnings of CC, other than CS himself, had significant ‘pastoral’ experience ot even the time to develop ‘years’ of a testimony of christian character and maturity?
    and if you look at CS’s own admissions of unwillingness to submit to and be accountable to his elders and possibly more ‘mature’ saints being the motivation for accepting the reigns of the small ‘country church’ and setting up the MM in CC… can even CS’s ‘pastoral experience’ and ‘spiritual maturity’ have been beyond questioning?

    just sayin’. Perhaps ‘Bad Apple’ of CC and the fruits of abuse in the lives and ministries of these “Disciples of Chuck Smith” doesn’t fall far from the original ‘Tree’. Perhaps CS and his ‘experience’ and ‘maturity’ in the beginning has more to answer for than any of us imagine.
    What say ye, alex?
    -mike

  17. MiC, I think the fish rots from the head and that the Tree grows from its Roots.

    Chuck’s example and his rhetoric tends to breed the Moses Model dynamic…with the good and bad that comes with it.

  18. Good points mic.

    From the beginning authority was established on the premises of “the Lord told me” , “the Lord led me”, “the Lord has shown me” as a new and special move of the holy spirit, special anointings, visions and giftings. The root of exceptionalism, disdain for other faith traditions, learned theology or church history was a huge part of the early DNA. We Jesus People in SoCal and throughout Shiloh we taught explicitly that we were God’s gift to a dying world and lukewarm/apostate American church.

    A heady potion for disenchanted youth then and now.

  19. i tried to leave this comment after following the link related to Bob Coy, but i’m not a FBer so I will leave it here. enjoy
    -mike

    acts chapter one was peter taking control to do what God didn’t command, what Jesus never suggested, and directly against what Jesus told them to do… ie. Don’t do ANYTHING before waiting for the Spirit
    what they got was a man who you never hear from again (matthias) and they passed over the one who would emerge as an Apostle and great missionary to the gentiles with Paul (Joseph called Barsabas see also acts 15:22) Men ‘always’ fail when we try to ‘help God out’ by presuming to pick rather than wait till real servants emerge.
    -mike

  20. Grieved, bingo.

    It’s matured a little over the years…but underneath the veneer, it’s still “the Lord told me” trumps “The Scripture says I should be this, this and this…and I’m not”

    If one is “called” they will be “Qualified”…if they ain’t “Qualified” they aren’t truly “called”…but they’ll take the Chuck Smith “Anointed” Hammer and pound the Square Peg through the Round Hole…Scripture be damned.

  21. Example we will call Ed:

    Ed did not grow up in a Christian home or attend church.
    Ed was heavy into drugs and promiscuity during college years.
    Ed abandoned his wife and 2 kids to live in his car to do more drugs.
    Ed gets saved.
    Ed returns home to his wife and kids.
    Ed goes to dead liberal church for one year where he did not learn from the Bible.
    Ed ends up at a Calvary Chapel and seems cool with drug testimony and musical ability.
    Ed gets put on worship team very quickly.
    Ed is allowed to help with the High Schoolers and begins teaching.
    Ed is appointed the High School Pastor just one year after arriving.
    Ed is very busy at church.
    Ed’s family is still wondering when they get his attention?
    Ed is given the title of pastor one year after he was appointed the High School pastor.

    Ed still doesn’t know the Bible. Ed only knows how to parrot the CC distinctives and do as he’s told. Ed is being manipulated, used, and appointed as a novice. Ed sounds just like the CC leadership, learned their lingo, their dress, their ways.

    Ed is a great guy; but the enemy appears to be eroding the work of God by conforming him to CC and not Jesus. Ed’s instinct to love others has been squelched by the mentoring of his leaders.

  22. Grateful…sounds eerily similar to many in CC…

  23. CCSP’s are kind of like Tenured Teachers…once they get Affiliated, they can do pretty much whatever they want with impunity.

  24. grateful, alex

    unfortunately, we saw this at the last MH wannabe church we had to flee from too… young and fresh out of the world, not yet knowledgeable in the Word, ‘barely’ personally mature, but ‘highly’ loyal to the Brand is what their looking for. Basically too dumb to know better and too ‘eager to please’ to buck the system and not ‘miss their shot at being used by God’
    Used by men is more like and when they’ve outlived their ‘usefulness’ or start asking questions? Tossed aside like a cheap $5 wh***. (sorry, just got away from me)
    -mike

  25. MIC said,

    “… young and fresh out of the world, not yet knowledgeable in the Word, ‘barely’ personally mature, but ‘highly’ loyal to the Brand is what their looking for. Basically too dumb to know better and too ‘eager to please’ to buck the system and not ‘miss their shot at being used by God’
    Used by men is more like and when they’ve outlived their ‘usefulness’ or start asking questions? Tossed aside…”

    Well put.

    Talked with a high school kid tied to the inner circle of a CC. He has no social life, nothing outside of the church. All he’s done all summer (as well as for the last 5+ years) is live at the church while his parents work there. The kids get neglected so the parents can earn “points”, if you will. Then the kids get the message that if they log in hours and sacrifice that God might use them too, and then they will be in the fast track to being an important person, especially because they are so well-connected in CC.

    There’s no balance, no development of other areas of life, or life skills. They only know how to dress the CC way, talk the CC talk, believe the CC distinctives, and be loyal to the brand above all else. Since the adults around them rarely act more mature than kids themselves, stuck with stunted growth, then the actual kids feel at home sliding into ministry next to these adults.

    Ministry is more about memorizing and parroting than actually knowing Jesus Christ and His wisdom.

  26. So you got 1 CC pastor saying what the pastoral qualifications are NOT so as to deflect from the adultery-ridden CC senior pastorate, and another deciding to completely toss out Jesus’ requirements and select pastors based on Exodus & Acts not Timothy & Titus? Wow. Sounds like a dangerous attempt to re-interpret and spin scriptures for personal benefit. I wonder how most Christians feel about this. I could give a rip what a pastor says scripture says. Can we read the Bible for ourselves and ask the Holy Spirit not popular CC pastors to illuminate scripture for us? As I examine my own life as an imperfect leader, I’d like to think the Lord wants me to aim for the highest standard of leadership. I believe that while the qualifications in Timothy & Titus are meant for pastors/deacons/elders, the Lord would have all leaders take the high road and aspire and strive to be Timothy/Titus leaders.

    1 Timothy 3
    New King James Version (NKJV)

    Qualifications of Overseers
    3 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,[b] but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

    Qualifications of Deacons
    8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    Titus 1
    New King James Version (NKJV)

    Qualified Elders
    5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop[b] must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

    I’m curious to know if most Christians feel that the above scriptures are biblical mandates or only Independent Baptists do? What you you guys think? Anyone think they’re just suggestions?

  27. So we got 1 CC pastor saying what the pastoral qualifications are NOT so as to deflect from the adultery-ridden CC senior pastorate, and another deciding to completely toss out Jesus’ requirements and select pastors based on Exodus & Acts not Timothy & Titus? Wow. Sounds like a dangerous attempt to re-interpret and spin scriptures for personal benefit. I wonder how most Christians feel about this. I could give a rip what a pastor says scripture says. Can we read the Bible for ourselves and ask the Holy Spirit not popular CC pastors to illuminate scripture for us? As I examine my own life as an imperfect leader, I’d like to think the Lord wants me to aim for the highest standard of leadership. I believe that while the qualifications in Timothy & Titus are meant for pastors/deacons/elders, the Lord would have all leaders take the high road and aspire and strive to be Timothy/Titus leaders.

    Timothy
    New King James Version (NKJV)

    Qualifications of Overseers
    3 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,[b] but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

    Qualifications of Deacons
    8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    Titus
    New King James Version (NKJV)

    Qualified Elders
    5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop[b] must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

    I’m awfully curious to know if most Christians feel that the above scriptures are biblical mandates or only Independent Baptists do? What you you guys think? Anyone think they’re just suggestions?

  28. Definitely not suggestions.

  29. Everbody out there have a good Sunday……..

  30. I actually found the first part of Criswell’s ‘series’ on the qualifications of a CC pastor:
    Regarding ‘Husband of one wife’ he states:

    “This literally has the meaning of being a one-woman man. This means a pastor shouldn’t practice polygamy, look at porn, have an affair, or accept having “wandering eyes” syndrome. It means you are committed body, soul, and mind to your one wife. Additionally, though not typical, this requirement doesn’t mean you must be married to be a pastor. If that were true then not even Jesus and Paul would meet the qualifications of pastoral ministry.”

