How do you the rest of you feel about the following "Evaluation Form" recently given to various church members at a certain congregation... How would you respond if you were the preacher? Or a member?

Dear Church Members:

The Elders of ***** Christian Church are requesting each church member to participate in the quarterly evaluation of our minister, Enclosed for your convenience and prompt reply is a stamped addressed envelope. We are requesting this evaluation be returned no later than April 18, 2001, using the enclosed stamped envelope.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Has the minister visited you in your home?

Has the minister telephoned you?

Has the minister visited you or a family member in the hospital?

Do you think the minister is fulfilling his pastoral duties?

Do you think the minister is encouraging church growth?

If not, what do you think he should be doing?

Do you believe the minister participates in all the functions/activities of the church?

Do you think the minister is available to members needing counseling? If not, would you feel comfortable seeking counseling with the minister?

Do you think the minister is a dedicated minister preaching the word of the Lord?

Are you satisfied with the ministers sermons?

Are you satisfied with the ministers leadership in Bible Study?

If not, how could it be improved?

Do you wish to retain or dismiss the minister?

How do you feel the Pastor and Elders could better serve you?

Thank you for your faithfulness in completing this evaluation.

In the space below please add any other comments you wish to make.

All replies are CONFIDENTIAL!

PLEASE DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

Answers

I have a REAL problem with it for a couple of reasons.....

First....if the elders need an evaluation form from the congregation in order to "evaluate" the minister.....what does that say about how well they are shepherding the flock according to their pastoral responsibilties??....i.e., how well do they know their people and how well in touch are they if they need a survey form??

Second.....hardly anything described on that survey....has anything to do with the responsibility of the evangelist according to 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. For instance.....where is the evangelist EVER told in scripture to "shepherd the flock??" (I place that as a challege.) Last time I checked....that responsibility was given directly to the elders. Where is the evangelist told to "telephone the people??" How is it that the evangelist needs to "attend all the activities of the church?" (I mean...does the include the "Ladies Aid society?"......and....are the elders held to those same standards???)

When the survey asks the question....how do you believe "the pastor and Elders could better serve you"....it shows to me the heart of the problem...i.e., that church does not have the faintest idea what biblical leadership is in light of the New Testament pattern.

Lastly.....confidential criticisms are not only useless....I would submit they are unscriptural. The Bible makes it abundantly clear....that if we have a problem with someone we are to go to that person and rectify the problem.

I agree with John Wilson....this particular survey does little except to promote an un-Christlike spirit among God's people.

And Robin....most preachers would be happy to get evaluated once a quarter. It would be a welcome relief to the 24 hour a day....365 day a year evaluation!!!

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2001

I will say this on behalf of the non-instrumental fellowship of churches, of which E. Lee is a part. In general, they are more respectful of their pulpit preachers than in the instrumental churches. E. Lee's post demonstrates this.

I became more aware of this just a few weeks ago when I read an excerpt from a letter from 1944 of a man who left the Christian Church to serve in the non-instrumental fellowship.

The reason he cites for leaving is almost an exact mirror of the attitudes demonstrated in the above "survey."

The non instrumental fellowship does not view their preachers as "hirelings" that can be "hired" and "fired." They view their men as co-workers with distinct responsibilties different from the local eldership. They view their men as "called" to serve in a particular location as opposed to "hired."

In fact, the non-instrumental fellowship sees this as one of the failings of the Christian church...i.e., they have allowed the preacher to become a hireling (i.e., the pastor)....that has been called from the ministry of the word and prayer...."to serve tables." (This was a direct quote...not my wording.)

It is little wonder then, that I have noticed in recent years....a number of my colleages.....making the switch....and being quite happy about it....and finding a fulfillment in ministry they had not had before.

I'm not ready to make the switch....but I can understand the ones who do. While our movement continues on the "road to the left".....we also continue to make demands on the preacher that are unjustifiable.....both realistically....and more importantly.....Scripturally.

The Christian Church is paying for the attitude of the "easy hire....easy fire" mentality. Not only are there fewer men graduating from the Bible colleges with the desire to preach...the ones that do enter the ministry and are still staying in the ministry less than 5 years.

The average church member will excuse themselves and say it "must be something else"......but....thank goodness for a lot of churches that have fessed up....and admitted there needs to be some changes made in preacher/church relationships.

So in essence....I applaud the non-instrumental fellowship. For I believe they have followed through on "restoring the church of the N.T." more fully than we have in this area. We have much we can learn from them. It is never to late to repent.....and follow their lead.

E. Lee....please forgive me if I have misrepresented the position of your fellowship. It was certainly not intended. Please feel free to correct me if need be. I'm certainly not an expert. It was simply my interpretation from some what....anecdotal evidence.

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

Robin....you ask....

"Is it OK to expect an evangelist to "train others in evangelist outreach"? "

You ask this question under the guise of...."other expectations."

I would argue....this is one of the Scriptural job descriptions of the Evangelist.

See...Ephesians 4:11-12..."And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers....(here it is Robin)....for the equipping of the saints for the work of service."

Does not your interpretation of that see....that hiring a preacher to do this is wrong?? Rather....we call a preacher to equip us to do the work the Lord has called us to do?? And could that not be a life long work in one congregation since the congregation grows....and changes as it grows??

Robin....could it be that it is important to you to maintain that word "hire".....so that you can show who is boss??

The fact is......words mean things. Words communicate inner feelings. Words communicate mentalities. To maintain the word "hire"....seems to me to be some overt way of maintaining control.

You assume that evangelist were always "short term" positions?? Upon what do you base this?? It seems your understanding of evangelists is shaped more by modern vernacular as opposed to Scripture.

Philip, after baptizing the eunuch....according to Acts 8....preached in a number of cities.....and then came to Caesarea. The next time me meet Philip, is in Acts 21:8. This is approx. 20 years later. Here is what we read..."And on the next day we departed and came to Caesarea; and entering the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we stayed with him."

Interesting.....20 years later.....and he is still in a located ministry in Caesarea.

It concerns me that you seem to have a problem with "what does an evangelist do." (Of course, that is no different from the average person in the pew who thinks we work one day a week.)

I wish you could take a the class I teach on the Evangelist Epistles (i.e., 1 & 2 Timothy & Titus). One of the course requirements is to develop a job description for the preacher based upon these books. Students are constantly amazed at the list they develop.

It becomes quite clear to all.....that if more located ministers were concentrating on the their job description as per the Bible....and Elders shepherded the flock.....the growth in the kingdom would be phenomenal.

I am fortunate. For the last 9 years I have worked with men.... (including the 2 years at my current congregation....and the 7 years at the previous) who were dedicated to being shepherds....to allowing me the freedom to do the work of an evangelist....and together, as partners in ministry......we enjoyed great victories.

The "easy hire....easy fire" mentality....I know it's hard to get over.....but I'm praying for you.

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

John,

If as you say there is no biblical precedent for a "paid minister"....your words...(which I believe you are wrong about).....then why do you continue to support something that is not biblical??

To me....that is the epitome of sin...i.e., to knowingly disobey the N.T. pattern.

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

Robin....

I apologize....I should have been less general in my reply and more specific.

The fact is....many churches do have this attitude (oh the stories I could tell of what some of my brethren have endured).

Like I said....I speak more from what I have observed....because over my 20 years of ministry.....churches have been better to me than I deserved.

Another fact Robin....I think the vast majority of preachers today are "fired" for other than Scriptural reasons....don't you??

Personally....I've always preached like I was a millionaire!! (Do you know what I mean by that??)

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Robin....

As per your question about the Elders and 300 people...that's easy.

Which is more logical....for 3 elders to shepherd a flock of 100 people each.....or to expect one to do it all.....and evangelize...and equip??

It also sounds like....you need to be raising up more elders.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Robin....

You ask if the Evangelist job description is more time consuming.

Answer: Biblically speaking no. By modern expecatations....i.e., the above survey.....MOST DEFINITELY!!!

By the way....the text in Timothy specifically states that those that are gifted in preaching and teaching are the ones worthy of double honor.

Some congregations do have elders who serve as the minister....and....in congregations I have served in the past....the Elders were paid for filling in for me to preach or teach. In my current congregation......the guys won't take the money!!

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Robin...

As per your question about the term "minister."

I think you are right. I think it is better than "pastor"....but still....I think it misses the mark.

The Greek word for deacon, servant, and minister is the same....literally....one who serves.

By that definition then....all are ministers who are Christians.

Which is why I choose to use the biblical term "Evangelist"....or Preacher. "Evangelist"....one who proclaims the good news.....Preacher....one who proclaims.

I like the saying I've seen in some churches....."Such and Such...Preacher.....all members...ministers."

By the way....this helps in carrying the ministry concept of church work.....i.e., everyone has a ministry to fulfill.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Robin....

Here is what I meant by the statment..."I preach as if I was a millionare!"

What I mean by that is.....I preach the word....let the chips fall where they lie.....and if I get fired for preaching the word....so be it.

I was looking for a job when I came here.

I do not approach my ministry concerned about my salary. I approach my ministry with concern about being able to sleep at night because I was faithful to my calling.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Personally....a preacher of a public sin....for which he repented.....in my opinion....should resign....for the very reasons you have stated.

As per your question of "style"....it is true....some people can deal better with different styles (as is also evident on this forum).

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Fortunately for me.....I've always been called to preach in congregations that had wearied of "milk toast"....."syrupy love" preaching and wanted it straight for a change.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Well...it seems you two have the discussion well under control.

Good....that frees me up to go turkey hunting for a week.

C-ya next week!!

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Dave...

I understand perfectly what you are saying...but let me qualify my answer....as I feel the premise is sound.

First of all, concerning the talents of an Evangelist. My main talent/gifts (whatever you want to call it) involves....teaching/preaching, administration, and leadership development. The congregation I am in my third year of serving was in desparate need of such talents when I came here. Some men are more "evangelistically oriented".....while I am more of the teacher/mentor...someone who can help get congregations back on sound scriptural footing....(often times after years of letting strong scriptural teaching slide).

A long ministry may end up being the Lord's will here. On the other hand.....in 1 or 2 or 10 years....the congregation may need and Evangelist with different talents. I need to accept that and move on.

One thing I've discovered in the Lord's church....no matter how long....or how short a preacher's ministry....each one seems to fill a "niche" in that conregation.

As per the personality thing....I think it is a valid consideration. For instance, where I am at......a "city slicker" preacher would not fit....and would not be comfortable. They are much more comfortable with someone who wears a "camo shirt" to the office....can come over and help you sight in your slug gun for deer season.....and someone who will take you out turkey hunting (which I'm getting ready to do in about 30 minutes....it's 4:04 AM....are we having fun yet?!?!).

Personally.....while I have served in urban ministries.....I would find it very uncomfortable any more at this point in my life.

Granted....God may call me there....(but I would rather He not). :)

Hope this clarfies.

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2001

Dave.....

Next time your're in my neck of the woods....look me up. I'll take you out.

God bless!

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001

I have a real problem with the fact that folks could send in quarterly reports like this without signing their name. Maybe the form could be useful, maybe not ... but certainly not if folks don't have the guts to put their name to any critique ... positive or negative ... that they might have.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2001

I have two problems with this. First, I can see that it is going to cause the minister to have a LOT of stress, being concerned every season about whether his congregation is going to give him a vote of "no confidence."

Second, the minister may, and likely will, be tempted to preach what the congregation wants to hear (tickle their itching ears), rather than what they need to hear, to avoid offending anyone and getting a "negative" review. He will likely compromise the gospel and the whole counsel of God to save his position.

We have been talking in this forum lately about churches that destroy their pastors. I submit that this is just one more way, and I suggest they scrap it.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2001

I am not a preacher... so, I'm sure my perspective is somewhat different....

I think some type of 'evaluation' should definitely be available to the congregation. I'm not sure about what time-frame (quarterly seems a bit much). I do agree that comments should be signed... but I don't think the preacher needs to see the names. I also think the "Do you wish to retain or dismiss the minister?" is not really appropriate at this level.... Let the people comment with facts and experiences and then the Elders can consider the comments and act upon them.

It is a great way to open up discussion about issues that are concerning the people... and the Elders need to know.

Most all jobs come with some type of 'review' or 'evaluation'... why not preachers?

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2001

I agree with Danny that elders are given responsibility to tend the flock.

For example, James 5 says that if there by any sick among you, let him call for the elders of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. The survey finds out if 'the minister' visits people in the hospital.

The elder/minister distinction here seems to be an outgrowth of the Presbyterian church structure, with the addition of elders having more power. originally, the pastors in the Presbyterian and Reformed chruches were considered to be presbyters/elders. The Reformed church, from what I've read, had 'elders' as a type of civic leader in their 'theocractic' government. 'Elder' was a translation of garousia.

So in these type of churches, the pastor, considered to be a Biblical elder, had pastoral ministry responsibilities. The role of 'elders' evolved into being men who sat on boards, made decisions,a nd took voer some of the traditional responsibilities given to deacons in the older traditional churches.

This model still seems to carry over to some extent in the RM, although there is a _theoretical_ belief that elders are supposed to pastor the flock that actually can be put into practice in some congregations. The elders in RM churches are recognized as being Biblical elders. But where does that leave the minister?

Some say he is an elder. Some say he is an evangelist. Some say he is a 'pulpit minister' and recognize that this set-up is a cultural expression that makes sense to Americans but isn't in the Bible, exactly.

Is a pulpit minister the same thing as a Biblical evangelist? Well, Philip is called an evangelist. he went down to Samaria, proclaimed Christ, did miracles, baptized believers, and then called for the apostles, the leadership of his own church, to come take care of things. He moved on. He evangelized a man, baptized him, and disappeared, and then traveled through a reagion preaching the Gospel.

Philip the evangelist would preach quickly, leave, and go preach elsewhere. Unlike Paul and Barnabas, sent out on an apostolic mission, we don't see him staying around for a long time doing a lot of pastoral work for years.

But the pulpit minister stays around for years doing the work of a traditional pastor, with the exception that the board of elders has more authority.

Timothy was told to do the work of an evangelist. But Timothy was a part of Paul's team of ministers doing apostolic work along with Paul. These men didn't just preach and run. They preached and stayed around, pastored, set things up, and then left when persecution or need arouse and indicated it was time for them to leave. (Jesus told the 12, if they persecute you in that city, flee into the next.)

So Timothy was told to do the work of an evangelist, but he was also told to appoint elders and do various other ministries associated with apostolic work.

How does this compare to the pulpit-minister situation? Well, Timothy had special authority to appoint elders, etc. because of the 'measure of rule.' Either he, or Paul who sent him, had worked to lay the foundation of Christ that the Lord had sent them to lay. Paul told the Corinthians, for example, that he became their father in the Gospel. If he were not an apostle to others, he was an apostle to them, for they were the seal of his apostleship in the Lord. He, as a wise masterbuilder had laid the foundation of Christ. The rule of his and Timothy's authority extended to them because they had taken the Gospel to Corinth.