    This is a pretty loose interpretation of this passage by Criswell who stated that a pastor does not have to be married. Wow. Never heard that one before. I thought the word ‘husband’ meant a man who is married. I am sure most Christians would interpret the passage to mean a pastor must be married because that is the correct/strictest interpretation.

    Still I gotta say Criswell’s position is closer to the truth than Coy’s. I have heard Bob Coy take different positions on the qualifications for leaders. Used to be if you’re a guy wanting to serve in the parking lot ministry, motorcycle ministry or a single woman looking for a husband Bob seems to think the Timothy-Titus qualifications apply to that guy but not to the guy looking to be a pastor. Now, it seems like Coy’s latest position is to abandon those Pauline requirements altogether and stick with Exodus and Acts. Paul doesn’t seem to get much respect from CC pastors because he was single? I knew a guy from CCFTL who was attending the singles meetings on Friday nights the week after he got divorced and he was also attending the CCBC to become a pastor. This guy blamed his ex for all the problems leading to the divorce and claimed he was the ‘innocent’ party which he felt justified waiving the cooling off/healing period before returning to the dating scene. When we inquired about his ex, his divorce etc and becoming a pastor he said we were being legalistic and said he already discussed it with one of CCFTL’s assistant pastors Geoff Buck, who had no problems with it.

  31. lenny,
    i would say … I see the as requirement Once married, not Divorced and not Remarried.

    that means … not Single, never Divorced (before salvation or after), and not Remarried after divorce (obviously if never divorced nor single)

    this would exculde many in the current ‘church’ at large and CC in particular, but the eldership/pastorate is not a ‘right’ or a ‘promotion’ it is a priveledge and a responsibility for those whom God says are qualified. Doesn’t mean that those who don’t are ‘less’ christian or necessarily unable to serve and be edifying to the Body of Christ, but if men can’t find it in their hearts and spirits to serve and love others ‘without’ the acclaim or the noteriety of the title or the position, it should be an indication of their ‘real’ motive and maturity. Self always says ‘it’s not fair’ Spirit always will say ‘it doesn’t have to be. Thy Will, not mine’

    -mike

  32. “Additionally, though not typical, this requirement doesn’t mean you must be married to be a pastor. If that were true then not even Jesus and Paul would meet the qualifications of pastoral ministry.”

    and of course, neither actually ‘were’ pastors, but prophets and evangelists at large. not elders in the ‘church’ as the ‘church’ didn’t exist yet for Christ’s ministry before the ascension, and Paul being more of a planter/apostle than a pastor/teacher. but we are not really sure that Paul wasn’t just a widower or still married, but his wife left him. nothing in scripture aboslutely marks him as divorced or for that matter never married so hecould have been married, but wife not supporting him and left without divorcing him (no legal grounds) or just widowed as i said before.
    something to think about.
    -mike

  33. i would imagine that widowers would not necessarily be exculded because they were the ‘husband of one wife’. and even if they remarry after the death of their spouse, so paul would still be ‘eligible’ due to the ‘death separation’ (see rom 7.3) making him truly ‘the husband of one wife’

  34. MIC said,

    “but the eldership/pastorate is not a ‘right’ or a ‘promotion’ it is a priveledge and a responsibility for those whom God says are qualified”

    Funny, I thought, according to Eph. 4:8 & 11 that they are identified as gifts and callings. Meaning it is God’s responsibility to provide according to his choice. Timothy is encouraged to live up to the calling that was upon his life and the gifting associated to it. John Mark saw himself as gifted and called, failed and then was found successful.

    The point, even though Mark’s issue wasn’t about marriage the gifts and calling didn’t change. Rom. 11:29 God’s gifts and callings are without repentance.

    Regarding the topic of the husband of one wife. If you look at the original language you will find that the Greek used for husband and wife carry broad translations with the primary meaning being man and woman. Today’s closest translation would be “a one woman, man”. Check it out.

    According to Matt. 19:12 Some have made themselves eunichs for the Kingdom of Heavens sake. Jesus said this would be hard to receive. You can tell by some of the comments on this topic that it is the case. Paul actually encouraged people to be like him as a single man. The thought that leadership must be married is ludicrous.

  35. Post 34 and others who missed the reason why Paul encouraged some to be single.

    The whole idea of being single verses married in these references isn’t because of any benefit to being single. In fact God didn’t make men or women to live a single life at all, although it just happens sometimes in today’s culture.

    In the time of Paul a married man would have a very difficult time traveling like he did and maintain a household, raising a family and such. The burden of being away from would be huge. Remember unlike today when a family member would leave it may be years, if that, before any one would hear from them again. Not quite the life of Riley compared to today’s culture.

    I have traveled for a living every week for the past 30+ years and I can assure you it has only been the past few where cell phones, text message and internet has allowed me to communicate with my wife easily while on the road. When decisions had to be made she did them and did them well.

    Oh and for you single men in “ministry,” no marriage means no sex, no internet porn and no “hooking up” with your buddies. Yeah I’m up on the syntax of today. Of course Paul also said, “it is better to marry than burn!” Maybe that is better advice.

  36. I think we need to look a bit closer at what scripture says about marriage:

    1 Tim 4:1-3
    But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage

    Heb 13:4

    Marriage is to be held in honor among all…

    1 Cor 7:9

    But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn

    In 1 Tim 3 the list of qualifications are all tied to the first statement: “An overseer, then, must be above reproach” All of the rest refer to qualities for an elder in a community to be found “above reproach.”

    In today’s culture we might add other items which would disqualify a person for the position of elder in a community.

    Oh well I’ll let you all fight this one out because I’ve said too much by now.

  37. “the husband of one wife”

    Now is this for one wife at present time or one wife in your whole life? Can a widowed or Divorced man qaulify as Pastor?

  38. Solomon:

    Your question about a divorced man is/was highly debated well into protestant history.

    The denomination I used to be a part of made a change about 2000 and allowed men (and women pastors BTW) to have been divorced and remarried if it happened prior to their conversion. Prior to that no divorced person could be recognized as a pastor. Additionally if a spouse left the pastor, divorced them and it could be found there was no immorality on the side of the pastor then they could remain a pastor. However, normally this only seemed to work out in the example where the woman was a pastor. Men seem to have a much more difficult time with the immorality issue than women.

    Now if a spouse dies then the other is free to marry and this is not a disqualification by most organizations I know of.

    Remember the issue isn’t “one wife” it is being above reproach in the community, but that is my opinion and others see it different, they want hard fast rules with no ability to judge.

  39. Raymond D said:

    “Regarding the topic of the husband of one wife. If you look at the original language you will find that the Greek used for husband and wife carry broad translations with the primary meaning being man and woman. Today’s closest translation would be “a one woman, man”. Check it out.”

    I can assure you there is no Greek, Hebrew or Latin available this side of heaven that will enable anyone to water down the word of God and lower the standards for pastoral qualifications. I wouldn’t want that job if it was even possible. It’s just not there. According to Luke’s record Jesus declares that it is easier for heaven or earth to pass away than for one stroke, comma, particle, tittle or jot of God’s word to fail or get watered down by a CC pastor or his enablers. In fact, if every pastor in the world came together to abolish the least letter, accent or stroke in the law, the cross of a “t” the jot of an ‘i” they would not succeed….and that’s a fact.

    I believe the Lord wants us to seek out a matter and ask the Holy Spirit for illumination and not err in our interpretations of scripture. He wants us to get knowledge, get wisdom & get understanding. But if we’re going to err wouldn’t you rather err on the side of safety and take the literal interpretation of this passage and obey God than disobey Him? If we believe in the inerrancy of scripture, it is wiser to err on the side of literal interpretations of the Bible in these situations.

    When all is said and done, the correct interpretation IS “husband of one wife” not “one woman man”.

  40. @ MM:

    “Your question about a divorced man is/was highly debated well into protestant history. ”

    That is why we should take the literal interpretation (moral high ground in this case) if we’re still struggling with this today.

    “Remember the issue isn’t “one wife” it is being above reproach in the community, but that is my opinion ”

    Both.

    “Now if a spouse dies then the other is free to marry and this is not a disqualification by most organizations I know of.”

    Correct. Only death breaks the marriage bond. A divorce and remarried pastor actually has 2 wives, and this is true whether the divorce and remarriage occurred pre or post salvation because being born again will not change one’s marital status.

  41. Sol Rod said”

    “”the husband of one wife”

    Now is this for one wife at present time or one wife in your whole life? Can a widowed or Divorced man qaulify as Pastor?”

    It would have to be one wife in a lifetime because if I divorced my present wife this year and married another next year, then next year’s wife becomes my present wife and this year’s wife becomes my past wife and I repeat the divorce-remarry cycle say every 3 years or so one wife at a time….I could work this plan so I always have 1 wife at the “present time”, “one wife at a time” do you see the problem?

    Yes, widowed man can qualify since God says only death breaks the marriage bond. Divorced yes but only if he is not remarried because to remarry would give him 2 wives and since divorce does not break the marriage bond a divorced man is a man with 1 wife which is what we want, right?

  42. “Can a widowed or Divorced man qaulify as Pastor?”

    Remarried widower yes, remarried divorcee no.

    It is the hi profile/calling nature of the position of pastor… deserving of a lot of scrutiny that makes this such an important topic.

  43. Thanks for the input guys

  44. Loophole…

    You said, “That is why we should take the literal interpretation …”

    There is one problem with this statement, which “literal” translation are you going to use?

    The hardest part about translation isn’t the literal word it is the use of the literal word. When a scholar (or groups of scholars) attempts to translate from one language to another things are often “lost” (or even added) in the translation and this is why there are so many translations and groups claiming to have the correct “interpretation” of the original.

    I agree whole heartily with your moral ground and the need to hold high standards for leaders and quite frankly I am uncomfortable (I am being polite) with divorced pastors of any form, but I also understand and see God’s grace involved in all of life.

    Now let me ask this question:

    If a man was a known homosexual, who lived the most outrageous gay life possible, before he received the Lordship of Jesus into his life and then straighten up (no pun intended), quit the lifestyle completely, got married to a woman, had children who grow to be fine outstanding followers of Jesus also, and in all the areas listed in Timothy is he qualified to be a pastor in your opinion?

  45. M M said

    “I can assure you there is no Greek, Hebrew or Latin available this side of heaven that will enable anyone to water down the word of God and lower the standards for pastoral qualifications.”

    So in other words there are extant manuscripts held in a differnet language? English was not the original and many of the translators were not saved and many did not have the clearest understanding of Greek interpretation. Since I stated to “check it out” and no one has, let me assist. The word “aner” is used 215 times in the NT. 156 times is translated man or men, 50 times husband, sir 6 times, fellow once, and not twice. The word gune is translated woman or women 129 times and wife 92 times. You will see that the predominant use of the word is to express gender and not marital position. That is the original language. My point was not to diminish the word. It was to understand that the man, in its full sense, was to have only one woman in his life.

    Speaking in the strictest term, without compromise for convenience, the idea of character becomes the issue. Look at it in context. It is a list of character evaluations. Therefore the reoccurrence of marriage, divorce, etc would disqualify an individual.

  46. Let me present this scenario to the argument.

    A man is obedient to God. His wife hates the fact that he follows Christ. She asks him to leave the home. He does. She files for divorce. He was saved. He didn’t cause the divorce. Is he disqualified from the pastorate?

  47. Pastor or Elder
    once married, never divorced, not remarried after divorce. Widower would be ‘eligible’ due to death breaking the first marriage bond…

    why is it so difficult? why must we ‘fudge’ the clear teaching of scripture to ‘qualify’ those who are not eligible?

    think long and hard on the possible ‘reasons’ God thru Paul may have had in keeping divorced/’serial’ husbands from the public role of Overseer of God’s people? What impacts on the congregation would he have been trying to avoid or ‘protect’ them from? Look around, i think it wouldn’t be that hard to see some of these if you are honest and humble.

    God’s ways are always best, even if we don’t understand or agree with them or we think they are too ‘harsh’ and exclusive.
    -mike

  48. MIC

    So let’s look at a hypothetical based upon the following prophecy that Jesus said would be fulfilled.

    34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
    Matt 10:34-39 (KJV)

    Since Jesus said this would be the case it is not unreasonable to conclude that, through free moral agency and the temptation that can befall each person individually, it can be concluded that all Satan has to do is tempt a wife to divorce her husband and he is no longer eligible for the pastorate. So here is the hypothetical. All Satan has to do is tempt enough wives to divorce their husbands and there are no more pastors. That may seem extreme. But I think you get the point. Jesus said factually that it would occur. To what extent He did not say. However, if you are of the school of thought of eternal security and once saved always saved then there is room for a legalistic conclusion.

  49. Ray D:

    Please make sure you give your quote credit to the right poster. I would have never said, “I can assure you there is no Greek, Hebrew or Latin available this side of heaven that will enable anyone to water down the word of God and lower the standards for pastoral qualifications.” That was Loophole…

    I am very critical of those who refuse to understand the processes of translation and interpretation. One is transferring the text from one language to the other and the other is attempting to understand and make sense of what the author is saying. Most people jump right to the interpretation without checking out the local, historical and biblical context (the interpretation compared to the scriptures as a whole).

  50. raymond

    wow. all that thinking and hypothetical. tell me again why we need to find a way to justify ignoring what the scripture ‘actually’ says?
    my question stands.
    “think long and hard on the possible ‘reasons’ God thru Paul may have had in keeping divorced/’serial’ husbands from the public role of Overseer of God’s people? What impacts on the congregation would he have been trying to avoid or ‘protect’ them from? Look around, i think it wouldn’t be that hard to see some of these if you are honest and humble.”

  51. MIC,

    What I am attempting to do is try and get you to look at the entire counsel of God. To conclude that a man must be married, can’t be remarried, can’t be single, etc, etc. for ministry overlooks the context of the passage (i.e. character).

    Many from, associated to, formerly were, etc. etc. CC and those within the bible believing world fall so short of really understanding the hermeneutical process, much less the construct of a sound argument that it is sad.

  52. MIC,

    To sink your teeth into one passage such as this carries the same short sightedness as those living strictly by John 3:16. God does love the world. He did send His Son. You can believe upon him and be saved. The passage doesn’t say anything about “you shall know them by their fruit”. so I guess that isn’t important. After all, if God wanted to tell us that He would have had John write it right there in that one spot between John 3:15 and 17. Really??? Not to mention that you are totally disregarding the historical context. Extrinsic evidence applied to a book written 2000 years is considered sound hermeneutics.

  53. MIC,

    Should Paul have been married, which was societally and traditionally correct for a pharisee, and his wife did divorce him for his faith, would that not disqualify him? He apparently was incapable of ruling his house well.

    If being married is an absolute, then having children is an absolute?

    Where does it say Timothy is married?

    How about having his children in subjection? Would that mean that BG was actually treating his children correctly? After all, it does use the word hupotage. So apparently that is what God wanted Paul to write so that is the way it was intended. So you shouldn’t have a problem with a father subjugating his children and demanding respect from them (all gravity)?

  54. MIC

    Staying strictly within the passage. Looking hermeneutically (I know that might be a stretch for some) at the passage;

    One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
    1 Tim 3:4-5 (KJV)

    Apply your knowledge “tell me again why we need to find a way to justify ignoring what the scripture ‘actually’ says?”

    Apply your thoughts to Alex’s situation, “why is it so difficult? why must we ‘fudge’ the clear teaching of scripture to ‘qualify’ those who are not eligible?” and ““think long and hard on the possible ‘reasons’ God thru Paul may have had in keeping divorced/’serial’ husbands from the public role of Overseer of God’s people? What impacts on the congregation would he have been trying to avoid or ‘protect’ them from? Look around, i think it wouldn’t be that hard to see some of these if you are honest and humble.”

    Now consider what people are saying about Alex and his behavior and the conclusion, based on your thought process is, the CC leadership is right, Alex and his behavior is wrong. Fortunately there is far more scripture than that which exists in this one passage.

  55. MM said: “…which “literal” translation are you going to use?”

    Does it matter that 75% of them have either: “husband of one wife”, “husband of but one wife”, “husband of one woman” “he must have only one wife”, “he must be married only once”, “of one wife a husband”, “have never been divorced.”