Does the average pulpit minister have this fatherly authority that comes from being sent by God and founding a new work?

Does a pulpit minister fit the description of 'evangelist' we see in scripture? Is standing in the church building and teaching existing believers the 'work of an evangelist.' If we look at Philip, he went out to those who didn't already believe and preached the Gospel. An evangelist can help strengthen a church with his gift, but he has a gift to go preach to unbelievers. Philip's gift manifested itself in preaching to a city of Samaritans, and also doingone-on-one evangelism. It is quite possible to be a 'pulpit minister' without being gifted as an evangelist.

Philip had hands laid on him to be a deacon in charge of what the apostles described as waiting tables. The text doesnt' say hands were laid on him to be an evangelist. God put that gift in him. The Bible doesn't teach that one becomes and evangelist through the laying on of hands. God has to put the gift in the man, and in Philip's case, it seems the gift surfaced without any evidence of hands being laid on him to make him an evangelist.

How about viewing the pulpit minister as an elder? The apostles appointed elders from within the churches. Since community and relationship in a New Testament church is important, the people would have known the elders they appointed. If a pulpit minister is hired based on credentials an interview, and trying out a few sermons, is this the how the aposltes appointed elders?

If a minister is an elder, then why make it easy to hire and fire him. Paul wrote that elders that rule well are worthy of double honor. Doesn't this indicate that elders should be compensated according to their work? Couldn't an elders financial gift be given in promportion to how well he has been ministering, through offerings, rather than as a salary?

Another practice we see in scripture was for one church to send a gifted minister from among them to help another church. Jerusalem sent Barnabas. Ephesus sent Apollos. Is this the same as the 'pulpit minister' scenario? While Apollos might have received hospitality, I doubt he negotiated a contract with the Corinthians to teach and evangelize among them. Offering free help is different from being hired as a professional minister.

What is the role of the pulpit minister? To preach a sermon like the other preachers do in Protestant chruches, right? But is it scriptural to go to chruch and hear one man preach a sermon every week? In I Corinthains, we read that in the early church, various members of the congregation would teach, sing, share revelations, speak in tongues, and interpret. There is no mention of one man teaching a central sermon. Elders are to be apt to teach as well. They are given responsibility to tend the flock. Shouldn't these gifts and responsibilities show up in the assembly?

Many pulpit ministers are very gifted saints who have teaching gifts and useful education.

I see problems, not only with the survey, but with the system of church government represented in the survey.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2001

Brethren:

I would very much like to know just what portion of the word of God these Brethren were reading that prompted them to devise this survey? And I would very much be interested in knowing just what guidance they received from God’s word concerning its content.

This survey appears to go into quite an effort to make the preacher the servant of the church instead of a join laborer and fellow servant of Christ along with each and every individual member of the church. Now I know that there is a sense in which not only the Evangelist but also the deacons and elders and every other Christian can be considered a “servant of the church”. But I am speaking here of the idea of the church “hiring” someone to DO THE WORK that we are all supposed to be jointly doing. And then sitting back on our hunches and “evaluating” just how well he is doing until we tire of the poor fellow and “get rid of him” by finally turning in a survey that indicates in no uncertain terms that he is not doing the job to suit US. And proof of his failure is to be found in the fact that he has justly received a “vote of no confidence” as Brother John has so aptly pointed out. The fact that Christ is left out of this entire concept should make all faithful brethren sit up and take notice that something is very much out of order!

I do not mean that these brethren intended to do such but only that they have reflected with the devising of this survey the completely unscriptural view that they have of the work of the Evangelist in the New Testament.

A causal reading of 1&2 Timothy and Titus along with a review of the work of Phillip, the Evangelist would show easily that this survey did not consult those clear instructions given by the apostle Paul to the Evangelist Timothy and Titus in the least.

It has always been my understanding that the Elders in New Testament times did much if not most of the regular teaching of the Church. And the Evangelist was sent out to preach the gospel and were supported but not “hired” to do this work. I mean by this that they were expected by our Lord to do this work whether they were supported or not. And they would remain with their work in a particular place until they had sufficiently assisted the church in appointing elders and then they would go on to another place and do the same work. And they were not servants of the church directly but were instead servants of Christ under the guidance and support of the church with the leadership of the elders.

Now, I am not condemning the idea of anyone remaining as a preacher in the local church for his entire life for it may be that Phillip after Evangelizing in several places finally settled in one place and remained. But we are not told whether he became an elder in that particular place or not. But I am saying that the idea of a local “pulpit minister” hired by the church to do a certain work and “fired” by them when he does not preach the way they want him to preach is something that seems to be foreign to the New Testament. If a man is teaching false doctrine in the congregation he is to be disciplined just as any other Christian who is a member of that congregation. And if he fails to repent he should be “rejected” or denied fellowship and this would certainly entail the removal of any financial support he had been receiving from the church. He is not merely to be fired and sent on to other congregations to poison them as well. The mater has to be completely dealt with in that local congregation by either correction or repentance and forgiveness and a continuance of the work. Or a withdrawal of fellowship and support with the hope of bringing the brother back into the faith. And this may, in the end, have the same result as “firing” him. But I am convinced that there is a vast difference between supporting a man who is giving full time to the preaching of the gospel and disciplining him when he turns away from teaching the truth. And “hiring” a man to do “pastoral” duties and to carry out the traditional “visitation” which is in truth the duty of every Christian not just the Christian who serves as an Evangelist. In fact such is the Evangelist’s duty as a Christian and not as an Evangelist. And “hiring” a man to entertain us on Sunday morning with sermons that are always “palatable” to our favorite taste and our individual and conflicting “views” of what such sermonizing should “do for us”. These Brethren should not be surprised one day to find that they have a house full of teachers that are merely “hirelings”. Those that care not for the flock except to say only what they know from the past few “surveys” that have been filled out just what it takes to “please the church”. And just how to satisfy “congregational expectations” so as to avoid being “fired” instead of boldly proclaiming the truth of God that we might through it see ourselves in our true standing before God and repent of our sins that we might be saved from them! The very spirit of this “hireling” mentality is contrary to that which is found in the pages of God’s word.

We would not have these problems if we could only learn to consult the word of God FIRST and have a “thus saith the Lord” for all that we do in His name. These surveys are not necessary where there are faithful elders who know when a man is teaching the truth and doing that which is right in the sight of God and understand just how to discipline those who turn from the truth. And where such faithfulness does not exist in the elders or the congregation this survey will not help in the least to stem the tide of perpetual problems arising from unfaithfulness to God’s word instead of “poor management” techniques.

Faithful teaching of God’s word in the congregation is for all Christians trained in the gospel and apt to teach it, not just the “preacher”. And the teaching of the word of God from the pulpit or in the classroom or in the community is not just the responsibility of a “professional” and well trained “minister”. But it is the responsibility of all faithful men in the congregation who are to train others who will be able to teach. And most assuredly the elders themselves should be “apt to teach” and this implies that they have a responsibility to actually TEACH also. In our congregation the elders do a lot of the preaching while our “Evangelist” is out holding gospel meetings and converting others in places where the church is weak. There have been times in Alabama when it was the elders who would conduct debates with sectarians and the elders were the ones to “convict and convince” any gainsayer who “crept into our mist unawares” and worked to lead souls astray from the truth. But this idea of the elders as a “board of directors” who do not do any of the work of teaching and preaching is just not anything like what we find in the scriptures.

They should be careful of this nonsense. For it will not be long until some group of brethren in that congregation decides that this survey works so well at “getting rid of preachers” that they do not like. That it might be just as effective in removing elders -who are performing poorly as members of what is perceived as a board of directors- that they do not like as well!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2001

Brethren:

I would like to say something further about a specific statement made in this “survey”. Notice that they ask:

“How do you feel the Pastor and Elders could better serve you?”

A clearer expression and admission that these men believe that there is a distinction between “THE PASTOR” and “the elders” could not have been penned. In the New Testament there was no such thing as “THE PASTOR”. There were always a plurality of elders in every congregation and they all could be scripturally referred to as “Pastors” which basically is the Latin translation of the Greek term “poimein” meaning shepherd. The term “pastor” in its substantive form is used but once in the New Testament with reference to the leadership in the Church. It is found in the well-known passage Ephesians 4:11, where pastors are enumerated among the gifts bestowed upon the church by Christ. The evidence that this term designates the overseers or elders is conclusive. I will briefly state that evidence for your consideration. The Greek term for shepherd is “poimein” and the verb “poimieno” means to do the work of a shepherd. Now he to whom this verb is applied is a shepherd much like one who farms is a farmer or one who sings is a singer. But Paul exhorts the overseers in the church at Ephesus to “be shepherds (poimein) of the flock of God” (Acts 20:28). And the apostle Peter exhorts the elders of the churches to which he wrote to “be shepherds (poimien) of the flock of God which is among you” (1 Peter 5:2). And he promises that when the “chief Shepherd (poimein) shall appear they shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away”. Then those elders were shepherds and Christ was the chief shepherd.

The term “pastor”, the Latin for shepherd, has come into common use from the influence of the use of the Latin version of the scriptures. There is one all-sufficient reason for preferring the use of the English term shepherd, instead of “pastor”. It is found in the fact that “pastor” has become perverted by its sectarian usage, and designates in popular terminology an entirely different office or work from the one to which it is applied in the scriptures. It has wrongly become a synonym for a settled preacher, and is often used to distinguish the preacher from those who are scripturally called the “pastors” of the church. And I am convinced that it is impossible to recover the term “pastor” from this abuse and therefore it is far better and wiser to prevent this confusion to simply throw it away and never use it. Not to mention the simple fact that the term “shepherd” is a metaphor which properly portrays the duties of an elder in the church. And gives the correct conception of their work and prevents this pathetic mixing of their duties with that of the local preacher whom the scriptures never designates with this Greek term poimein in describing his work as we have read in this ridiculous survey!

Thus this term (pastor) was NEVER applied in the word of God to an Evangelist. These men who penned this survey actually believe that the one who “preaches” regularly in the pulpit is “THE PASTOR”! Now I defy anyone to find anything like such a notion in the word of God. Now coming in here to point out the fact that one who serves as the local minister, if qualified and appointed to the eldership could correctly be called a pastor does not obsolve these brethern from their failure to understand the truth. For it is certain that unless the local preacher is in fact qulaified and appointed as an elder in the church he cannot scripturally be called a “pastor”. And even if he is such he can NEVER be acceptably call THE PASTOR for there must always be a plurality of men in this office according to the word of God.

And in reference to the survey and its obvious intent, if such a man were indeed an elder could such a process remove an elder in the church according to the scriptures? Surely anyone can see that there is no scriptural authority for “hiring” and “firing” an elder or shepherd of the church!

The truth is that one who is doing the work of an Evangelist is not a “PASTOR” and therefore has absolute no “pastoral” responsibilities and duties. To refer to the “minister” as “THE PASTOR” is an indication of a complete failure to understand God’s design for the government of the church. And what is worse is to expect him to have the authority and responsibilities of and elder or pastor without his actually being qualified for and appointed to the office of elder. Such is a sin against God that smacks of the same highhanded rebellion of Satan against the duly constituted authority of heaven itself!

These men do not even know what an elder is! It is a pathetic and awful shame and I am indeed saddened to see and read of it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2001

The Greek verb related to the word 'poimen' or 'to pastor' which shows up in the Acts 20 and I peter 5 passages that command elders to tend the flock, is also used in reference to Paul's ministry.

Paul asked who pastors a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock. Paul pastored while among the Corinthians. ejsus also told Peter to pastor his sheep. 'Pastoring' or "Shepherding' (translated tending or feeding in the KJV) is taking care of sheep. Paul did this on a short-term basis in the cities he visited.

So 'pastor' is not the Biblical word that refers to the settled local, non-transient ministry. Transient ministers, like Paul, could pastor. Local ministers- like elders, could take care of sheep. the Bible doesn't tell us the limits of the gift of pastor. Maybe some people exercise this gift without being in official eldership. There are some people who have a ministry of spending time with new believers, teaching them, and helping them grow in the Lord. Some of these are not in official church positions. They aren't appointed to church overseership. But they use their gifts to take care of sheep.

I'd like to see a verse of scripture that calls Titus an evangelist.

Evangelist comes from the Greek word for Gospel- the good news. An evangelist is a proclaimer of good news.

Paul told Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. Scripture doesn't say that appointing elders is the work of an evangelist. Paul charged Timothy to do a lot of work which applied directly to the church- teaching people, dealing with elders and deacons. But he had to remember to do the work of an evangelist as well. He had to remember to do the work of a proclaimer-of-good-news. Timothy couldn't forget the unbelievers who had not heard the GOspel yet. He needed to keep proclaiming the Gospel.

Many people think that 'preach' means to talk behind a pulpit. One of the Greek words for preach is cognate with our word for evangelize. It is used in contexts related to preaching the Gospel to unbelievers. Some people think of the work of an evangelist as teaching the Gospel to believers.

If we look at Philip, the man actually described as an evangelist, we see that he went down and preached Christ among unbelievers who didn't know the truth of the Gospel yet. He didn't just stay within the four walls of a church building (probably there was no such thing) and speak to believers.

Timothy was told to do thework of an evangelist. The scripture doesn't directly call him an evangelist, though we might assuem that he was. He did preach Christ among the COrinthians, as we see in II Cor. 1.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2001

He Arose!! :-)

Just a quick scan of the last posts by Link and Lee would lead me to believe that they almost agree!! :-) You both make some great points about the 'hired minister' situation (and Link has been making them for the last couple of months... without much input from the majority here... I wonder why?).... Maybe it is time for me to dig out my copy of "The Open Church" again....

Lee,

You said, "They should be careful of this nonsense" in reference to the survey. Can you share with me how it is "nonsense" for the Elders to ask their members (who they are to shepherd) any questions they want? What if they would have visited each member and asked these questions verbally? Is it particular questions in this specific survey that you see a problem with or evaluations of preachers in general?

Is there ever a case when a preacher should be fired (other than for unrepentant sin)??? Can there scripturally be expectations of a preacher that he doesn't meet? I think so.... You (Lee and others) seem to imply that the only time a preacher is ever "asked to leave" is if he has been preaching something that someone doesn't like... I think there can be other situations.

It has always seemed to me that we should financially help the Elders... so that they can have the time away from their family- supporting jobs to do the work required of them. If they are to do all of the work that Danny indicated is NOT part of an evangelist's job... they need help!! Danny said, "For instance.....where is the evangelist EVER told in scripture to "shepherd the flock??" (I place that as a challege.) Last time I checked....that responsibility was given directly to the elders. Where is the evangelist told to "telephone the people??" How is it that the evangelist needs to "attend all the activities of the church?" " In modern terms, what exactly is an evangelist (who stays put in one church) supposed to do? Perhaps a more even distribution of the money budgeted for "hired help" should be made between the Elders and the Evangelist.... maybe then they would have time to meet with all the members... and wouldn't need to use a survey.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2001

Brother Robin:

Amen, indeed Christ our Lord is RISEN! Indeed he is RISEN! Let us thank God he is RISEN. And let us faithfully serve him as we await his return.

You have correctly noted:

“Just a quick scan of the last posts by Link and Lee would lead me to believe that they almost agree!! :-)”

I think that it is wonderful when two can find areas wherein they agree with one another, don’t you? And you are correct. There are specific parts of this discussion wherein Brother Link and I agree with one another. Though I am sure that he would admit that we are far from genuine agreement in everything concerning this subject. These areas he and I have already discussed in this forum several months ago under a different heading.

Then you say:

“Maybe it is time for me to dig out my copy of "The Open Church" again....”

Do you not agree that it is probably time that we all dig out copies of “the open Bible” again and leave all other books, including “The Open Church” aside and study what God’s word has to say on this and all other matters?

Then you asked me:

“Lee, You said, "They should be careful of this nonsense" in reference to the survey. Can you share with me how it is "nonsense" for the Elders to ask their members (who they are to shepherd) any questions they want?”

I believe that you have misunderstood what I have said about this matter. I do not know of any place in my previous post wherein I suggested that it is wrong for the elders to ask questions, whether in the form of a survey or face to face. I stated that they should be careful of this nonsense not because it is nonsensical to ask questions of the congregation via a “survey” but because the purpose, intent, and content of the questions in the survey were nonsensical when compared to what the word of God teaches. I showed in my previous post just why I believed that their survey was “nonsense” and am still convinced that it is surely just that. I was basically referring to the false doctrines that they believe and teach which is evident from the questions that they asked in this survey. My last post indicated a specific example of what I meant by nonsense. For they spoke of one as “THE PASTOR” who was not counted among the “ELDERS”. This is pure nonsense according to the scriptures. And the idea of treating an Evangelist as if he were THE PASTOR of the church is also pure nonsense. And giving “pastoral duties” which belong to those who are actually “pastors” or “shepherds of the flock” is equally nonsensical. I believe I have given numerous good reasons that justify my calling this survey “nonsense” and none of them, not a single one, was just because they were asking questions of the congregation via a survey. If they were to put out a survey that asked the right questions that were in harmony with the truth as taught in the word of God I do not see how I could object to it, do you? But this they have not done.

Then you say:

“What if they would have visited each member and asked these questions verbally? Is it particular questions in this specific survey that you see a problem with or evaluations of preachers in general?”

I believe that I have answered this question in my response given above. But let me just use one example of a question that they asked which illustrates my point. They asked:

““How do you feel the Pastor and Elders could better serve you?”

Now that question whether it is asked “verbally” or in a “survey” is nothing short of pure nonsense when compared to what the Scriptures teach concerning the elders. There is no such thing in the scriptures as “THE PASTOR” of any congregation unless it is Jesus Christ who is the “chief shepherd”. But it is most certainly NOT one who is serving in a position called by some a “pulpit minister” (which I also consider to be an unscriptural notion). But one thing is for certain even if this person were an elder in the church he could never be called THE PASTOR. There is not a single person referred to in the scriptures as “the pastor”. Such language is the “language of Ashdod”. And if such a one is not an elder in the church or an apostle he also cannot be called even “a pastor” much less the PASTOR. And the question, which they asked, implies that “the pastor” is a separate and different office from the elders. No, I do not care how one teaches false doctrine whether it is in the form of a survey or whether it is crouched and hidden in verbal questions. It is nonsense and should be resisted by all faithful Christians.

Then you asked:

“Is there ever a case when a preacher should be fired (other than for unrepentant sin)???”

I am not sure that we can even support this “nonsense” of “hiring” a preacher from the scriptures. Can you? If that is the case how can we support the idea of “firing” him? This may very well be at the root of this problem. Now, do not misunderstand. I believe that we can find support in the scriptures for supporting one who has dedicated his entire life to any specific work of the church such as Evangelism or teaching or even the great work of an elder. But I see a vast distinction or difference in that and “hiring” someone to do the work and “firing” him when we do not like how he does it for any reason. I explained this in my previous post. Can one imagine “hiring” someone from the outside of the congregation to be an “elder” in the church? Most would not even think of such a thing. It would indeed be pure nonsense wouldn’t it? But one can see in the scriptures the idea of providing financial support for those who serve as elders. But the idea of “hiring and firing” of such is far from scriptural. Why then do we have this notion that it is scriptural to just hire and fire preachers at will for whatever reasons suit us? Perhaps you would like to show from the scriptures that it is acceptable to “hire and fire” preachers. I have never read in the scriptures of any preacher of the gospel that was “hired” and later “fired”, have you? And could you show me any scriptural reasons that a preacher should be “fired”, instead of disciplined and removed from the fellowship of the church, even for unrepentant sins? I would very much like to know what those verses have to say, if there are any such passages.

Then you asked:

“ Can there scripturally be expectations of a preacher that he doesn't meet?”

Perhaps I do not understand this particular question. Do you mean to ask me if there are SCRIPTURAL expectations that he could fail to meet without sinning against God? Or are you asking if there are “scriptural” expectations that do not matter one way or the other to God? Since I do not know what you mean by these questions and you have said that you think that there are such “scriptural” expectations of a preacher I will just let you tell us what they are and then I may be able to respond. So do tell us what these “scriptural” expectations of a preacher are that he can fail to meet without sinning and needing to repent. And then I can more accurately respond to your question.

Then you say:

“You (Lee and others) seem to imply that the only time a preacher is ever "asked to leave" is if he has been preaching something that someone doesn't like”

I do not think that I ever said such a thing. If I did could you please quote my words to that effect and I will examine them to see if I have misstated what I intended to say. For my words have been limited to the subject of this thread which was this specific survey. I have not discussed in detail all that we could say about preachers being “asked to leave” which is a polite way of saying, “fired”. For it is a common euphemism among the brethren who accurately seem to have some strong aversion to the use of the word “fired”.

Then you say there might be other situations that a preacher of the gospel might be “asked to leave” meaning “fired” in a nice way as follows:

“I think there can be other situations”

If this is true maybe you should explain what you mean and give us the scriptural teaching concerning those “situations”. I am willing to be taught and await your scriptural exposition of this matter.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2001

Brother Danny:

I sincerely appreciate your comments in your last post. In fact it is the only positive comment that I have seen in over 8 months in this forum concerning us and it is refreshing indeed to hear.

You have asked me:

“E. Lee....please forgive me if I have misrepresented the position of your fellowship. It was certainly not intended. Please feel free to correct me if need be. I'm certainly not an expert. It was simply my interpretation from some what....anecdotal evidence.”

Brother Danny, I want you to know that you are extremely accurate and exactly right on target with your interpretation from nothing more than “anecdotal evidence”. You have represented our position far better than I could have represented it my self. It is as if you took the very words out of my mouth!

I appreciate it and I am amazed at your accuracy!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

Lee, thanks for replying.

You have said, "I think that it is wonderful when two can find areas wherein they agree with one another, don’t you? " Yep!

Then you say, "Do you not agree that it is probably time that we all dig out copies of “the open Bible” again and leave all other books, including “The Open Church” aside and study what God’s word has to say on this and all other matters? " I certainly agree that the Bible is our first and only authority... but I don't think that precludes us from reading other books to get others insights. I believe I have seen you quote other sources besides the Bible in various threads... so you must agree.

Then you go into detail about 'The Pastor' question. I understand that issue... I understand why you don't like that question. I believe that you are answering this question of mine: "Is it particular questions in this specific survey that you see a problem with or evaluations of preachers in general?” with "particular questions in this specific survey"... that is all I wanted to know.

Then you say, "I am not sure that we can even support this “nonsense” of “hiring” a preacher from the scriptures. Can you? " I don't know... but I really don't understand the difference between saying someone is 'hired' and saying that you are going to pay someone for services rendered. That is a distinction that it seems you are making. You have said, "And the Evangelist was sent out to preach the gospel and were supported but not “hired” to do this work. I mean by this that they were expected by our Lord to do this work whether they were supported or not. " So... say that Danny's (just picking on him... it should be fun) church decides that it is going to withdraw all support from him... does what you say mean that the Lord expects him to stay on and continue working there? I don't think he would.... It seems like a very fine line.... Does it make since to say to a new Evangelist, "Let's get this straight. We are not 'hiring' you... BUT we are going to support you with $35,000 a year, a parsonage, and health insurance."? Can this 'support' ever be withdrawn (beside cases of unrepentant sin - teaching False Doctrine, etc., etc.)?

Let me reword this question I asked previously: Is there ever a case when a preacher should be fired (other than for unrepentant sin)??? to: "Is there ever a case when a preacher should have his support withdrawn (other than for unrepentant sin)???" That gets us around the hired/fired wording....

Then you address this question of mine: “ Can there scripturally be expectations of a preacher that he doesn't meet?” Let me reword it, as it was apparently unclear. Is it OK Biblically to have any expectations of an evangelist that are not specifically spelled out in scripture? Here are a couple of examples that might fall into that category. Is it OK to expect the evangelist to "initiate and/or lead a youth-oriented group"? Is it OK to expect an evangelist to "initiate and/or lead a seniors-oriented group"? Is it OK to expect an evangelist to "train others in evangelist outreach"? If it is OK... and these expectations are made very clear when the evangelist begins his work at a particular congregation... then isn't it OK to evaluate his performance in these areas? And, I would go so far as to say that it would be OK to "withdraw support" if he did NOT meet these expectations that he himself agreed to perform.

Related to this, I believe, is the question I previously asked that you apparently missed as it was buried in a paragraph. In modern terms, what exactly is an evangelist (who stays put in one church) supposed to do? I would be very interested in your answer to this (and I would like to hear from those on this forum that wear the Evangelist title - or Preacher or even Mister).

You then say, "I do not think that I ever said such a thing. " in reference to this that I said, "You (Lee and others) seem to imply that the only time a preacher is ever "asked to leave" is if he has been preaching something that someone doesn't like" I did not say that you "said" it... I said that you "seem to imply" it... there is a difference. I got that implication from things you said like, "...“fired” by them when he does not preach the way they want him to preach..." and "...And just how to satisfy “congregational expectations” so as to avoid being “fired” instead of boldly proclaiming the truth of God..." You seem to indicate that a preacher would always avoid being fired by not preaching the truth. I believe that someone can preach the truth and be fired BUT NOT because the people didn't like the truth... but because he didn't meet other agreed upon expectations (examples given above).

Thanks for your input!

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

Oops! I missed a 'close italics'!! Help!!! :-)

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

Fixed.

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

Danny -

Your reference to Eph. 4:11-12 made me smile. Not the reference, but something that recently happened at the Baptist church I attend. The pastor got very heated two Sunday's ago in his sermon. He was extremely agitated because they could not find any volunteer workers to be pre-school Sunday School teachers. He sternly challenged the congregation to evaluate where their allegiance was, with Christ, or with the world. (This is not an evaluation of his sermon, btw; just a quick summation of one point.)

Anyway, I got a chuckle from his sermon. Why? Because for years this church has been very unbiblically hiring professional help every time there was an area of need. The people got used to it, and basically stopped doing anything, because there was a professional staff to do it! The church is now reaping what it sowed.

My understanding of that verse is basically what yours is. The preacher preaches. The elders or deacons have their roles. And the people are trained and discipled to be the actual do-ers in the church.

I think Robin has some valid points too. While there is a biblical standard, our fleshly natures have allowed the standards of the business world to creep into the church. This is where the "performance appraisal" (quotes are mine) he mentioned comes from (at least as it seems to me).

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

Brother Robin:

I do not have much time at the moment to respond to your entire post but will return later to discuss it with you. I appreciate the reasoned way in which you are discussing this matter and I hope we all can benefit from it. Now, I am not one who wears any titles, especially “religious titles of honor” which I am convinced that our Lord forbids us to do. (Matt. 5:1-12). Never the less, sense it is likely that I may on occasion be called “mister” which is what I was often called in the Navy, I suppose that I could answer your following question:

“Related to this, I believe, is the question I previously asked that you apparently missed as it was buried in a paragraph. In modern terms, what exactly is an evangelist (who stays put in one church) supposed to do? I would be very interested in your answer to this (and I would like to hear from those on this forum that wear the Evangelist title - or Preacher or even Mister).”

You have asked, In modern terms, what exactly is an Evangelist supposed to do. Let me say that it has never really been my habit to answer any questions concerning the will of the Lord in “Modern terms”. This is because I am firmly convinced that all such questions relating to the will of our Lord must be answered on Scriptural terms from HIS INSPIRED WORD. Thus any answer from me on this or any other question related to God's will is ever going to be in Biblical terms. For we have no other standard of faith and practice in the church.

It seems to me that the neglecting of the things that the Evangelist is told by the Lord to Do in first and second Timothy and Titus and the adding of the "doctrines and commandments of men" on to that word is the source of this difficulty in the churches. There would be little problem if the Evangelist were expected only to do what the Lord requires of him and that brethren would not consider their own requirements of him equal to the commands of God.

And I have addressed this in scriptural terms in another thread. Therefore, for the sake of my present time constraints, I herein copy and paste it as my response for your consideration. I will return when I have more time to speak in more specific details about this matter.

“I advise all of those who would do the work of an Evangelist, as Timothy and Titus did, to read the instructions of the apostle Paul concerning this great work.

“I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2Tim. 4:1-4).

Notice first of all the one that will hold the preacher accountable for this work. It is God, and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead AT HIS APPEARING. And the instructions, which follow from inspiration, are specific and very much to the point. And all one need do is envision any man following these instructions in our congregations today to see just how they are likely to be “treated” by faithful and unfaithful. They will be supported and strengthened by faithful brothers and sisters and they will most assuredly be vilified by the unfaithful. Notice Paul’s inspired instructions to:

1. Preach the word. With the use of this word Paul told Timothy to preach the doctrine of Christ. WE are not to preach the creeds of men or the opinions of men or to please and satisfy any audience of men. Nor are we to seek to thrill and excite men with emotionally charged speeches common among today’s preachers who seek to lead people in the religion of excitement rather than allowing them through faith to experience the genuine excitement of religion. Which excitement is found only in daily obedient subjective practice of the faith. One can hear a stirring speech on giving to those in need but one cannot experience the excitement of such until he or she gives to one that they know is in need. One can hear moving words about the power of prayer but he cannot comprehend its genuine power until he has made pray a daily practice of his life. One listen to “Christian rock bands and orchestras with the most stirring music but he cannot sense that true genuine excitement until he sings with MELODY IN HIS OWN HEART TO God as a daily sense of Joy and gracious thankfulness to our Lord. Christianity cannot be mimicked or imitated and the emotions associated with it do not come naturally to anyone who does not practice it. Thus, preach the word for it has the power to examine the hearts of men. (Heb. 4:12). Preaching anything else has no power but to please, tickle, and satisfy the ears of men. The preaching of anything other than the truth is a tragedy. 2. Be instant. This word “instant” is a translation of the Greek term “ephistemi {ef-is'- tay-mee}” which means to “be at hand or be ready”. Where the word of God is not known preachers is to be “instant” or ready, available and at hand to preach it. Where the word of God is being neglected or opposed the preacher of the gospel should ever be “ready or at hand” to meet that challenge. Where false doctrine is being taught and accepted by those who running after their own lust have searched for and found teachers willing to scratch their “itching ears” the gospel preacher should be instant or ready and on hand. They should be ready to teach “sound doctrine” and reprove, rebuke those who are unsound in their teaching.