    New International Version (NIV1984) “husband of but one wife”
    Today’s New International Version (TNIV) “faithful to his wife”
    New International Version (NIVUK) “faithful to his wife”
    New King James Version (NKJV) “husband of one wife”
    New Living Translation (2007) “faithful to his wife”
    English Standard Version (2001) “husband of one wife”
    English Standard Version (UK) “husband of one wife”
    New American Standard Bible (1995) “husband of one wife”
    Common English Bible (CEB) “they should be faithful to their spouse”
    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) “husband of one wife”
    International Standard Version (2008) “husband of one wife”
    Aramaic Bible in Plain English (2010) “husband of one woman”
    GOD’S WORD® Translation (1995) “he must have only one wife”
    King James 2000 Bible (2003) “husband of one wife”
    New Life Version (NLV) “have only one wife”
    American King James Version “husband of one wife”
    21st Century King James Version “husband of one wife”
    American Standard Version “husband of one wife”
    Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) “husband of one wife”
    Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) “faithful to his wife”
    Good News Translation (GNT) “he must be married only once”
    Darby Bible Translation (DARBY) “husband of one wife”
    English Revised Version (ERV) “husband of one wife”
    Webster’s Bible Translation “husband of one wife”
    New Century Version (NCV) “he must have only one wife”
    Weymouth New Testament “true to his one wife”
    World English Bible (WEB) “husband of one wife”
    Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE) “He must have only one wife”
    Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) “of one wife a husband”
    Contemporary English Version (CEV) “be faithful in marriage/be the husband of only one wife/have never been divorced.”
    Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) “faithful to his wife/a man of one woman”
    Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) “husband of one wife”
    Lexham English Bible (LEB) “husband of one wife”
    The Message (MSG) “committed to his wife”
    Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE) “a man of one woman”
    Wycliffe Bible (WYC) “husband of one wife”
    Amplified Bible (AMP) “husband of one wife”

  56. LHL,

    don’t worry about it. there really is no convincing some who want to obfuscate what is clear in order to do what shouldn’t be done and ‘qualify’ the ineligible so they can claim the ‘prize’.

    no amount of scripture, logic, reasoning and even fist pounding will keep those who either want to be or ‘are’ but shouldn’t be pastors and elders from maintaining their ‘rights’ to be whatever they Darned Well feel like they should be. It’s the this spirit that gave CC a host of ‘anointed’ untouchables and Undisputed “Lord’s over God’s Heritage” ! pet 5:3

    nope, don’t let a little something specific like “Husband of One Woman” get in the way of softening it out to allow single men, divorced men, divorced and remarried men, by generalizing it by saying
    “well the context (which of course they want to remind you that ‘they know better than you do’) really is about being above reproach in the community, so i don’t think the specific ‘husband…’ means what it’s apparantly saying. Scholars, church historians and my favorite aunt Betty seem to have disagreed on this for decades so why not agree to disagree?”
    scripture is not up for ‘consensus debate’ based on current trends or the supposed ‘impracticality’ of following what it ‘actually’ says.

    but again, don’t worry about it. can’t convince them.
    -mike

  57. like i said before, we have in CC and in other churches the fruits of skirting scripture’s clear teaching on the qualifications for Elder/Pastor/Overseers of the flock.

    the abuse comes from the ‘fruit’ of men who should never have been given (or recognized, however you want to say it) these positions. imagine what the church would look like with men who actually meet the standard of integrity, honesty, and stewardship exemplified by these requirements… not suggestions, requirements.

    i think alex would agree with me when i say, I would be honored to follow ‘that’ man as he follows Christ. I would know beyond a doubt that he wouldn’t lie or abuse or take advantage of the church of Jesus Christ but rather defend, protect, equip and faithfully feed the flock of God.
    -mike

  58. MIC

    Utilizing your thought process I offered you a question. Now who is avoiding the point so as to feel comfortable with their conclusions.

    I ask again. I will stay strictly within the context of the passage as you require. The passage clearly states that the man should have his children in subjection with all gravity. That is the passage. Plain and simple. I am not adding to or taking from it. The explicit reason is to carry that same behavior into the church. It clearly means that he should have the congregation in subjection with all gravity. That is the conclusion. That would add credence to the Moses Model construct.

    By the way. I am not a CC pastor or leader. I am not in agreement with the MM construct. So let’s eliminate that straw man argument.

  59. sorry ray
    i feel like you are trying to squeeze me between two parts of the passage to somehow invalidate the requirement for ‘husband of one woman’. i decline the offer to play. have a great night.
    -mike

  60. MIC:

    “(which of course they want to remind you that ‘they know better than you do’) really is about being above reproach in the community, so i don’t think the specific ‘husband…’ means what it’s apparantly saying. ”

    A bit arrogant statement I would say!

    Quite frankly after reading both yours, loopy and ray’s I really am lost as to what you ll are arguing here or what your positions really are.

    Can a man with a horrid past become a pastor/elder?

    Being above reproach is far more than square filling qualifications, which you all seem to be implying. So please help me out here rather than resorting to personal insults about people you know little about.

  61. MM

    “Can a man with a horrid past become a pastor/elder?”
    that’s not what was being discussed and you know it…

    “Being above reproach is far more than square filling qualifications, which you all seem to be implying. ”
    also not what we were talking about… and you know it…

    “I really am lost as to what you ll are arguing here or what your positions really are. ”
    all you needed to do is read up the thread. i think you did, and you do know what our position is, but for some reason you want to say you don’t and that we are confusing to understand so you can draw us back in….I for one won’t bite.

    Be honest and stop trying to give false impressions
    -mike

  62. MIC

    Your abandonment of this dialogue is exactly why I try and avoid theological discourse on this site. It reminds me of trying to have a conversation with a CC pastor. They feel as if you are supposed to support their views and just believe them. When that doesn’t occur they just walk away, or kick you out. The next thing I know I will be asked to “get a life.”
    You feel like I am trying to squeeze you? Do you always turn and run when you don’t feel the warm fuzzies?
    You decline to play? Since when is having theological discourse a game? (And we wonder why Christianity has become such a disaster.)
    Let me simplify this. I will concede to your views on the husband of one wife, never to have been divorced. Now I can’t squeeze you.
    Please answer the question. What does a father ruling his house well, having his children in subjection with all gravity, mean?

    p.s. I am not a CC pastor, or leader. I think the MM is foolish. So lets get beyond the straw man arguments.

  63. MM said,

    “Quite frankly after reading both yours, loopy and ray’s I really am lost as to what you ll are arguing here or what your positions really are.”

    Try and keep up. The construct of a logical argument is provided, premise, conclusion, inference. You will see the use of false arguments along the way with poorly developed support.

    As an example; MIC said, “i think alex would agree with me when i say”. This is called argumentum ad verecundiam. The incorporation of a popular person to substantiate a view. The discussion may be categorized under converse accident, or fallacy of accident, actually both are occurring.

  64. Although there seems to be a lot of different opinions on the qualifications of pastors, I frankly am more concerned about the actual job role of the pastors. Pastors in CC land tend to be CEO business visionary leaders and not what they used to be traditionally and I would argue Biblically.

    http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2009/April/the-biblical-role-of-the-pastor

  65. andrew,

    great point. I too believe that the role that has been created for the Professional/Vocational Pastor has more genesis in business and corporate minded men who want to secure their own importance and careers more than they want to protect, defend and shepherd the Flock of Jesus (because they are His sheep, not the Pastor’s)

    i personally believe in ‘plurality of elders’ and that the ‘senior pastor’ model of church leadership is not only untenable and unbiblical, but also limits the free expression of the gifts of the Spirit in the rest of the congregation.

    Talk about the warning to ‘not touch God’s Annointed…’, the Body of Christ is God’s annointed and these unaccountable, uncorrectable and unrepentant ‘men of God’ have their hands all over the Body of Christ and sometimes even individuals in the Body they profess to serve and protect.

    The church is not a franchise and pastors are NOT business owners and ‘employer bosses’ of the flock.
    -mike

  66. MiC said, “I too believe that the role that has been created for the Professional/Vocational Pastor has more genesis in business and corporate minded men who want to secure their own importance and careers ”

    Yep. Bob Grenier and many other CC Pastors (I use Bob b/c I was there and heard the rationale with my own ears and even helped him at one time justify this belief and practice) expressly state that they are “CEO’s” of their Calvary Chapel and they should be compensated in a similar manner akin to the CEO or Owner of a successful small business or corporation.

    Bob used this rationale to justify his high pay and benefits package that exceeds $100,000 per year in total compensation.

  67. Andrew,

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. The true behavior of one who is spiritual leader tethers them to seek to do God’s will, not their own. They rise to the occasion, not because they fulfill a list of qualifications, but due to the bent to do God’s will above all else. That is why we have seen thru biblical history, men, who with all their short comings, have been used mightily by God.