2. And to do so “in season”. The word “season” is a translation of the Greek term “eukairos {yoo-kah'-ee-roce} which means “when the opportunity arises”. And “out of season” from the word “akairos {ak- ah'-ee-roce} meaning when it is not so opportune to preach it. 3. Reprove. This word is one that will get you into trouble with most people. It is not likely to always, if ever, to be a pleasant and enjoyable experience and is calculated to surely draw the false charge of “unloving” to be leveled against the preacher who does this faithfully when the “season” calls for it. It is a translation of the Greek term “elegcho (el-eng'-kho)” meaning “to convict, refute, confute.” . It is further defined in detail as, “1a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted 1b) by conviction to bring to the light, to expose 2) to find fault with, correct. Secondarily, it means 2a) by word 2a1) to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, and reprove. 2a2) to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation”. Brethren, when the occasion calls for this type of action by the preacher one will see very quickly the need for a strong eldership and a faithful congregation. For if the congregation as a whole is not faithful to Christ and the truth of the gospel such preaching will bring severe consequences upon the preacher but he must do it or be unfaithful to Christ himself. If you cannot face doing this when it is unpopular for you to do it you need not try to be a preacher of the gospel. For such is commanded for you to do. 4. Rebuke. Another "word" extremely unpopular among us today. It is one that we are constantly being told that we have no right to do. It is a translation of the Greek Term “epitimao (ep-ee-tee-mah'-o)” which means to “ rebuke, chide, censure severely, to admonish or charge sharply.” Now Paul told Timothy to do this and he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to tell him to do rebuke as a part of his preaching of the word of God. When a faithful gospel preacher has the season or occasion to be called upon to do this he is to be supported by all who are faithful in his doing so. And Christ, the head of the church will judge those congregations that do not stand with such a preacher when he exercises his responsibility to rebuke those who sin. And this naturally will not b always bring him into the good favor of those whom he must rebuke. But he is not speaking for himself but rather he is speaking for Christ from God’s word. It is not to be a personal rebuke from him to others but a clear rebuke based upon the preaching of the WORD OF GOD so that the rebuke comes from God’s word through the preacher to those in need of such rebuke. When a preacher of the gospel does this in the presence of a congregation where the majority is in need of such rebuke he is apt to be treated rather severely. And such treatment is unjust and that congregation will answer to the Lord for it. But they will not answer as a congregation but each individual man in that congregation will give an account to God for his actions or lack thereof in the circumstances that transpire and no person will be exempt from his responsibility. Keep this in mind, brethren. Every Christian in a congregation will face God in the judgement and give an account to God for his or her actions during such occurrences. Did you as an individual Christian stand firm for the truth with those who preached it or did you support those who had searched out teachers who would teach a doctrine more suitable to their desires? If you did you will stand before God in the last day and HE will hold you personally and individually responsible for your choices. There will not be any holding of churches responsible but that of every individual as individuals within the churches that will be judged for their deeds! SO, do not ever think that you can just ignore such troubles in the church as if they do not concern you for they most certainly do within your ability and opportunity to act. But when some preacher is preaching his own opinions and is seeking to lead a faithful congregation away from the truth and his teaching is rejected by a congregation because it is from his own heart instead of from the word of God. And rightly they will reprove him. He needs therefore to repent or be disciplined by the church. And those who have suffered this treatment are apt to come into forums like this one and complain that they have been sorely mistreated. Whereas a faithful preacher of the gospel who has suffered for preaching the truth of Christ will not likely come into a forum such as this and complain. Because he knows that it is the Lord who will reward him according to his works and he will hold the congregation that mistreated him up in prayer before the Lord that they may be lead to repentance and ultimate restoration to faithfulness. But he will continue without fear to rebuke according to the word of God no matter what the price he must pay to do it. For to do less than this would be unfaithful of him.

5. Exhort. Now this is the one that we all like the most. And indeed among those faithful to Christ it is most likely to be the most common and effective means of preaching the word. This is from the Greek term “parakaleo {par-ak-al-eh'-o} which means “to call to one's side, call for, summon” and the idea being to come along side one another to comfort, strengthen, instruct and encourage each other. Among those who’s hearts are determined to serve our Lord faithfully and have made a definite decision that they will submit their wills entirely to the will of God such a practice is not only essential is beautiful and edifying and productive of harmony, unity, and brotherhood. The strong can support the weak and the weak can come to love the strong and blessings abound innumerable. In order to do this properly a preacher of the gospel must, as Paul instructed Timothy, give himself to “reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine”. How fortunate is the preacher who has a congregation filled with such whom he can regularly engage in exhorting! And the Preacher must do all of these things “with all LONGSUFFERING and DOCTRINE”. The word that is translated “longsuffering” is the Greek term “makrothumia {mak-roth-oo-mee'-ah}” which means, “patience, endurance, constancy, steadfastness, perseverance, forbearance, longsuffering, slowness in avenging wrongs.” And those preachers who come into a forum like this or among brethren in any other place with nothing but complaints about “how poorly they were treated” fail miserably to understand Paul’s inspired instructions in this verse. He told Timothy to preach the word. He told him to reprove, rebuke, and exhort WITH ALL LONGSUFFERING. Meaning that Timothy was to do his duty with patience, steadfastness, forbearance, endurance, constancy, and a decided slowness in avenging wrongs. He did not tell Timothy to go among faithful brethren and grumble, complain, and spread unsubstantiated charges in other congregations about those among whom he had recently worked and was “mistreated”. All such whining is contrary to the very concept of longsuffering and forbearance. It is a spirit contrary to the spirit or mind of Christ who suffered wrong and as a lamb before his shearers opened not his mouth. It is contrary to the way early Christians took their suffering for Christ sake. They counted it all JOY that they were counted worth to suffer for Christ who died for them. Notice what the inspired apostle Peter said. “If any man speak, [let him speak] as the oracles of God; if any man minister, [let him do it] as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy [are ye]; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or [as] a thief, or [as] an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls [to him] in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.” (1 Peter 4:11-19).

TO my preaching brethren: If you are suffering for the name of Christ, whether it be at the hands of evil men who have never obeyed the gospel or by unfaithful brethren whose love for Christ has grown cold. Count is “all joy” that you have been counted worthy to suffer for His sake. And do not act so surprised as if it is a strange thing that you too must on occasion face a “fiery trial” as if some “strange thing has happened to you”. For you should expect such when you go about to tell the truth to those who have no desire to hear it. And if you are, in fact, being reproached for the name of Christ then “happy are ye” . But whatever you do, do not let any one of you suffer as an evil doer or a busybody in other men’s matters. For judgement will begin at the house of God and God will hold all men in that house accountable for their deeds whether they be good or bad. Therefore rest assured that God, who knows all the facts in every case, will exact sever accountability upon those guilty of wrong doing and he will reward those who are faithful. Just make sure that you are counted among those who are faithful to Christ and there will be nothing to fear. Thus, let me encourage you to not spend you life in grumbling, complaining and whining about your sufferings. “quit you like men and be strong” in the faith. Give yourself to reading, to exhortation and doctrine”. Make full prove of thy ministry. Be faithful. Teach sound doctrine according to the truth revealed by the Holy Spirit in the scriptures and do not be discouraged, which is caused by unbelief and is cured by faith in the resurrected and returning Christ who will judge us all and make us all accountable. (Acts 17:30). If you find that you have been teaching anything that is not in harmony with the truth of God’s word repent before all. But understand that you cannot be “killed” spiritually so long as your faith in Christ remains strong. It is when you lose that faith that Satan can destroy you. “Semper fidelis” (Keep the faith)!

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

Although I am not scripturally qualified to be an elder or deacon, I still pitch in as much as possible as we try to turn the church here around. Besides doing the church website and now the newsletter/bulletin and Powerpoint song slides, I've kind of become the sounding board for my new pastor when he needs to brainstorm, and we've become good friends.

The other day I was lamenting about how the members were grousing about moving from our venerable "sanctuary" into a larger building, more utilitarian but less threatening to new seekers. I mentioned that the early Christians considered themselves lucky when they met in each other's homes, having to meet in graveyards, crypts, sewers and prisons; and how dare we complain about moving from one nice facility to another.

He responded that we needed to get people away from thinking of the church as a building, and that unfortunately there were a lot of things the church did that was unscriptural.

I jokingly quipped, "Like the idea of a paid minister ... but we're letting that slide because we like you" to which he quipped back, "And I just want to say how deeply I appreciate that!" ;-)

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

Brother Robin:

I must apologize to you. In the above post I gave an incorrect reference. I stated:

“Now, I am not one who wears any titles, especially “religious titles of honor” which I am convinced that our Lord forbids us to do. (Matt. 5:1-12).”

The above reference (Matt. 5:1-12) should have been (Matt. 23:1-12). It was a typographical error. I was thinking of quoting only verse 5- 12 of the 23rd chapter and somehow I just wrote (Matt. 5:1-12) instead. Obviously my lack of intelligence is causing trouble again!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

HELLO? Is there ANYONE in this forum who can take a JOKE?

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

Brother Robin:

You have said:

“Lee, thanks for replying.”

It is always a pleasure to reply and discuss matters with you.

I am happy that you and I agree as follows:

“You have said, "I think that it is wonderful when two can find areas wherein they agree with one another, don’t you? " Yep!”

And it seems that we partially agree on the following:

“Then you say, "Do you not agree that it is probably time that we all dig out copies of “the open Bible” again and leave all other books, including “The Open Church” aside and study what God’s word has to say on this and all other matters? "I certainly agree that the Bible is our first and only authority... but I don't think that precludes us from reading other books to get others insights. I believe I have seen you quote other sources besides the Bible in various threads... so you must agree.”

Indeed we both agree that reading the works outside of the Bible to learn something about what it teaches is certainly acceptable and you are correct in stating that I have on occasion quoted sources other than the scriptures. But there is this difference. I have quoted some brethren whom I thought expressed the teaching of the scriptures better than I could but I have never quoted them as an authority equal to the scriptures and designed to settle disputes among brethren. And in the above where you mentioned that Brother Link and I agreed you suggested that we should “dig out copies of the open church” to understand this matter you were not, in my opinion, making a good suggestion. When we search for the truth the word of God is the only source we should go to as our only rule of faith and practice. If some one, including the author of “ the open church” helps us to understand the word of God it certainly could be helpful. But not until we have consulted God’s word first and find certain things that we do not understand and are looking for insights from others who have also studied the word of God concerning the same matter. Then and only then is it wise to consult other works and only with extreme caution and a bit of skepticism that our fellowmen are as apt to mislead us as we are often to mislead ourselves. Our problem often is not that we need to read some good books about the Bible but that we shold read the Bible itself.

I do sincerely doubt that the “open church” would help us with this subject better than the open Bible. This is a problem. So many times people run to their favorite book “about the Bible” before they have sufficiently researched the Bible itself for themselves. And I do not mean that you do this only that your words might be perceived by some in such a way as to encourage this behavior. And thus, by such behavior they could be lead to think that the ground has been sufficiently covered in the reading of the one "good book" that you recommended. This is a very poor way to find the truth. In fact it is almost a certain way to NOT FIND IT. My suggestion that it was time for us all to turn to the open Bible was based upon my observation in this forum God’s word is often resorted to as a last resort and even then it is done in a piece-meal fashion. This was my concern then and remains my concern now.

Then you say: “Then you go into detail about 'The Pastor' question. I understand that issue... I understand why you don't like that question. I believe that you are answering this question of mine: "Is it particular questions in this specific survey that you see a problem with or evaluations of preachers in general?” with "particular questions in this specific survey"... that is all I wanted to know.”

I am glad to see that we have answered that question to your satisfaction.

Then you say:

“Then you say, "I am not sure that we can even support this “nonsense” of “hiring” a preacher from the scriptures. Can you? " I don't know... but I really don't understand the difference between saying someone is 'hired' and saying that you are going to pay someone for services rendered. That is a distinction that it seems you are making.”

No, Brother Robin, that is not the “distinction” I was making. The distinction that I was talking about was the distinction that God’s word makes concerning this matter. There is little doubt from the scriptures that it is right and good to support financially those who serve as Shepherds (pastors from Greek poimein) and I am speaking here of elders not preachers. (Though I can show that preachers of the gospel should be supported as well). For Paul, by inspiration told Timothy, “Let the Elders that Rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they that labor in word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzel the ox that threadeth out the corn. And the Laborer is worthy of his hire”. Yet at the same time there is a condemnation of their having the attitude and serving as mere hirelings. And when they sin they are to be rebuked before all but not “fired”. “Them that sin rebuke before all that they all may fear.” (1 Tim. 5:20). They were to be shepherds of the flock of God but not merely for their “hire” or the money. “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.” (1 Peter 5:2). And Christ himself is the example for the elders for he is the “Chief shepherd" (1 Peter 5:4). And notice how he spoke against the idea of being a “hireling”. “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.” (John 10:11-13). Thus, though it is right for them to be paid as a “laborer is worthy of his hire” meaning that failing to pay them is as wrong as denying a laborer his hire rather than that they are hirelings that deserve to be paid. The elders are not to have the attitude of or be treated as mere hirelings to be let go at the end of a specified time of service or fired if they fail to do their duty. The scriptures imply none of this even remotely. Jesus spoke of the same idea when he sent out the twelve disciples as follows: “provide neither gold nor silver nor brass in your purses. Nor script for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes nor yet staves: For the workman is worthy of his hire.” (Matt. 10:9,10). Not indicating that thy should think that they had been “hired” and could be “fired” but rather that since he had sent them he would provide for them through those who would receive them into their homes. And that they, as the Lord's servants would be provided for in their work. And this was indeed the case with the apostles not only on this particular limited commission referred to in this passage but also throughout their career. And they were most certainly, though supported by faithful brethren, never “hired” and no one ever once contemplated that they could be “fired”. But that they received support is without question. But they were not being paid, as you put it, “for services rendered” but rather supported for an important work that need to be completed.

Thus we have seen that Elders are to be supported and those sent out to Evangelize are to be supported but no one is to be treated as a “hireling” in the sense of “hiring and firing” workers. Nor is anyone to approach their work, in the Lord, as does the “hireling” who only cares for his pay and nothing else.

Incidentally, just here I want to note that you failed to answer a few of my questions that I put to you. I now repeat them and ask you to please give them consideration if you have the time.

“Perhaps you would like to show from the scriptures that it is acceptable to “hire and fire” preachers. I have never read in the scriptures of any preacher of the gospel that was “hired” and later “fired”, have you? And could you show me any scriptural reasons that a preacher should be “fired”, instead of disciplined and removed from the fellowship of the church, even for unrepentant sins? I would very much like to know what those verses have to say, if there are any such passages.”

Then you say:

“You have said, "And the Evangelist was sent out to preach the gospel and were supported but not “hired” to do this work. I mean by this that they were expected by our Lord to do this work whether they were supported or not. " So... say that Danny's (just picking on him... it should be fun) church decides that it is going to withdraw all support from him... does what you say mean that the Lord expects him to stay on and continue working there?”

Now, again you have misunderstood me. It is the Lord that has sent us on this work and the Lord expects those who benefit from our spiritual service to Him to share with gospel preachers their material wealth for the support of the work that they do. And if you cannot see the difference between this and “hiring" someone to work specifically for you then I admit that I may not be able to help you understand the difference. Gospel preachers work for the Lord and it is the Lord that has commanded the church to support his work. And thus they are obeying God’s command to be fellow-laborers with him in this important task and to labor with him in this way. It is not like hiring someone to work in your garden and then firing him because he did not use your favorite brand of fertilizer. You cannot pay the Evangelist or the Elders for “services rendered” as you say for they render their service to the Lord NOT TO YOU. Now, you benefit from their labors and they may work with you in their hearts because they love you but they are servants of Christ for your sake and not “hirelings” of the church.

And you state that the church decides to “withdraw all support from him”. Now, Brother Robin, the church has no right to withdraw all support from him without withdrawing fellowship from him. For he is not a “hireling” to be treated as one. He is the Lord’s servant for your good and ministers to you spiritual things at God’s command. Thus, since you are not his employer you cannot “hire” him nor can you “fire” him. He is the Lord’s servant and your brother in Christ and if the church has called for his services or sent him out on a mission in obedience to the Lord they are COMMANDED to support him. It is not an optional matter. If he sins the church is to discipline him just as they would any other member of the church, whether it be an elder, deacon, or anyone else. You cannot “hire an elder” nor can you “fire” him. You cannot “hire” a deacon nor can you “fire” him. And I cannot imagine just how on earth some, knowing that an Evangelist is a servant of the Lord in the Church just as are the Elders, deacons, and teachers have concluded that he can be "hred" and "fired". Yes we think he must be a “professional” with a string of degrees from the finest educational institutions and that he can be “hired” like a gunslinger and “fired’ like a slothful worker. But we do not think this way about elders, deacons, or teachers”. Now again I ask you to show me from the word of God one single Evangelist or any other worker in the church that was “hired” by the church and later “fired” for any reason. If, Brother Danny, since you “picked on him” sinned by failing to perform the scriptural duties of the Evangelist he would need to be disciplined and if he repented he would naturally stay on and continue the work that the Lord has commanded him to do. If he refused to repent then naturally he would be excluded from the fellowship of the saints and would therefore no longer be working for the Lord in any capacity for the Lord would also withdraw from him. And thus it would be natural that all the reasons that the church was obligated to support him would no longer exist and the support would stop. And I see a vast difference in this teaching from God’s word and the notion prevalent in many churches of “paying for services rendered”. Or making the preacher into a mere “hireling” by a completely unscriptural process of “hiring” and “firing” them at will and for some of the most absurd and petty reasons that could never stand the test of the scriptural process of church discipline. This “hiring and firing” process is purely of human origin and is reeking havoc in the churches. It is my fervent prayer that such nonsense will cease.

And you say:

“I don't think he would.... It seems like a very fine line....”

No, Brother Robin, it is not a “fine line” at all but a broad and sweeping departure from the faith once delivered to the saints.

Then you ask:

“ Does it make since to say to a new Evangelist, "Let's get this straight. We are not 'hiring' you...”

No, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say such a thing to any Evangelist, “New” or otherwise. For it is a sclear as the nose on your face that the scriptures do not authorize hiring him. If anyone said that to me as an Evangelist I would rell them forightly that they could not hire me if they wanted to because I am the Lord's servant and they have no authority to hire me and they should not even contemplate my working with them if they think that I am a "hireling" in the first place. Would we say such a thing to a newly appointed elder if it were our general practice to financially support them in their work? Again I ask you to find one preacher of the gospel in the scriptures that was “hired”. Such an idea does not come from God. It comes rather from the suppositions, and inferences of men.

Then you ask:

“BUT we are going to support you with $35,000 a year, a parsonage, and health insurance."? Can this 'support' ever be withdrawn (beside cases of unrepentant sin - teaching False Doctrine, etc., etc.)?”

This is the same as asking can the preacher be dismissed from his duties without disciplining him for reasons that are not supported by the scripture. And again I ask you to show us from the scriptures and Evangelist that was “fired” for any reason much less for reasons that were not scriptural. I am saying that the scriptures do not authorize “firing” a preacher for any reason even those that would justify his being disciplined by the church. He is to be disciplined like any other member of the church and withdrwn from if he refuses to repent but there is no authoriztion for him to be "fired". And it has been my observation of churches that are "hiring" and "firing" preachers that they "hire" them to do work FOR them instead of supporting them in a work that the church does jointly with them and then they "fire" them in a process that does nothing more than disturb the church and in many cases does unjust harm to his family. God is taking notice of such behavior and will not allow it to go unpunished!

Now, it may be that other churches need his help in their area. And with the agreement of the church where he serves he could go else where to continue the same work in another place. But the other church would take up his support. And in this case they would not be “withdrawing" his support but arranging for another congregation by mutual agreement to continue his support. But withdrawing support for the Evangelist without withdrawing from the Evangelist is not scriptural, neither reasonable nor right in any sense whatsoever.

Incidentally, churches that follow this scriptural truth in their treatment of Evangelist are ones who have a reputation of keeping them for a long time Evangelizing in their immediate area and surrounding ones. In Alabama such men have served for 25, 30, or even 40 years in the same place and the church grew tremendously because of their work. But churches that are continually "hiring" and "firing" men who preach the gospel are getting the results that one can expect from a buch of "hirelings". And their results are poor indeed. They cannot seem to keep anyone "working for them" very long. But a faithful man will serve the Lord for a long time and he will be there doing his work even when there is no financial support forthcoming!

This is all I have time to write this evening. I will return to write more tomorrow if the Lord wills.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2001

Danny,

You have said, "Robin....could it be that it is important to you to maintain that word "hire".....so that you can show who is boss?? " No. I don't care whether or not we keep the word 'hire'.... But I do maintain that providing a salary, parsonage, etc. as 'support' comes mighty close to meeting the definition of 'hiring'. HIRE: "To engage the services of (a person) for a fee." Lee has tried to explain the difference as he understands it... and has indicated that I might be beyond his help if I still don't get it. :-)

By the way, for about the 25 years from the time I was 8 years old or so the church that I attended had 2 preachers... one for 14 years and one for 11, I believe... neither were fired. So... I was not really exposed to the 'easy hire... easy fire' mentality... and don't think that I have it. I KNOW there is nothing easy about hiring a preacher (or should I say finding one to support?)... and I don't necessarily want it to be easy to fire one (unsupport one).

Basically, I would just like to know if there is ever a case (besides unrepentant sin) when an evangelist can be 'doing a poor job' and be asked to leave? Ever??

Thanks for your input and prayers.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

As far as sinning goes (since we can't take a joke), must we be so rigid? In my opinion, the N.T. pattern for the church is just that: a pattern. Not a law. You cannot "disobey" a pattern.

Like any pattern, certainly there are some absolutes in the function of the church (qualifications of elders, etc.), but there are also places that are not absolute, and open to interpretation (do we have communion in the middle of the service, or at the end?). There is no commandment to pay or not to pay a minister (though to let you know where my sentiments lie, Danny, I think there is a far better case to pay, for "the workman is worthy of his wages"). While following the pattern is of course the ideal, making a minor adjustment in the pattern to fit a particular situation is no more a sin than making an adjustment in a clothing pattern to lengthen the sleeves, or in the pattern of a house to add a bay window.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Danny,

You earlier said, "The "easy hire....easy fire" mentality....I know it's hard to get over.....but I'm praying for you." Now, after I indicated that I didn't have that attitude you apologize and say, "I should have been less general in my reply and more specific." I believe you mean that you should have been MORE general and LESS specific... your statement, especailly with the ".......but I'm praying for you" came across as Very specific.

"Millionaire" -- No, please explain it..... Just Kidding.... your question was a bit insulting.... but, perhaps I'm too touchy this AM! :-) Just because I told Jason earlier that I wasn't affiliated with a Christian College... doesn't mean I am... searching for politically correct word... obtuse. :-)

You ask, "Another fact Robin....I think the vast majority of preachers today are "fired" for other than Scriptural reasons....don't you?? " Probably.... I am still wondering this: "Basically, I would just like to know if there is ever a case (besides unrepentant sin) when an evangelist can be 'doing a poor job' and be asked to leave? Ever?? "

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

John,

You said, "...I've kind of become the sounding board for my new pastor when he needs to brainstorm, and we've become good friends." Be very careful using the term 'pastor' concerning your preacher... unless, I suppose, he is a paid elder. Lee has castigated the unknown writers of the above survey for saying, "How do you feel the Pastor and Elders could better serve you?" and will surely hold you to the same. (I am not saying that Lee was wrong... I think he is right and I don't use the term pastor for a non-elder)... I am just pointing out what appears to me to be your same usage of the term 'pastor' as was used in the original survey of this thread.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Danny,

You have said, "It becomes quite clear to all.....that if more located ministers were concentrating on the their job description as per the Bible....and Elders shepherded the flock.....the growth in the kingdom would be phenomenal. " Does the Evangelist have a more time-consuming 'job description' than an Elder? The current congregation I am attending has 3 Elders and 300+ people... they are expected to teach, guard against False Doctrine, counsel, etc., etc. and support themselves and their families. Why do we always 'support' the Evangelist... and expect the Elders to meet their requirements while holding down full-time jobs?? (No... I am not one of those 3, looking for support. :-) )

As an aside: Isn't the use of the term 'minister' for one specific person in the church just as wrong as the term 'pastor'?

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Danny,

Let me clarify one thing I just wrote. I said, "Why do we always 'support' the Evangelist... and expect the Elders to meet their requirements while holding down full-time jobs??" I should have said "almost always" rather than "always"... I know there are cases of paid elders... but they are definitely the exception rather than the rule.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Brother Robin;

You have asked:

“Basically, I would just like to know if there is ever a case (besides unrepentant sin) when an evangelist can be 'doing a poor job' and be asked to leave? Ever??”

Before one can even determine if anyone is doing a “poor job” they must first define what that work is and the standard by which the performance of that work is to be determined. Now the work of an Evangelist is detailed in 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus and the Examples of New Testament Evangelist such as Phillip. From God’s word we have a very clear and easy to understand definition of just what was the work of an Evangelist. Such commands as “give thyself to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine” and the Command to “ preach the word. Be instant in season and out of season. Reprove, rebuke and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” It is obvious that this labor is one of proclaiming the gospel and teaching and preaching the word of God. If the preacher of the gospel is not faithfully performing these duties he is sinning against God and should be subject to the discipline of the church and corrected. If he stubbornly refuses to repent the entire church should withdraw their fellowship from him until he does repent. And the Lord will also withdraw fellowship from him in his impenitent state. Thus, since he is a servant of the Lord and we are commanded to support him as long as we do fellowship him in the work and he does this work. It is reasonable that when we no longer fellowship him and he is no longer doing this work for the Lord that we are no longer obligated to support him, in fact we must withdraw our support from him.

By this practice of “hiring” a preacher and then giving him “duties” and “responsibilities” that are not even mentioned in the word of God we sin in adding to the word of God. For by this procedure we have hired him into OUR service and taken him away from the service of the Lord. And thus we end up “paying him for services rendered” to us rather than supporting him in our joint service rendered to the Lord in the furtherance of the Kingdom of God and saving the souls of lost men.

For he is the Lord’s servant in this work and we are commanded to support him in it. And thus we cannot make up a job description for him. For his true employer who is Christ our Lord has defined his work. And no one has any right to add anything to the work, which he is told to do by his master who is Christ. And no one can HIRE him for he is already in the employ of the Lord. And no one can “fire” him because no one but the Lord is his employer. We either fellowship him in this work or we do not fellowship him in it. This is the choice that we have. And he is not to be treated any differently than any other member of the church who gives their entire life to a specific work of and with the church for the Lord. Can anyone understand why we do not “hire and fire” elders of the church yet we hire and fire Evangelist at will?

When any of those serving the Lord in specific works such as elders, deacons, and teachers sins and refuses to repent of those sins he has already left the employ of the Lord. And the Church through disciplinary procedures described in the word of God must either restore him to the Lord’s service or withdraw all fellowship from him which includes withdrawing ANY AND ALL financial support from him. An Evangelist that is treated any differently than the manner that these other servants of Christ are treated is being mistreated. And that he is so differently treated is not because the word of God teaches such but because we have followed the traditions, doctrines and commandments of men on this matter and neglected the word of God about it. Thus we can see that our financial support of the Evangelist who is the Lord’s servant and not ours is a means whereby we fellowship with him in the work that he is doing. And if he teaches false doctrine we cannot fellowship with him in such work and must take action to correct the problem.

Thus when we “hire” an Evangelist to do work that WE have designed for him to do. Instead of fellowshipping, by financial support and joint labor, an Evangelist who is busy doing the work that God commanded him to do we sin in making such laws or rules in addition to the word of God. For we have no right to just design a humanly devised “job description” and hire the Lord’s servant to do OUR work that we think is useful to us and that we assume without good reason that our Lord would appreciate. This is sheer nonsense. And were human traditions and innovations not so strongly gripping us we would have long ago given up such ideas and followed the word of God.

I am at work now and must return to this subject later.

I pray that our Lord will help us all to see that this is an important matter because the church is suffering severely from this failure to follow God’s pattern in these matters. And a “pattern” is not something to be taken as lightly as Brother John thinks because we are talking about God’s pattern for these things not a simple pattern made by man.

All of our work is done in fellowship not as strangers in business that hire and fire one another as the needs of business require. We are the “body of Christ” not the “business of Christ” and there are indeed a vast differences between those two concepts and are worthy of serious study by the saints from God’s word.