    I have a book floating around my head with the thought of title “Is your pastor a pastor?”, sub titled, “are you truly called?”. A biblical look at the character and behavioral patterns of God’s leaders.

    Many of today’s leaders who may have once qualified for leadership, no longer do. Many who have not qualified for leadership now (based upon the repentant heart and a loooong time passing to prove character) can.

  68. Andrew,

    I was in the congregation at CCFTL when Bob Coy said from the pulpit, “I don’t have time to spend with all these guys on staff, many don’t know it but I am the president and CEO of 17 businesses. So when did that become a calling that overruled the primary calling of being a pastor and fulfilling the responsibility?

  69. Raymond, I can not defend Boy Coy and I won’t.

  70. Raymond D. I didn’t know that about Coy, but that fits the mold and pattern.

    There seem to be a lot of Businessmen in CC Pulpits…I know of quite a few, literally businessmen prior and during being CC pastors…and then of course working their CC Franchise.

    My litmus test for “true” Calling…one simple question to a Pastor or prospective Pastor:

    “Would you be a pastor and feel ‘called’ if you didn’t make and money and didn’t receive any monetary benefits from ‘serving the Lord’ and had to work another job to support your family while pastoring a church?”

    If the answer is “yes”…and you meet the Qualifications…then you are probably truly called.

    Unfortunately, many in CC see it as a “Career” and not a Calling….and the more “successful” they are in terms of butts in seats and giving, etc…the worse they get.

  71. Ray
    “Many of today’s leaders who may have once qualified for leadership, no longer do. Many who have not qualified for leadership now (based upon the repentant heart and a loooong time passing to prove character) can.”

    I knew this was the point of your trying to bait me into argument but you were not being honest, even after your last attempt to draw me in by ‘saying’ you conceded the ‘husband of one woman’. Nice to know that you are ‘now ‘ being honest enought to admit you were not telling the truth.

    Why is is so important for you to have the title or position rather than just love and serve the Body in the background without them? maybe that is a byproduct of the ‘professional/vocational’ pastorate/ministry model we have in the church today that falsely says that unless you are ‘recognized’ or ‘validated’ by the official title or position your service and ministry ‘within’ and ‘as one of’ the Body doesn’t count as much or is somehow ‘less than’ the REAL pastors. I call BS on that. Just serve if you have a heart to serve. Stop whining about what you aren’t eligible for (if in fact you are not, because i really don’t know your particular situation, nor do i need to, eligible by the clear teaching of scripture sans twisting and spin) and just start serving PEOPLE.

    If I waited for someones approval or the title or the official position, i never would have done half the stuff I have done in simple, selfless service for others in and out of the Body of Christ over the last 20+years. Just serve People, don’t worry about title or position. Jesus will be pleased and people will be edified.
    -mike

  72. ray
    sorry, i cutt off too early…

    “Just serve People, don’t worry about title or position. Jesus will be pleased and people will be edified”

    I would add that “… that should be enough. if it’s not then you should re-examine your motive. not my call, but yours to make”
    -mike

  73. alex.

    “Would you be a pastor and feel ‘called’ if you didn’t make and money and didn’t receive any monetary benefits from ‘serving the Lord’ and had to work another job to support your family while pastoring a church?”

    great question and i agree. would they do it even if there were no personal, financial, or ‘reputational’ benefit or remuneration? sadly, many serving today behind pulpits and employed in churches would answer NO.
    the system almost pushes people who start off just wanting to serve the Body , as raymond says he wants to, to think the professional/vocational ministry is the only way to ‘truly’ serve the Body. it is not.
    seminaries and bible colleges alike (even CCBC) are training people with the ‘career’ mindset that ministry is another job field and profession that should act and function like a business serving ‘clients’ or ‘customers’. Butts in the seats, giving units, or whateve you want to call them (as long as they keep the machine moving) I call BS on the machine with a desire to see ‘actual’ church ministry and interdependant fellowship relationship within the local church.
    who wouldn’t want to be up front, center of attention, man with the Word that everyone ‘needs’ to hear and agree with if all it is about is just ‘performing’ a church ‘service’ where sheep are herded in, entertained for an hour, lectured for a half hour and herded back out so the ‘next’ group of passive spectators can be brought in to ‘hear from on high’ (as if they can’t go directly to God thru Jesus and in the power of the Holy Spirit themselves)

    maybe instead of arguing the qualifications and responsibilities of Elders and Pastors, we should be discussing the ‘true’ and biblical function of the Body of Christ in the local congregation. why did we start putting up with this? why perpetuate it by trying to twist and spin around the clear requirements of scripture for Leadership? don’t you see that’s what got CC, Shiloh, CCV, and many other christian orgs where they are and leads to men like JH, BG, and CS?

    ok, now i’m done…. feel free to attack me personally and ignore my ideas.
    -mike

  74. I have’t done an exhaustive search on this but the term “leader” in our society seems to part of the problem of this discussion. Christianity in general today and in CC in particular is so “leadership” focused that we have forgotten what a servant is. Now the term “servant leadership” today means more of a boss of the servants than actually being a servant. Servants and leaders seem to be on opposite sides of a pole but thankfully we have a great example with Jesus.

  75. MIC,

    Sorry, but you missed the point.

    Let me address your title issue. At 34 I said, “Funny, I thought, according to Eph. 4:8 & 11 that they are identified as gifts and callings. Meaning it is God’s responsibility to provide according to his choice. Timothy is encouraged to live up to the calling that was upon his life and the gifting associated to it. John Mark saw himself as gifted and called, failed and then was found successful.” That pretty much voids the title issue. It is a gift and calling. paul was accused of not being an apostle, those accusations didn’t mean he wasn’t one.

    Calm down MIC, I wasn’t trying to bait you into an argument. I was trying to see if your rationale towards your theological conclusions was consistent. You still haven’t answered so I will avoid character assassinations such as you displayed.

    Not being honest. What do I have to lie about? I’ve gone so far as to post my first and last name here on this site. My website address, my email address, my city, what I do ministerially and I have met one who posts here on there suggestion. I have nothing to hide and certainly don’t need to lie to impress anyone here. The only time I baited someone and admitted it was with an open ended question to Perry on another thread. He was free to answer as he pleased and I didn’t know what the outcome would be.

    Validated by title or position? These are pretty outlandish conclusions since you don’t know me. I am validated by the work the Lord is doing in my heart and the fruit born in the lives I minister too. However, after nearly 30 years of serving the Lord, and having the privelege of sharing His word east coast to west coast. I have run across a number of individuals who have found themselves blown out of the water by the those bound to false theological conclusion having it perpetrated upon the naive and less experienced and that, quite frankly turns my stomach.

    You need to take a deep breath and calm down Mike (somewhere) in Chandler. You are beginning to look like you are on medication. You haven’t skipped a dose have you?

  76. MIC,

    As i discussed in 63. The argument, such as your ad hominem attacks in 71 merely display an inability to stay in the argument/discussion with anything substantive. You were likely correct at 59. I should have realized you were way over your head and much to far out of your league to keep up.

    You have my sincerest apologies for continuing.

  77. Andrew

    I apologize if that seemed directed towards you. It was not intended to be.

  78. ray,

    i’m not going to respond anymore to your defensive personal attacks. have a great day.
    -mike

  79. Alex says,

    “My litmus test for “true” Calling…one simple question to a Pastor or prospective Pastor:

    “Would you be a pastor and feel ‘called’ if you didn’t make and money and didn’t receive any monetary benefits from ‘serving the Lord’ and had to work another job to support your family while pastoring a church?”

    If the answer is “yes”…and you meet the Qualifications…then you are probably truly called.”

    I whole heartedly agree. I have never seen a check from ministry except for the short year I worked at CCFTL and it was NOT in a pastoral/ministerial position and I left to continue on ministering, my wife and I supporting ourselves. It is exhausting. It is faith building. It is awesome to see God work. As I instruct/disciple I teach to never expect, look for, or feel qualifed by title or position. It is a gift and a calling, period. Your either called and gifted or your not, and I can not provide it. It is left in God’s hands.

    As the church possibly turns to homes for venues the modern day spiritual leader will have to return to the aithor and finisher of his faith for total reliance. A very humbling experience.

  80. Raymond, no apology needed from me. I admire all the work you are doing. My question for you is what is a “modern day spiritual leader”? Would it be more appropriate to say what is a “modern day spiritual servant”?