But yet again I ask. Show me one single Evangelist or any other worker in the church of the New Testament that was “hired” and latter “fired” for any reason. No one has even attempted to find this thing in the New Testament, which is such a common and destructive practice among us. If it were common practice in the New Testament it seems to me we would have little trouble in finding one single example of such a practice therein. Yet, thus far no one has been able to provide ONE! Not a single ONE! Interesting indeed!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Danny,

You earlier posted addressed to me: "You assume that evangelist were always "short term" positions?? Upon what do you base this?? It seems your understanding of evangelists is shaped more by modern vernacular as opposed to Scripture. " Was this meant to be addressed to Link? I don't remember what I said that would have lead you to believe that I assume this... but I may have. I must say that I thought Link had a very good post above... which was largely ignored (which usually seems to be the case when he brings up the 'one paid pulpit preacher' issue... Hmmm.... I wonder why?)....

Sorry for the 'piecemeal' posts... I'm trying to catch up on a lot of posts addressed to me.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Brother Robin:

I agree with you completely concerning your following words:

“You have said, "It becomes quite clear to all.....that if more located ministers were concentrating on the their job description as per the Bible....and Elders shepherded the flock.....the growth in the kingdom would be phenomenal. " Does the Evangelist have a more time-consuming 'job description' than an Elder? The current congregation I am attending has 3 Elders and 300+ people... they are expected to teach, guard against False Doctrine, counsel, etc., etc. and support themselves and their families. Why do we always 'support' the Evangelist... and expect the Elders to meet their requirements while holding down full-time jobs?? (No... I am not one of those 3, looking for support. :-)”

I agree with you that we should support our elders just as we do Evangelists and this surely includes financial support. I know that the scriptures surely authorize such financial support for elders especially for those who labor in “word and doctrine”. (1 Tim. 5:17). We have surely failed to follow the teaching of God’s word on this matter! And I also hope that you would agree with me that when we begin to follow this scriptural teaching of providing financial support for our elders that we will not bring along with it the human tradition of “hiring and firing” them as well!

What we need to do is follow the teaching of God’s word and support any one doing the Lords work and giving themseslves continually and completely to it whether it be elders, deacons or teachers as well as Evangelists.

In fact, the most profitable way to do this is to have elders doing the teaching from the pulpit regularly and the Evangelist out Evangelizing as seems to be the way it was done in the scriptures at least in some places though not in every case. And those who labor in “word and doctrine” are worthy of “double honor” and therefore ought to be supported financially to do it.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Lee,

You have said, "If the preacher of the gospel is not faithfully performing these duties he is sinning against God and should be subject to the discipline of the church and corrected. " Is there any room for 'gradation' in service? In other words, isn't it possible for an Evangelist to be doing the 'job' (not sinning)... but still be doing either a 'great job', an 'average job' or a 'poor job'?

Let's say an evangelist has sinned a public sin (it is known very well in the community) and has repented in the church and is trying to do better. BUT, he has lost all credibility, all possibility of an outreach in the community (which is at least part of his job).

How about one that just lacks communication skills and continually alienates people (not what he says but how he says it -- I'm not talking about alienating people by telling them the Truth they don't want to hear.) We have seen various examples of something like this on this very forum....

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Brother Robin:

You say:

“Lee,

You have said, "If the preacher of the gospel is not faithfully performing these duties he is sinning against God and should be subject to the discipline of the church and corrected. " Is there any room for 'gradation' in service? In other words, isn't it possible for an Evangelist to be doing the 'job' (not sinning)... but still be doing either a 'great job', an 'average job' or a 'poor job'?”

If there is any such “room for gradation” in service we should be able to find the standards of such gradation in the word of God, shouldn’t we? And if you believe in such gradation, as it appears that you do, why do you not just show us from the scriptures that there is room for such? Can you show us anyone in the scriptures that was “fired” for doing his job but doing it “poorly”? I have not read in the scriptures any suggestion that a preacher should be “fired” for ANY REASON. The scriptures are clear that anyone, not just the evangelist, who sins in anything, including the failure to obey God’s commands concerning the work that they are to do are to be disciplined and corrected. We are told to be “sober, and vigilant” and to “contend earnestly for the faith”. WE are taught to be diligent in all things. If one is being blatantly slacking they are sinning against God and should be appropriately corrected. And if they persist in sin they are to be appropriately disciplined by the church. But regardless of what they do there is no authority in the scriptures whatsoever for “firing” any of the Lord’s servants, including the preachers of the gospel. If one is doing a “poor job” they should be corrected via guidance, training, and encouragement. And the preacher is not required by the word of God to always do a “great job” especially if such is beyond his natural talent and capabilities. He surely should do his best but the best for some men could easily be considered “poor” by the standards of more talented men. This effort to find gradations that God has given us no instructions concerning will lead to subjective judgements being the means of determining the value of the preachers contribution. But this nonsense of “firing” the Lord’s servants is completely without justification and is a severe departure from the word of God and thus a detriment to the cause of Christ in every place where it is practiced. And would you apply this same nonexistent standard to the “elders” of the church? For they are surely just as apt to be performing “greatly, average and poorly”. If they are qualified to be elders and doing their best they are acceptable to God even if some might judge their work as being “poor”. If this is true of elders why not Evangelist? Do we “fire” elders that we think are performing “poorly” if we did, what passage of scripture would authorize such? If they do not have the talent and ability to do that work then they should not be selected or expected to do it. And the church in the process of correcting this matter would not be obligated to “ask the man to leave” or by no means are they to “fire” him. But rather they are to find a more appropriate avenue of scriptural service more in line with his abilities and put him into that work even if it means that they must help train and equip him to do something else. For they have made an error in choosing him for that work when he was not qualified, capable or in the least bit able to do the work. But this notion of just washing our hands of a brother because he is lacking in talent for a specific area of service by firing him is not taught in the scriptures and is not conducive to the harmonious work of the church. In fact, the church would have greater strength if they kept such a one doing that work than “firing” him and leaving him and his family out to make his way with no concern for them in the least. And giving little or no consideration to the fact that he must serve God in some capacity. And I have seen this very thing happen and it is indeed shameful for those who call themselves Christians to behave in this fashion. In fact, how can we expect anyone to determine if the brother is performing “poorly” when they do not know what the scriptural standard of “poorly” is?

Then you asked:

“Let's say an evangelist has sinned a public sin (it is known very well in the community) and has repented in the church and is trying to do better. BUT, he has lost all credibility, all possibility of an outreach in the community (which is at least part of his job).”

Now, I would like someone to show me from the scriptures that an Evangelist cannot be forgiven and completely restored including returning to his former activity as a preacher of the gospel even in the same place where he sinned. His influence and the damage done to the cause of Christ is not lessened one bit by not allowing him to be fully restored upon his public repentance and having obtained public forgiveness of his sins. And it is the credibility of the truth of God’s word that is to be used to convert men to Christ. The gospel has the power to do its work if it is preached even by a man who has failed in the beginning. How long was it after Peter denied Christ that he repented and began to preach the gospel in the very “community” where he had sinned. Is it not possible that some of those in the audience on the day of Pentecost could have said, “I know this man Peter? Only a short time ago he was denying that he even knew this man Jesus. And now here he comes telling us that he is the Messiah and the Son of God!” Is it not at least possible that he might have been perceived prior to Pentecost as one having some “credibility” problem? But was he rejected from preaching the first gospel sermon since the ascension of Christ on the day of Pentecost? No, he wasn’t. The “credibility problem” God took care of by the witness that he gave to his words by signs and wonders done on that day. And those same signs and wonders recorded in the scriptures are still providing credibility to that word and it still overcomes the perception of “credibility problems” often that our brethren seem to be so unjustifiably concern about. And look at the results! What if some “wise brethren” had decided, “we had better not let Peter get up and preach this sermon because he may have lost credibility when he denied the Lord.” Nonsense! The world and their attitude concerning what they consider to be “credible” does not determine what our Lord will do with his servants whom he restores completely upon their repentance of sin and dependence upon him.

And since when does the attitude of the community toward a person set the standards of what is right in the sight of God? Nonsense! The world and their attitude concerning what they consider to be “credible” does not determine what our Lord will do with his servants whom he restores completely upon their repentance of sin and dependence upon him.

The community has a lot to learn about the truth and they will not learn it if we yield to their expectations instead of following God’s word. If they do not like the fact that God will forgive and restore such a man it is because they do not understand the teaching of God’s word. When they are converted to Christ they will come to know the truth. And if they reject the gospel because of this matter they will still be held accountable for that rejection. They will not be any more likely to come to Christ upon hearing and understanding the gospel if the preacher is “fired” and not allowed to be restored to the Lord’s service. For if they understand the gospel they know that the whole idea is “reconciliation” of man to God. If they never see any examples of how forgiveness and reconciliation works among us they are not likely to think such a thing is genuine and real. No one can show from God’s word that any brother who sins including those who preach or even those who are elders in the church cannot be completely restored to their former work if they repent before all.

Then you ask:

“How about one that just lacks communication skills and continually alienates people (not what he says but how he says it -- I'm not talking about alienating people by telling them the Truth they don't want to hear.) We have seen various examples of something like this on this very forum....”

The scriptures have nothing to say about one who lacks “communication skills”. And the truth is the truth regardless of how it is stated. And what we have seen in this forum is people who use their “sensitivity” to such things as an excuse for rejecting what they know to be the truth. Every gospel preacher in the New Testament “alienated” someone by telling the truth in ways that many today would consider a harsh way of putting it. The very apostle Paul who told us to speak the truth in Love (Eph. 4:15) said, “if any man preach any gospel other than that which ye received let him be anathema.” (Gal. 1:9). Those are words that surely would alienate someone. In fact, I do not know of any way to preach the gospel that would prevent this alienation of some. The gospel of Christ is the truth and it is the "power of God unto salvation" which does not need the adie of eloquence to support it or help it to accomlish its purpose and no amount of harshness can prevent its power to save. And we have nothing in the scriptures requiring that those who preach Christ have finely developed personalities and communication skills. WE must do the work even with our faults, failings, and personalities. Some will do better than others but we have no authority to “fire” anyone over such things. We surely have an obligation to work toward improving others and ourselves with training, and encouragement and even stern rebukes. But this does not authorize “firing” even if it did suggest that such a one should not be an Evangelist, which I am not sure that such a one cannot evangelize, just because his way of communicating is alienating in nature. He may not be as successful as others may but it cannot be shown from the scriptures that he cannot do this work. In fact, his particular skill or talent for strong language might be just the thing needed in dealing with arrogant false teachers who resist God fiercely. Just listen to Stephen who said to the Jews, “ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears ye do always resist the Holy Spirit, even as your fathers did so do ye”. (Acts 7:51). Not a very “polished” speech according to some men who have standards that rejects the use of this accusatory tone. They would surely consider this to be a severe “lacking in communication skills” no wouldn’t they? But they unfortunately miss the eloquence of what some of them undoubtedly would consider a speech lacking in communication skills and polish. But Stephen was indeed eloquent without the niceties of a “polished tongue”.

I do not know just what “examples of this on the forum” you are thinking about. I do not recollect reading anyone who had a problem with anyone “lacking communication skills” any more than the rest or merely “alienating” others from the truth solely by the way in which he has put it. In fact, if people accept what you are saying as true then how you say it is not likely to genuinely alienate them. And if those who reject the truth want to use your particular manner of putting it as an excuse they would reject it even if your manner were acceptable to them.

Again, we make far more ado about “how things ought to be said” than the word of God makes about the fact that they ought to be said, period! This excuse is not one that the word of God gives for disciplining a brother in Christ. Now I am not talking about a “factious” man or a heretic. I am talking about one who is faithful but not “talented” as a perfect communicator as we might like for him to be. But even if the scriptures condemned the “manner of presenting the truth” as unjustifiably suggest, it would only mean that the man using a manner condemned by God’s word is sinning against God and would need to be disciplined and either corrected or withdrawn from. It would not justify “firing” him. There is no such process taught in the scriptures. And again I point to the increasingly obvious FACT that no one, especially you, has even attempted to find a single gospel preacher or any other worker in the church of the New Testament, including elders that were ever “hired” to do their work. And later “fired” for not doing it. I am beginning to wonder why you ignore this question other than the simple fact that you cannot find such a thing in the word of God. This concern over their “credibility in the community” is a perceived problem and a human concern. But it is not a concern addressed in the word of God such that a preacher of the gospel, or an elder, or any other worker in the church cannot be restored and continue in his prior good works just because he might have a “credibility problem in the community”.

All men in the church are susceptible to the potential of facing “credibility” problems even without public sin being the cause. Some do not believe a man just because of the way he carries himself or the smallness of his stature or the color of his skin. The church is not to yield to this nonsense but show the right way to deal with these matters rather than following and submitting to the communities “standards” concerning these things. ANd if they wish to calim that we are not following our own standards because we have restored on that sins it may often provide a perfect opportunity to show them just what the gospel of Christ is all about.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Lee,

You have said, "There is no such process taught in the scriptures. And again I point to the increasingly obvious FACT that no one, especially you, has even attempted to find a single gospel preacher or any other worker in the church of the New Testament, including elders that were ever “hired” to do their work. And later “fired” for not doing it. I am beginning to wonder why you ignore this question other than the simple fact that you cannot find such a thing in the word of God. " I cannot find a hiring/firing case and freely admit it. Let's use the 'support' terminology... since we do find cases for 'supporting'. So... am I correct that you hold to a 'Once Supported, Always Supported' (except for unrepented of sin) stance? (Just a little play on the 'Once Saved, Always Saved' idea... knowing that you have previously admited to not having a sense of humor... I thought I should explain.) Even if the 'supported one' has lost his ability to witness effectively in the community (I've seen this happen... so it does), lacks the skills for the requirements of an Evangelist, and constantly alienates people (within the congregation and without) with his 'style'? Of course, as the congregation shrinks (alienated people leaving and no new converts)... the 'unsupport' will just happen... there won't be any financial means to provide the support.

You have said (concerning Elders... but it must apply to Evangelists), "If they do not have the talent and ability to do that work then they should not be selected or expected to do it. And the church in the process of correcting this matter would not be obligated to “ask the man to leave” or by no means are they to “fire” him. But rather they are to find a more appropriate avenue of scriptural service more in line with his abilities and put him into that work even if it means that they must help train and equip him to do something else. " Would this involve possibly 'unsupporting' him? What if it turns out his main ability is to work in the nursery (no offense to nursery workers intended).... should we support him and his family for this work?

One other thing, you have said, "And in the above where you mentioned that Brother Link and I agreed you suggested that we should “dig out copies of the open church” to understand this matter you were not, in my opinion, making a good suggestion. " I did not say "we" (you or anyone else) should do anything... I said, "Maybe it is time for me to dig out my copy of "The Open Church" again.... " IMO, you really took what I said and stretched it.... I never indicated that I was taking it over the Bible... I never indicated that it was "to understand this matter"... And, I did not make any 'suggestions' about it whatsoever.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Brother Robin:

You have said:

“I cannot find a hiring/firing case and freely admit it.” I appreciate you honestly admitting that there is no “hiring/firing” of preachers taught in the scriptures since that at least there is not one single example of such found in the word of God. Yet it is a common occurrence among us. Thus it should be obvious that no such thing was the common practice of the early church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore there should be no such practice in the Church of Christ today. For there is no teaching of the word of God to justify this practice, now is there?