  81. Andrew,

    Quite possibly semantics. I would agree with you that the word servant would not rouse as much suspicion as to the intent of the individual as the word leader. I am somewhat old school so my intent is understanding someone who has trodden the path and continues to do so. Therefore, leading by example. Not the expression of one who lords over the flock of God without regard for their own behavior. I am willing to follow one who expresses, by their actions, their devotion/obedience to the Lord. The process of serving is an expression of that devotion. Paul best expresses this in Phil. 3:8-14. He makes this description sound behavior/attitude of one who leads in 3:17. In reality all are supposed to grow in that direction as he expresses in verse 15.

    As we grow in Christ we all take on a role of leadership in someone’s life. (Eph. 4:12-16) You could say that discipling and leadership are synonymous. We all help one another to grow. However, to your initial question, I would find myself in agreement with you. To be a spiritual servant may help to better define one’s true intention/behavior. Nothing defines a person better than their actions. The actions of a servant ; )

  82. MIC @ 71 & 71; sounds to me like your issue is that YOU are not the man in charge. You wrote: that you wouldn’t have done so much in movre than 20 years of service had you waited for a title or approval. May I add that you certainly don’
    t sound like a humble servant…

  83. Just asking,

    Wow, that is insightful. I was going to go there. His comments seem Freudian. He appears to be projecting his own short comings and frustrations onto others. After his 78 posting and the fact that he used an oxy-moronic statement “defensive attacks” seems like he is struggling a little.

  84. Andrew,

    My response is awaiting moderation.

  85. I would be shocked and probably consider it a ‘real’ Miracle if a big guy like a Greg Laurie or Bob Coy or Skip Heitzig made the decision to collect zero salary and benefits and continued to serve.

    …the odds of that are about as viable as somebody actually getting healed by Benny Hinn.

  86. 2 or more verses or links seems to trip the spam filter, just fyi

  87. Raymond, Great response at 81.

    I get sensitive about the word leader in the church because of the common vernacular meaning.

    It appears leadership in the world and leadership in the Bible mean two different things and we need to be cautious about how we throw the term leader around. Leadership in the world typically means influence. Leadership in the bible is more about faithfulness.

  88. I have a lot of respect and am much more apt to believe a guy like Michael Newnham is “called” who works a full time job outside of “ministry” to then go and minister to a small group of folks in a home fellowship.

    At the very least a guy like John Piper and how frugal he is or a guy like my current pastor who if if was Calvary Chapel would justify taking twice as much money out of “his” ministry.

  89. Andrew says;

    “Leadership in the world typically means influence. Leadership in the bible is more about faithfulness.”

    Excellent point. Unfortunately, the word “influence” takes a hit. I like and agree with your statement. Sadly, we find an increasing concern towards the use of certain words. An example is the word religion. It has been maligned due to those who fail to exercise their faith appropriately. James says, pure and undefiled religion……. substantiating sound religious practices. The word “church” has taken a hit. The word “faith” its definition is so broad it is confusing to discuss openly.

    Our influence upon the world is based upon on servant heart. To serve God first, which may not always please man. To serve man, which will bring glory to God.

  90. If I may explain further;

    In Rev. Ch. 1 vs 2 and 9 Joh says that he was imprisoned for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus. His influence was based upon his adherence to the truth of God’s word. It was an aspect of his servitude to God.

    In ch. 6:9 there are those that were slain for the word of God. Sometimes we overemphasize our service in a church setting. Who may see us performing what. Let’s be real. We are all prone to that occurring. God says, “are you faithful to my word?” Our faithfulness to his word expresses our love for him. John fourteen, 15 says, “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” It is an expression of our love for Him. It is seen as service to Him.

    Alex may be opposed to being seen as either a servant, or a leader, but the question must be asked, Is he holding to the truth of God’s word. My answer based upon what i read from the site is yes. He may fall, have short comings, failures, etc. But the question to be asked is, is he putting the truth of God’s word over his own convenience. I’ve drawn my conclusions. I’ll let others draw theirs.

    p.s. the funky scripture references is to avoid the moderation black hole.

  91. Raymond, I agree. Influence in worldly terms appears more quantitative. Influence in godly terms is more qualitative.

  92. Alex,

    I agree. The standard for those who minister in that capacity must recognize the day in which we live. What their lifestyle expresses to those who are watching and the importance living out what is right. This cannot be overstated.

    I, personally, take the attacks of those I work with who love to poke fun at me because they know who I am and what I stand for. I ride around in a truck where the majority rules on the use of the radio and I may have to listen to “liquid metal” on a day I have to teach. Wild stuff to get out of your head. I used to earn in the top 3 percentile in the nation. I left the professional life to take on a regular job to follow God’s calling. I am left wondering how someone today truly ministers to those in his congregation when he is clueless as to what they face everyday at work.

    Paul’s example was of one who led the charge on taking the hits in his day and age. He worked with his own hands the majority of the time and testified to helping to support those that were with him. I fear that we have so successfully warped what God truly intended that we will not recover.

  93. Andrew,

    I love you man!! For two reasons. One is that you are a very thoughful and reasonable person. The second is that you actually respond to my posts….. lol

  94. Raymond, I had a hard time keeping up at first but I can tell you got some years of wisdom under your belt. Just go easy on Mike in Chandler. I think he is a good guy too. Got to go to the gym now.

  95. I’ll tke that advice

  96. Raymond, that is so awesome. I know it doesn’t mean much, but I admire a guy like you light years more than a Chuck Smith.

  97. Raymond D. said, “Paul’s example was of one who led the charge on taking the hits in his day and age. He worked with his own hands the majority of the time and testified to helping to support those that were with him. I fear that we have so successfully warped what God truly intended that we will not recover.”

    Amen.

  98. Thanks Alex. I sincerely appreciate that.

  99. Alex,

    I shared the need to stay devoted to Christ nomatter what we faced with a young man that attends the studies and I disciple. I shared the story of the liquid metal music and he said he had to deal with the same thing. I learned a lesson from this. How much do you think it impacted him to know I was going thru exactly the same thing he was contending with, and yet be able to discuss success in Christ. Invaluable.

    You, my unmet friend, had no idea how much your personal experiences were going to resonate. You may not have wanted to experience what you experienced, but look how many you have ministered to along the way. If you had not gone thru what you went thru you could provide sympathy. Now you can provide empathy.

    You made a statement on another thread about this burning desire you can’t shake. I will offer my humble opinion. If it is about you getting yours, then quit. However, if it is about you not being able to shake the fact that others are being hurt and taking advantage of then righteous indignation is working thru you. Dare I say, the Lord is using you and your circumstances to help and protect His sheep. Your wrestling is not surprising. It is encouraging. Humility causes one to question themselves. This should never go away. It helps keep us in check.

    God Bless

  100. Raymond D., thank you for sharing that.

  101. Raymond D wrote:

    “What I am attempting to do is try and get you to look at the entire counsel of God. To conclude that a man must be married, can’t be remarried, can’t be single, etc, etc. for ministry overlooks the context of the passage (i.e. character).”

    It’s not for ministry in general that the divorced & remarried man is disqualified but for the position of pastor because that’s the Bible’s position. Period. Further, some would consider divorce to be a character issue: it’s about breaking vows and promises e.g., forsaking all others, ’til death do us part etc… But the bright side is that divorce is also a character-building issue.

    Let’s face it divorce stinks…like the stench of rotten shrimp left in a curtain rod:

    “She spent the first day packing her personal belongings into boxes, crates and suitcases. On the second day, she had the movers come and collect her things. On the third day, she sat down for the last time at their beautiful dining room table by candlelight, put on some soft background music and feasted on a pound of shrimp, a jar of caviar, and a bottle of Chardonnay.

    When she had finished, she went into each and every room and deposited a few half-eaten shrimp shells dipped in caviar into the hollow of the curtain rods. She then cleaned up the kitchen and left.

    When the husband returned with his new girlfriend, all was bliss for the first few days. Then slowly, the house began to smell. They tried everything; cleaning and mopping and airing the place out. Vents were checked for dead rodents and carpets were steam cleaned. Air fresheners were hung everywhere. Exterminators were brought in to set off gas canisters, during which they had to move out for a few days. In the end they even paid to replace the expensive wool carpeting.

    Nothing worked.

    People stopped coming over to visit. Repairmen refused to work in the house. The maid quit.

    Finally, they could not take the stench any longer and decided to move. A month later, even though they had cut their price in half, they could not find a buyer for their stinky house. Word got out and, eventually, even the local realtors refused to return their calls.