Then you say:

“ Let's use the 'support' terminology... since we do find cases for 'supporting'”

Yes we do find cases of supporting Evangelist in the scriptures and no cases of “hiring or firing” them at all.

Then you asked:

“. So... am I correct that you hold to a 'Once Supported, Always Supported' (except for unrepented of sin) stance? (Just a little play on the 'Once Saved, Always Saved' idea... knowing that you have previously admited to not having a sense of humor... I thought I should explain.)”

I appreciate your kindness in explaining to me, since I have told you that I do not have a sense of humor, that you were not serious in expressing this idea. I suppose it would be humorous to those with a sense of humor. And again you have failed to remember that I explained to you just how the support an Evangelist is tied to the fellowship with him in this work. And you have ignored what I plainly said as follows:

"Now, Brother Robin, the church has no right to withdraw all support from him without withdrawing fellowship from him. For he is not a “hireling” to be treated as one. He is the Lord’s servant for your good and ministers to you spiritual things at God’s command. Thus, since you are not his employer you cannot “hire” him nor can you “fire” him. He is the Lord’s servant and your brother in Christ and if the church has called for his services or sent him out on a mission in obedience to the Lord they are COMMANDED to support him. It is not an optional matter. If he sins the church is to discipline him just as they would any other member of the church, whether it be an elder, deacon, or anyone else. You cannot “hire an elder” nor can you “fire” him. You cannot “hire” a deacon nor can you “fire” him. And I cannot imagine just how on earth some, knowing that an Evangelist is a servant of the Lord in the Church just as are the Elders, deacons, and teachers have concluded that he can be "hired" and "fired". Yes we think he must be a “professional” with a string of degrees from the finest educational institutions and that he can be “hired” like a gunslinger and “fired’ like a slothful worker. But we do not think this way about elders, deacons, or teachers”. Now again I ask you to show me from the word of God one single Evangelist or any other worker in the church that was “hired” by the church and later “fired” for any reason. If, Brother Danny, since you “picked on him” sinned by failing to perform the scriptural duties of the Evangelist he would need to be disciplined and if he repented he would naturally stay on and continue the work that the Lord has commanded him to do. If he refused to repent then naturally he would be excluded from the fellowship of the saints and would therefore no longer be working for the Lord in any capacity for the Lord would also withdraw from him. And thus it would be natural that all the reasons that the church was obligated to support him would no longer exist and the support would stop.”

I believe that I made it very clear in the above paragraph taken from a previous post in this thread that I do not believe “once supported always supported" as you have mistakenly thought. Just because I do not believe that a preacher of the gospel can be “hired or fired” does not mean that I believe in “once supported always supported”. It is you that have not shown scriptural authority for not supporting an Evangelist because he fails to do things that the scriptures do not make a part of his function as an Evangelist. We cannot just make up our own rules about these things but we must have a thus saith the Lord about it.

“ Even if the 'supported one' has lost his ability to witness effectively in the community (I've seen this happen... so it does)"

I have already dealt with this situation above. You are welcome to respond to what I have already said if you want to do so.

Then you continue:

"lacks the skills for the requirements of an Evangelist, and constantly alienates people (within the congregation and without) with his 'style'?” Of course, as the congregation shrinks (alienated people leaving and no new converts)... the 'unsupport' will just happen... there won't be any financial means to provide the support.”

Now this is not necessarily so. There are remedies for this circumstance, as I mentioned earlier, other than resorting to the unscriptural notion of “hiring and firing” Evangelist. I have made it clear that “training, encouragement, and patient study of God’s word can correct this person. Efforts to correct such a person are often never taken for it is far easier to just “fire him”. And I have never seen a situation with one that is lacking talent that could not at least improve to some measure toward a successful level. And please do notice that your arguments are all coming from situations rather than the scriptures. I have seen this sort of arguing often when people do not like what the scriptures teach about baptism. They say for example what about the one who dies on his way to the water? If the scriptures teach that baptism is essential to salvation it teaches it whether or not every situation is perceived to have fit what it teaches or not. The time for illustrations and the discussion of specific situations is after we determine what the word of God teaches about a matter, not before. For whatever God’s word teaches it teaches and it does not matter if every conceivable situation has been explained or not. You could sit out there for days coming up with situations that require the use of good judgement and common sense. But the word of God must be followed regardless of our human perceptions of the situation. And thus far you have not found a single situation that the teaching of God’s word does not fit in this matter. You have not found one that would be alleviated by “firing the preacher” rather than disciplining (which includes the idea of instruction and training) as well as the ultimate withdrawal of fellowship and support. I do not know of any circumstance that instruction and training would not help those with little talent or skill to improve. And if one is deliberately rebellious against such instruction then there is a sinful matter to be dealt with. But most good men are amendable and definitely responsive to encouragement, instruction, and patient training. This would actually produce much good not only for the brother we are trying to correct but also to those working to correct him. Are not the “strong to support the weak?” and are we not to “bear on another's burdens”?

Now, if you have any SCRIPTURAL support for your position of “hiring and firing” Evangelist rather than supporting and fellowshipping them in their work then please give us the benefit of it. But more citing of “situations” is nothing more that a continued admission that your position has no scriptural foundation. And the scriptures are our only rule of faith and practice in the church of Christ.

Then you asked:

“" Would this involve possibly 'unsupporting' him? What if it turns out his main ability is to work in the nursery (no offense to nursery workers intended).... should we support him and his family for this work?”

I think that my paragraph above answers this question. If he has sinned and refused to repent we would withdraw our fellowship and thus our financial support. But if he has not sinned we have no scriptural grounds for withdrawing our fellowship and therefore our financial support of him. Remember I have pointed out that we are “joint laborers” and we should work with him to train, encourage, and instruct him. If he has not sinned and is trying his best he will definitely respond to good instruction and will improve. And I mentioned moving him into another work only to respond to your situations that are not so realistic in truth. For your illustration says nothing about his being taken aside and taught the way of the Lord more perfectly or given instructions in better ways to say things or encouraged to work with greater diligence, for young men often need this type of encouragement. And those qualified to be elders in the church could be very effective in this matter. But instead of even trying to see the point of all that I have said you simply return, without any scriptures to support you notion of “hiring and firing” and give us yet increasingly less than likely situations in contrast to the clear teaching of God’s word. I know you might say I have seen these things happen. But you forget that you have seen them happen in the context of a system of “hiring and firing” that is unscriptural. You have not seen them in the context of a congregation following the scriptural constraints of support and fellowship and joint labor. Why not contemplate how these things might work if we completely illuminate the idea of shuffling off this good, but less talented, brother to the nursery. And think of how much could be gained by leadership in the elders spending time to help him grow in his work for Christ and develop according to the teaching of God’s word. He may never be a GREAT preacher. But I defy you to prove that he could never be a relatively good one and accomplish much good for the Lord.

And in reference to this matter of the congregation being so easily “alienated” by the preacher is caused by immaturity. And the elders can spend some time working on this matter with both the congregation and the preacher. I have noticed a pathetic and unscriptural sense of “touchiness” and unjustifiable tenderness, which causes folks to be “alienated” far more than anything some preacher might say. And as far as alienating those who are without, in many cases that will happen even with the very best of preachers. For it is impossible to preach very long with out doing such a thing even if one tries very hard not to. This feeling of indignant alienation is often nothing more than defiant rejection of the truth and the preachers words, though poorly chosen are nothing more than an excuse for a determined rejection of the truth. And the idea that the preacher could through this means completely bring a faithful, diligent, mature and patient congregation to the point of extension is just plain absurd. Any place that has so severely dwindled to nothing had far more serious problems than having an untalented and caustic preacher. In fact I have seen congregations grow with the most caustic preachers you have ever heard! They often make the point so clear and bring men to their senses with far greater effect than the weak pretentiously “loving” man. You are no doubt talking of things that you have probably seen. But the preacher is not the only one to be working in this congregation and therefore he cannot alone bring it to the level that you speak of. And because you have seen it happen in places where everything depends upon what the preacher does or does not do. And everything is centered on him instead of Christ our Lord. And the focus upon internal squabbling instead of intense focus upon the lost and dying around us does not mean that this is how things are in places that follow God’s word in these matters. For those who follow the word of God are focused externally upon the lost and internally upon the LORD. They are not busy biting and devouring one another but they are intensely interested in “joint labor” fellowship and mutual support and obedience to God in all things and the creeds of men and doctrines of men and the opinions of men are not considered as authoritative in anything.

These congregations grow as naturally as does the seed planted in fertile ground. For the seed of the Kingdom is indeed the word of God. (Luke 8:11). Planting anything else in the hearts of saints or sinners will not produce or increase the kingdom of God in any place. Remember that Paul planted and Apollos watered but God gave the increase.

Then you mention “one other thing” as follows:

“One other thing, you have said, "And in the above where you mentioned that Brother Link and I agreed you suggested that we should “dig out copies of the open church” to understand this matter you were not, in my opinion, making a good suggestion. " I did not say "we" (you or anyone else) should do anything... I said, "Maybe it is time for me to dig out my copy of "The Open Church" again.... " IMO, you really took what I said and stretched it.... I never indicated that I was taking it over the Bible... I never indicated that it was "to understand this matter"... And, I did not make any 'suggestions' about it whatsoever.”

I see what you mean and I apologize for leaving the impression that you had suggested that we all should look at the “open church” instead of the word of God. For I see that this is not what you intended. Please forgive.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Lee,

Apology accepted... it is easy to miss things or misconstrue things when reading this amount of material.

I said, "So... am I correct that you hold to a 'Once Supported, Always Supported' (except for unrepented of sin) stance? " You seem to have overlooked the fact that I added the "(except for unrepented of sin)".

Why would you say, "I appreciate you honestly admitting that there is no “hiring/firing” of preachers taught in the scriptures since that at least there is not one single example of such found in the word of God. " then continue to use the 'hire'/'fire' terms in the rest of your message and then say, "Now, if you have any SCRIPTURAL support for your position of “hiring and firing” Evangelist rather than supporting and fellowshipping them in their work then please give us the benefit of it. " If you really "appreciated my honesty" you would not have continued in this manner.

You have said, "He is the Lord’s servant and your brother in Christ and if the church has called for his services or sent him out on a mission in obedience to the Lord they are COMMANDED to support him. It is not an optional matter. " Where is this command? Not saying it isn't there... just looking for the scripture references to this COMMAND.

I just noticed as I was reading 1 Timothy 5:17-18 that it says, "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor..." (emphasis mine) ... I wonder about the ones that are not directing the affairs of the church "well"? To me, this seems to imply that elders could direct the affairs of the church "poorly"... but not necessarily be sinning... for if they were sinning they should be removed from eldership and not be elders any more.... I find this interesting... as it seems to indicate that there is 'gradation' of service... and that 'a good performance' is worthy... but not 'a poor performance'.... Am I reading too much into the use of the word "well" here? (The NASB goes on to say "...especially those who work hard...".)

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Have a good hunt! The turkeys are going crazy up here right now... first season was last week. Our flock seems to have survived the winter quite well....

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Brother Robin:

You have asked:

“Why would you say, "I appreciate you honestly admitting that there is no “hiring/firing” of preachers taught in the scriptures since that at least there is not one single example of such found in the word of God. " then continue to use the 'hire'/'fire' terms in the rest of your message and then say, "Now, if you have any SCRIPTURAL support for your position of “hiring and firing” Evangelist rather than supporting and fellowshipping them in their work then please give us the benefit of it. " If you really "appreciated my honesty" you would not have continued in this manner.”

I truly did appreciate your honesty in admitting that there is no scriptural support for the idea of “hiring/firing” an Evangelist. And I had hoped that such and admission would have settled the matter. But you did not forsake the idea of doing such to an Evangelist rather all you did was continue by changing nothing more than your terminology without forsaking the concept. Thus you continued to attempt to express the same unscriptural idea that you admitted was not scriptural with the use of new terminology. The difference between us here is not merely the semantic difference between terms such as “hiring/firing” and “supporting/unsupporting” The difference is that the scriptures teach that every saint is to be actively involved in the work of the Lord in various capacities that their natural gifts allow. And none of them can be simply dismissed for failing to do their work. They must be disciplined and brought back into the work and encouraged to diligence. We cannot just cast them overboard for anything that is less than stubborn unrepentant sins. It does not matter about the terminology as much as it matters that we get the idea or the scriptural concept right. WE are not allowed to ask a brother in Christ to leave so long as he is in the fellowship of Christ and is a child of God serving with us jointly for Christ. He is a member of the church and cannot just be sent away. Now, his function in the church can change, I agree. But he cannot be told “your influence in the community has been so severely damaged that we must ask you to leave even though you have repented of your sins and are even now working faithfully and diligently to serve him”. And it seems to me that we are constantly shifting between discussing the concept of “hiring and firing” and the financial support. Might I suggest that we settle one before we settle the other? Shall we not make better progress if we first settle the issue of whether a brother can be sent away from the church and removed from his function as an Evangelist for reasons that are not unrepentant sins. And then discuss the issue of when is financial support given and withdrawn and for what reasons?

Then you asked:

“You have said, "He is the Lord’s servant and your brother in Christ and if the church has called for his services or sent him out on a mission in obedience to the Lord they are COMMANDED to support him. It is not an optional matter. " Where is this command? Not saying it isn't there... just looking for the scripture references to this COMMAND.”

I am more than happy to inform you of this command of the Lord, which was given by the Holy Spirit speaking in the apostle Paul as follows:

“Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he [it] altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, [this] is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. Or saith he [it] altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, [this] is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If others be partakers of [this] power over you, [are] not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live [of the things] of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” (1 Cor. 9:4-14)

Notice the last verse of this quotation from God’s word. It says that “THE LORD ORDAINED THAT THEY WHICH PREACH THE GOSPEL SHOULD LIVE OF THE GOSPEL.” Thus it is the Lord’s command that preachers of the gospel should be supported. And the previous illustrations given by Paul in this passage show just what is meant by “live of the gospel”. It is a right that all who preach the gospel have though they are not always required to exercise that right and I know many who preach Christ without Charge. In fact, I am one of those. I work for Christ and preach the gospel at my own expense though I am not required to do it. But I am able to do it and probably would not have it any other way. But I am not able to do as much for Christ that I could do because of the time spent earning a living. For that reason I am happy that we have men whose entire life is committed to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine. Because the Lord Commanded that they should be “live of the gospel” I have insisted that they should be financially supported by their brethren in Christ in this important work. And as the above passage shows, I have correctly stated that we are commanded to support the preacher of the gospel.