    Finally, they had to borrow a huge sum of money from the bank to purchase a new place. The ex-wife called the man and asked how things were going. She told him she missed her old home terribly and would be willing to reduce her divorce settlement in exchange for getting the house back. Knowing his ex-wife had no idea how bad the smell was, he agreed on a price that was about 1/10th of what the house had been worth, but only if she were to sign the papers that very day. She agreed and within the hour, his lawyers delivered the paperwork.

    A week later, the man and his new girlfriend stood smirking as they watched the moving company pack everything to take to their new home. Including the curtain rods.”

    Are you divorced Raymond?

  102. Lenny

    ?????

    Try and keep up. (read thru the thread) This has become (what is left of it) a discussion on theological rationale.

    Earlier at 62 I stated, “Let me simplify this. I will concede to your views on the husband of one wife, never to have been divorced. Now I can’t squeeze you.
    Please answer the question. What does a father ruling his house well, having his children in subjection with all gravity, mean?”

    When I get involved in biblical thought I desire to see someone’s ability to rightly divide the word of God. This discussion started with me stating my point that I saw the position of pastor, elder, teacher, etc. as a gift and a calling. The introduction of that thought turned into a viscious attack on my character. If you want to keep this civil the I’ll ask you the same question.

    I pass that on to you since you want to continue and hold the same position. Please answer the question. What does a father ruling his house well, having his children in subjection with all gravity, mean?”

  103. Lenny,

    The question was not answered simply by any who want to boldly hold to a perfect understanding of the other portion of the passage.

  104. Raymond, answer my question first then I’ll answer yours:

    Are you twice married?

    I am not.

    Your question seems to answer itself or is it a trick question?:

    “What does a father ruling his house well, having his children in subjection with all gravity, mean?””

  105. “What does a father ruling his house well, having his children in subjection with all gravity, mean?””

    I can tell you what it doesn’t mean…don’t break the law and commit habitual and continual child abuse for many many years.

  106. Alex

    We have agreed that CC’s problems trend from a poor understanding of biblical truth. A poor establishment of foundational truth results in a misinterpretation of truth. It then becomes a misrepresentation of truth exercised out in the practice of one’s faith. If we truly believe that CC’s problems stem from poor exegesis then why should we conclude that eisegesis will bring about a different result?

    Off the cuff conclusions do nothing more than substantiate that whether it be them or us, we are all prone to heading off in the wrong direction.

    Julie Anne Smith wrote;

    “Alex – Your job is so important. Sometimes people will sit in their churches for years having a gut feeling that something is not quite right and are afraid to question or make the move. That is why people like you exposing the truth is so helpful. Thank YOU!”

    The truth she refers to is the poor experiences of those in the church being treated contrary to sound biblical behavior developed thru poor hermeneutics. Jesus testified that God’s word is truth. You have utilized that truth to substantiate your position, of which I agree. However, for those drifting into theological banter bound to a conclusion that is not fully developed requires further discourse. You may find that those who have been wounded theologically elsewhere, may find themselves theologically battered here as well. Not necessarily by you. An attack waged and then conveniently abandoned is far to familiar to my past experiences. It scrapes its nails across the exposed nerves of past wounds.

    Read back thru the thread. Ask yourself this question, “Why are those so staunch in one conclusion, completely incapable of addressing the other question?” Thru the sciences of rhetoric, debate and the development of a logical thought I already know the answer. The result is a wake of hurt people by those developing dogma from poor study.

    I agree with your conclusion. I wanted to see the mechinations by those wanting to stay strictly in the passage. To stay strictly in the passage does not bring you to that conclusion. It requires a broader development of biblical truth.

  107. MIC

    I know we have traded barbs throughout the thread. My frustration can be hard to bridle. Let me apologize for that.

    In all seriousness, as one who serves others, as you have stated. Should someone ask you a biblical question as you minister, you should do your best to seek to answer it. Even if the conclusion leaves you having to say, I am not perfectly sure of the conclusion. There is no shame in not knowing. There is, however, in not seeking.

  108. Lenny at 104

    The questions asked are based upon scriptural passages therefore defining it as objective. My situation, your situation, and everyone elses situation draws subjectivism into the discussion. Once we drift into that direction we move towards moral relativism. A post modern thought process.

    Here is my point in a nutshell. The statement was made that the Pastor was a position, like an office, or title. I stated it was a gift and calling siteing scripture.

    Then the passage was used to substantiate no divorced men in the pastorate. Nothing in the passage discusses divorce. Look at it. It was pointed out by (I believe married man) the passage starts out, he must be blameless. In other words, not guilty of the charges laid against him. The rest are character issues. If they are qualifications. Then we would conclude that the leader must be married. We would also conclude that he must have children, you can’t rule over something you don’t have. Are we willing to say that if a married couple who can’t have children, felt called to pastorate that they would be disqualified because they don’t have children?

    The words “subjugate” and “gravity” express a harshness. Yet we know that is not what Paul meant (Eph. 6:4; Col.3:21). The Godly father should follow in the footsteps of his heavenly father disciplining to the good of the child, not himself (Heb. 12:5-10).

    Jesus stated that on two laws hang all the law and the prophets. Love was the common factor. The desire to love God and the desire to love others as ourselves becomes the foundational truth by which all other truth is intended to be understood. The fathers desire for his children is for their ultimate good to the glory of God. The man of God’s desire to be blameless for his Love of God for the good of others. I saw a very pharisaic attack that sickened me. I’ve lived through enough of that. If you knew me personally, you would see that I don’t take it, or the compromise of God’s word lightly or laying down.

    I’m done with this topic.

  109. Raymond D wrote:
    “Here is my point in a nutshell. The statement was made that the Pastor was a position, like an office, or title. I stated it was a gift and calling siteing scripture.”

    Raymond, whether the pastor is a person, position, place, gift or calling here are the 14 requirements for said person/position/place/gift/calling:

    1. Above Reproach – An accusation of sin won’t stick
    2. Husband of One Wife – He must have one living wife (i.e., must not be divorced & remarried) to whom he is faithful and committed.
    3. Self-Control – He masters his behavior and emotions; they don’t control him; he’s not a control freak
    4. Lives Wisely – He makes good choices all around.
    5. Has a Good Reputation – Parishioners and people in the community think highly of and respect him.
    6. Hospitable – He opens his home to others.
    7. He Can Teach – He has gifted insight into correct scriptural interpretation and communicates well those insights to others.
    8. Not Addicted to Wine – He will never get drunk or over indulge in alcohol.
    9. Not Violent – He resolves conflict peacefully, quietly & discreetly with the least number/amount of casualty, mayhem and damaging disorder.
    10. Gentle – His mannerisms and words are not abrasive
    11. Loves Peace – He works toward peace (not war) in the relationships he encounters.
    12. Does Not Love Money – He is not consumed with his IRA
    13. Manages His Home Well – His house & finances are in order, not in chaos, and his children (if any) are polite and respectful.
    14. Not a New Christian – He has proven experience as a faithful follower of Christ.

    It is frighteningly to believe that we could just toss out a few of the requirements we feel are not so important and keep others we feel are. It’s a package deal, so it is not ok that the pastor is divorced because he manages his HOME well. Which HOME? Because if he has 2 living wives (with/without children with 1 or both) each living in a separate HOME, now the man has 2 HOMES which is the plural of HOME, thus violating scripture which says 1 wife, 1 HOME.

    The reason I asked if you were divorced is because those who are (or have pastor friends who are) want the passage to say it is ok for a divorced-remarried man to be pastor and those who are not want it to say it is not ok.

    Makes sense Raymond?

  110. “What does a father ruling his house well, having his children in subjection with all gravity, mean?”

    Go back to Deuteronomy chapter 6 and see what the father was commanded to do. Now the Orthodox Jews to this day go a bit far and get strange about it, but I contend a man who daily shows, thinks about, works with, teaches and demonstrates his love for God will pass that on to his children. A man who loves God (Jesus) will do and not just talk and that is the most powerful way to pass on the faith.

    In an old Spike Jones lyric it is said, “You only hurt the ones you love, the ones you shouldn’t hurt at all….” How true and from a novelty band leader of the 40s. Do we live and demonstrate our love for God and His creation? Do the ones closest to us see that love?

    In my opinion that is what it means to rule ones family well.

  111. Lenny and MM,

    i appreciate your working thru the scripture (lenny) and i agree with what you have written regarding the need for integrity in ministry according to the scriptures. (Married Man)

    but raymond,… (and i’d appreciate your consideration on this)
    “In all seriousness, as one who serves others, as you have stated. Should someone ask you a biblical question as you minister, you should do your best to seek to answer it. Even if the conclusion leaves you having to say, I am not perfectly sure of the conclusion. There is no shame in not knowing. There is, however, in not seeking.”

    do you really think this was necessary to say to me? was it said from the position of ‘help’ or condecension? was it truly edifying or was it just your trying to ‘put me in my place’? either way, please resist the urge in the future. that would be both helpful ‘and’ edifying. thx
    -mike

  112. MM, Mike, LL,

    Gentlemen, between my work, family and ministerial duties I am pressed for time. I have spent far to much time blogging, which I must admit, can be compelling. However, i will have to exercise self control lest I find myself disqualified from the calling on my life ; )

    I have responded below.

  113. LL,
    I believe I stated I was done with this topic. However, I will respectfully respond. My response below are between your points/comments

    Raymond, whether the pastor is a person, position, place, gift or calling here are the 14 requirements for said person/position/place/gift/calling:

    1. Above Reproach – An accusation of sin won’t stick
    Broad interpretation. John says that if anyone says they sin not they are a liar and the truth is not in them.

    2. Husband of One Wife – He must have one living wife (i.e., must not be divorced & remarried) to whom he is faithful and committed.

    LL These are your conclusions, yet unsubstantiated by the passage, supporting passages, etc. The qualification for “ the husband of one wife”, can as easily communicate, no polygamy and likely does. Until proven your conclusion is specious at worst and conjecture at best.

    3. Self-Control – He masters his behavior and emotions; they don’t control him; he’s not a control freak

    This last statement is your interpretation and is subjective. What may appear a control freak to some may be a good manager to others.

    4. Lives Wisely – He makes good choices all around.

    Once again, subjective. Living wisely is living in obedience to scripture. Good choices can be based upon who is in agreement with you. Example: some believe Alex starting this site was a good choice, others do not.

    5. Has a Good Reputation – Parishioners and people in the community think highly of and respect him.

    Poor interpretation. Paul’s rep. was high amongst many, and low amongst many more. Your conclusion would disqualify him.

    6. Hospitable – He opens his home to others.

    7. He Can Teach – He has gifted insight into correct scriptural interpretation and communicates well those insights to others.

    8. Not Addicted to Wine – He will never get drunk or over indulge in alcohol.

    9. Not Violent – He resolves conflict peacefully, quietly & discreetly with the least number/amount of casualty, mayhem and damaging disorder.

    Your conclusions are subjective. Sadly, Jesus, Paul, Peter, the writers of the NT would not qualify. Your error is in your interpretation of “no striker”. Your interpretation may be better suited for “not a brawler” which you did not list.

    10. Gentle – His mannerisms and words are not abrasive.

    Paul gave admonition to reprove, rebuke and exhort. A leader out of line should be rebuked before all so that others may fear. Kinda hard to do that without cutting across the grain. Just a little too PC

    11. Loves Peace – He works toward peace (not war) in the relationships he encounters.

    Have I missed something? I am getting old and the Las Vegas heat wears me out. Can you tell me what translation you got this from? Where is not a brawler? Are you taking license?

    12. Does Not Love Money – He is not consumed with his IRA

    Bad interpretation. Filthy lucre would be better defined as ill gotten gain. Your conclusion is sophistry.

    13. Manages His Home Well – His house & finances are in order, not in chaos, and his children (if any) are polite and respectful.

    Why didn’t you qualify the manner in which he was to rule his children? This is significant due to the correlative way in which he rules the church? Still avoiding the question?

    14. Not a New Christian – He has proven experience as a faithful follower of Christ.

    It is frighteningly to believe that we could just toss out a few of the requirements we feel are not so important and keep others we feel are.

    (What is frightening is that you omitted, changed, gave invalid and unsubstantiated interpretation and you can’t see it.)

    iIt’s a package deal, so it is not ok that the pastor is divorced because he manages his HOME well. Which HOME? Because if he has 2 living wives (with/without children with 1 or both) each living in a separate HOME, now the man has 2 HOMES which is the plural of HOME, thus violating scripture which says 1 wife, 1 HOME.

    The reason I asked if you were divorced is because those who are (or have pastor friends who are) want the passage to say it is ok for a divorced-remarried man to be pastor and those who are not want it to say it is not ok.

    I don’t validate scripture by my own experiences. That would be subjectivism, which leads to moral relativism which is post modern philosophy.

    Makes sense Raymond?

    It doesn’t and I’ll provide you with some info below.

  114. LL,
    Here is a diagram of the basic construct of an argument taken from some resources.
    Premise Conclusion Inference
    A B A=>B
    —————————-
    F F T
    F T T
    – If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false.
    T F F
    – If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid.
    T T T
    – If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true.

    You must note the difference between something stated explicitly and that which is implied. Should you believe a thought is implied, it will require substantiating evidence. That evidence must be seen within the light of its own context. Deductive reasoning can be tricky. Police utilize deduction when determining the guilt or innocence of a person. Their objective is three fold; mens rea (mental culpability, did they think about doing this) actus reas (did they perform the act) motive (did they have a reason for doing it). They seek to fill the puzzle pieces of what they already believe to be the case. They err more times than they care to admit. The biblical scholar must not approach the scripture this way.
    You may want to do a study on fallacious arguments. If you put the sweat equity into understanding the entire development of an argument, who knows, maybe you will find out you are right, or at least a little more reasonable in your argument.
    God Bless.

  115. Mike,

    It was intended to be advice. Let me explain. If you go back thru the thread you will notice that the conclusions stated by you and LL were dogmatic without substantial evidence, as both of you agreed, staying true to the passage in the strictest sense. Using your own ideology, I asked a question that, either of you utilize the same thought process and produce a conclusion, staying in the strictest sense of the passage of the above referrenced verse. You both declined. I consider a no response a decline sense both of you continued to provide missives within this or another thread. Since both of you took the role of understanding scripture I placed you in the role of teacher. Since a bishop should be apt to teach and teaching is a gift/calling (refer to LL’s missive) that places you in a position of leadership. You were both attempting to educate me. This is an undeniable fact because you both concluded I was wrong and insulted me in the process. Since you took on the role of leaders, I took on the role of congregant. I asked you a simple question staying within the passage. No response. I asked the question a few times. No response. If I was in your spiritual care I would be seeking other leadership.

    In the course of my professional life, and tied to my ministerial life I have found great benefit to expanding my studies to that of behavioral physics, behavioral economics, psychology, sociology, philosophy and rhetoric. Those studies led to my conclusions, which were, that the reality of your situation is that both of you found yourselves in a catch 22. If you defaulted to the strictest sense of the passage you would be in direct opposition with this blog sites objective. Deep down you both knew it and avoided it. (Search Maslow’s hierarchy of needs)However, should you have had an expanded knowledge of scripture you would have been able to express a broader sense of what was meant causing you to have rightly divided the word of Truth. Having to broaden your understanding of the verse in question would mean that you may have to broaden your understanding of the entire passage.

    Education is an ongoing process. My comment to you was in your best interest. Iron sharpening iron. The rebukes of a friend are better than the kisses of an enemy. I will pray for you and LL. I believe we will share in the blessings that the Lord has for those who love him.
    God Bless

  116. Married Man,

    I applaud you. The counsel of God’s word is consistent, Old Testament to New Testament.

    I had a couple of Spike Jones albums growing up. They used to play him on the radio on a variety hour on Sunday nights. Funny stuff, back then.

  117. I have a question.

    in your mind what is an itinenet preacher? Historically, and pragmatically.

  118. You got me there Raymond. I guess blogging has its limitations. Once married and good manager of home is but 2 of 14 qualifiers but not all once married men who manage their homes well are pastors. All that other logic stuff is way above my pay grade, and if my 8 yr old can’t understand it I’m good.

  119. Sorry to derail anyone, but my question stands.

    Please answer if you happen to know. Thanks.

  120. Linda P.

    Could you elaborate? The thought of “historically” could reference all of history to date. I usually limit my conclusions to scripture.

    Secondly, and somewhat in the same vein of thought as the first, in what manner are you using the word “pragmatic”? Are you utilizing it to simply state the practical points of view, or the causal affects of history and the preceding events effects/circumstances upon the position or person thereof.?

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Switch to our mobile site