You have said:

“I just noticed as I was reading 1 Timothy 5:17-18 that it says, "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor..." (emphasis mine) ... I wonder about the ones that are not directing the affairs of the church "well"? To me, this seems to imply that elders could direct the affairs of the church "poorly"... but not necessarily be sinning... for if they were sinning they should be removed from eldership and not be elders any more.... I find this interesting... as it seems to indicate that there is 'gradation' of service... and that 'a good performance' is worthy... but not 'a poor performance'.... Am I reading too much into the use of the word "well" here? (The NASB goes on to say "...especially those who work hard...".)”

I agree with what you say just here. I have not doubted that there may be gradations of performance. I have, however denied that men can be merely “dismissed” rather than appropriately disciplined, corrected and continue in their work. Indeed we would surely support those who “direct the affairs of the church well” which might also imply that doing so requires them to give their full attention to it and for that reason they should be “given double honor” hence be financially supported.

I pray that our Lord will bless you.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2001

Brother Danny:

Enjoy the hunt! We will look for you next week! Express My Christian love to your faithful Christian wife Jenny. Are you going to let her hunt turkey's with you? If so I am sure that you will not have to depend on "luck" to "bag" a turkey!

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2001

Let's think about what traveling preachers did in the New Testament in order to better understand this issue. I think the apostles were more or less all evangelists, because Jesus sent them forth to evangelize. They at least had to do the work of evangelist. In addition to doing the work of an evangelist, they also did the work of an overseer. Peter quoted scripture of Judas, and his overseership, let another take. So, in addition to the work of evangelist, (proclaiming the good news) we also see apostles overseeing churches, ordaining elders, etc.

When Jesus sent the 12 apostles out on an evangelistic mission to Israel, he told them that when they went into a city or town, they were to inquire if there was a man of peace in that city or town. If he were a man of peace, they were to let their peace rest upon the house, and they were to stay there eating and drinking what was set before them. Why? BEcause the laborer is worthy of his wages.

I've read that in Semetic cutlure, one could actually demand hospitality of another. Hospitality was seen as a sacred obligation. We can see how seriously Lot took it, offering his own daughter to protect those staying with him.

I wonder what someone would say today if the preacher said 'Today I am eating at your house.' Jesus told Zaccheas that He would be eating at his house. Now, Jesus is the Son of God, and He probably had some revelation about Zaccheas, and that he would want to host Him before doing this. But this statement may make more sense in an era when people were allowed to request hospitality.

Paul waived the right to this sort of support, though he believed in it. He preferred to work with his own hands, at times, rather than to be supported by a church. That way, no one could fault his motives for preaching. They couldn't accuse him of being greedy.

Paul sometimes took gifts, but among the Corinthians, he did not receive support. Some Macedonian's supported him there. He wrote that he had robbed other churches and not received support from among the Corinthians.

But we see in I Corinthians that others besides Paul had used the right of support. The chapter makes reference to Cephas, who had apparently travelled to Corinth.

Just think what Cephas would have expected in the way of hospitality. (assuming this is the same Cephas as Simon Peter. I've read that there is a traditional story that there was another Cephas who was one of the 70. It doesn't matter that much in this case since the 70 were sent out and taught to receive hospitality as well.) Peter, wen He was sent out on a preaching mission to Israel, was to enter someone's house, together with his partner, and receive their food and drink. It is also likely that the Corinthians collected money to send him on his way. Paul had hoped that the Roman s would help him on his journey to Spain. (Rom 15:24.) I've read that when the Bible talks of sending workers, the word for send implies sending them off with supplies that they need for the journey. (I don't knwo if that is true, but I've read it.)

Now let's think about the workers that came to Corinth. Apollos and Cephas apparently came to Corinth. The Ephesian church wrote a letter to the Corinthian chruch about Apollow, according to Acts. We don't know if Cephas came first or second. He might have come after Apollow, since Acts doesn't mention him coming to Corinth.

What did the Corinthian church did when Peter came around? Do you think they said 'Sorry, Peter, but we already have a contract with an evangelist, Apollos. Go find another church. I hear Thesolonica could use an aposlte or evangelist. They'll pay you $30,000 a year." Surely they wouldn't say that. The church had an obligation to support Cephas, not because he was their evangelist, but because of the work. Churches should provide hospitablity for traveling ministers like this, and regular believers as well. Hospitality is a forgotten scriptural teaching it seems.

'Evangelist' is not an occupational position at a chruch that either is or is not filled, in the Bible. It is a gift God sets forth in the church.

We need to keep in mind the city-church concept. The Bible speaks of the church in Ephesus, the chruch in Jeruslaem, etc. 'Churches' plural is used of the churches in the region of Galatia. The 'city church' was united in these areas. It would appear that Jerusalem had one single presbytry. This is an area where modern churches (undenominational or no) do not resemble the first century church.

An apostle who came to a city where there was a church to minister there deserved to be supported. it wasn't right that the Corinthian church hadn't supported Paul. But at some point he would not even take their support so he could keep his boast of not being supported among them.

What kind of support would a New Testament apostle or evangelist have expected? Paul wrote With food and clothing, let us be content. A worker doing this type of work may have to live by faith, believing God to provide for himself and his family right around the corner.

The hiring and firing practices of the modern church are different from what was practiced in the NT. A church in the New Testmaent didn't have a choice to support one genuine evangelist and not another. When an evangelist doing this type of work came through town, he was to be supported by the church.

Keep in mind also that the Bible says that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. The immediate context is about apostles that travelled around. The word for 'preach' here is related to the word for evangelist, and is used in context to refer to preaching to win unbelievers, from what I've read. Notice the verse there in I Cor. 9 does not say that an evangelist should live of the Gospel, but rather they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.

We don't pay people just for their callings or titles. We should support people because of their work. The laborer is worthy of his hire. How did laborers get paid back then? Did the owner of a vineyard give the laborer a years wage in exchange for coming and picking grapes? No, in the parable of the laborers vineyard, the men got paid after they worked for a day.

Think about what Paul said concerning elders. The elders who rule well are worthy of double honor.... It seems to me like how well an elder was compensated financially for his work had to do with how well he did the work.

So think about the traveling minister who came to town in the first century. Let's imagine Apollos comes to Corinth with letters from teh Ephesian elders. Someone takes him into their home. Apollos labors inthe synagogue. Perhaps some of the Christians saw how well he labored, and were ready to make gifts for his ministry, because it was a good and genuine ministry.

I don't believe Apollos went to Corinth and tried to negotiate a contract with the Corinthians. 'Well, give me 300 dinarii more a year, and I'll come preach in Corinth. otherwise, I hear the Athenian church, though small, has plenty of money and can afford to give me a good dental plan.' No, Apollos labored, and others compensated.

If God calls an evangelist to labor in a village in Banten, shoudl he refuse to labor there because he doesn't get good medical insurance from a church there? Shouldn't he just labor for the Lord and then receive whatever God provides? If no money is coming through preaching, he could go get a job.

Also, if an evangelist is not on a preaching mission, and he goes back to his home town, is the church in that area required to support him? If he is not activiely preachin gthe Gospel, should he be supported?

I read soem interesting quotes from early church documents in Evangelist in the Early Church, by Michael Green. In the late first and early second century, there were some people who sold their property and travelled around preaching the Gospel. They had given up all. When they went into an area that had Christians, other Christians would provide for them. Others would provide for them lavishly, perhaps to show honor to the Lord.

There were also some charlatans doing this. Critics, seeing the charlatans, would accuse genuine ministers of the Gospel of being greedy and travelling with the wrong motives when they saw them lavishly treated.

I think we need to keep the sacrifices that the early preachers of the Gospel made to fulfill their calling in mind. paul sacrificed a lot. Peter had a wife to take with him. But it sounds like travelling for him must have been tougher than it is for a hired evangelist of today. Think about travelling around inteh ancient world on foot or on a donkey, and living off of whatever food people gave you, and waiting for God to provide the next meal. Just think, on the mission to Israel, Jesus wouldn't even allow them to carry their money bags (scrip.) They had to just trust God.

All this is different from a hiring and firing system. Giving gifts to those who are laboring is different from contracting with someone o labor for you, if you can provide the right price.

Another thing that seems a bit odd to me is calling someone who does the traditional pastor job an 'evangelist.' Since the root for evangelist has to do with proclaiming the good news, it seems like the concept of 'evangelism' is inherent in the word 'evangelist.' If a man does pastoral work, and doesn't go out winning unbelievers to Christ, then is his calling really that of an evangelist?

I know some have the idea that an evangelist is one who goes out and evangelizes and then starts up a chruch.

Btw, I've meet a Christian Church misionary here from the States who has an evangelism school designed to train people to do just that. The guy that guarded the house adjacent to the one I lived in who worked for the CoC guy I used to work for right when I got here is one of those evangelists. If anyone is interested in supporting this type of evangelistic work, I could pass on an email address to you. Indonesia has a lot of unreached people that really need evangelists doing real evangelistic ministry to go out and share the Gospel with them.

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2001

Hi, I am a minister and if any congregation I served did this I would resign immediately. This is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

Why not pass out a quarterly evaluation, with the same basic questions, concerning the eldership/deacons, etc...?? Why not let the pastor evaluate all the church members quarterly to see if they are living up to their Christian walk and dedication to the church?

This church obviously does not trust their pastor.

IHS, Barry

http://pastorshelper.faithweb.com

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2001

Barry,

As you can see by reading through the thread, I have been discussing this with Lee. He has, as usual, made excellent and Biblical points which I respect and consider.

I am not advocating this particular survey... however, I am still not convinced that there is not a place for this type of information exchange within a congregation. There are varying degrees of service, there are various expectations, and (I think) varying degrees of support. Let's say a congregation has a budget of $40,000.00 of which the Preacher salary is $30,000.00 (that is not an unreal situation for a small church). I think the congregation should be very concerned and involved in how 75% of God's money is working for Him (and the other 25% also). Perhaps, after consideration of how things are working out... they will come to a realization that they should be paying the Preacher $10,000.00 and supporting 2 Elders $10,000.00 each... so that they can devote more time to His work.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2001

Robin, This survey is way out of line. It does not even come close to resembling something a church should do. It is simply and plainly coming from a "witch hunt" mentality. Any elders that would condone such nonsense should be asked to resign.

There is no minister who has ever lived, including Jesus Christ Himself, that would live up to these expectations.

IHS, Barry

http://www.coonrapidschristian.org

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2001

Brother Robin:

You have said:

“I am not advocating this particular survey... however, I am still not convinced that there is not a place for this type of information exchange within a congregation.”

I believe that you have made it quite clear in your other post that you are not advocating this particular survey in the least. In fact you have agreed with me in condemning the question wherein this survey makes a distinction between “The Pastor” and the “elders” as if “the pastor” is an office different and distinct from the elders or overseers in the church. This incredible and pathetically unscriptural concept is shameful for those who claim to be elders in the church to advocate and practice. It is an awful departure from the faith once delivered to the saints. And your objection to it demonstrates to any honest soul that you have surely not been advocating “this particular survey”.

Just to clarify, Brother Robin, I believe you will remember that I have not condemned from the scriptures “this type of information exchange” in the church. I only insist that the information exchanged and what we do with that information is scriptural and in harmony with the teaching of God’s word concerning the support of preachers of the gospel. And I am convinced that you and I agree about that matter. The only difference that we appeared to have had was about “removing the preacher of the gospel” for any reason other than unrepentant sins. And it is my prayer that we are closer to agreement about that than we were in the beginning of our discussion.

Then you say something else to which I agree:

“There are varying degrees of service, there are various expectations, and (I think) varying degrees of support.”

I believe that you have noticed in my last post that I mentioned that I agree with you concerning “varying degrees of support”. And I hope that we also can agree that any of the “various expectations” of any worker in the church, including the preacher, be SCRIPTURAL expectations rather than the expectations of men and their humanly devised plans and schemes which often run counter to God’s will and God’s plans. The determination of how much support should be given to the preacher of the gospel should certainly be in harmony with how much he “treads out the corn”! If he is not preaching the gospel of Christ he should not be supported as if he were. If he is committed to that work and has given himself to “reading, to exhortation and to doctrine” he should be fully supported according to God’s word.

I believe that our discussion of this matter has been interesting and I pray that it will have been fruitful and helpful to all of the faithful in Christ our Lord.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2001

Barry,

I wanted to address this comment of yours. You said, "I am a minister and if any congregation I served did this I would resign immediately." Is that a Biblical response?

A minister or evangelist is called by God to do a certain work in a certain place. He is to be a worker in God's Kingdom... working side- by-side with the others in the congregation. Part of that work is to TEACH, is it not? Wouldn't this situation offer a great opportunity to teach?

I would think that a "resign immediately" attitude is contrary to the spirit of being a co-worker in God's Kingdom rather than a 'hireling'....

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2001

I have been gone from the forum for some time,,, tis good to be back even if temporarily,,, I have been busy doing the work of an Evangelist, and it has taken precidence over time on the forum. :)

I agree with Eph. 4:11, in that it is Christ who gives some to be Evangelists. I would also agree with Paul's words to Timothy on what his responsibilites are as an Evangelist. I would deduce that Titus was also an Evangelist, given the similarity of responsibilities that he was given by the Apostle Paul.

If, in truth, it is Christ who sets one apart to be an Evangelist(and I believe it to be true), then it is not a matter of hiring or firing an Evangelist (whatever the reason), but rather to descern whether or not Christ has given to that man the work of an Evangelist. Once that is descerned, there is no authority that any man can place over the Evangelist. For it is Christ that has made the decision.

Thus we have moved from considering things along the lines of our fleshly nature (ie. hiring/firing) and moved on toward those things that are spiritual in nature.

Hope this gives some pause for considering.

Just one trying to accomplish the responsibility given to him,

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

David....very good post! Thanks!!

I would add....that once congregations view things with the mentality that you presented....it simply becomes a matter of determining whether or not a particular Evangelist's gifts and personalities fit with the particular needs of the congregation that is searching.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

Danny,

Thank you for your kind words. A question came to my mind as I read your response. Now, mind you, I have said the very words that you spoke in regards matching personality of the Evangelist with that of the congregation, however, I pause and wonder if matching personalities was necessary in the early church. I wonder if the matching of personalities and so forth, is considered more needful because of the nature that the modern local congregations have taken unto themselves.

I am not judging anyone sinful for anti-scriptural in this practice, or in considering such things, but I wonder if we do this more because we give into the fleshly nature rather than thinking with the mind of Christ. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be so spiritually minded that I am no earthly good. However, this forum (I'm assuming) is purposed to discuss things from a spiritual standpoint. In other words, I am aiming for the ideal rather than settling for less. (By the way, if we allow ourselves to knowingly settle for less than the ideal, we just might be putting ourselves in some real danger… hmmmm)

It is a shame to have to qualify all these thoughts so that the reader does not jump to conclusions and miss the point of the message, but I suppose it is the nature of the beast to do such a thing. (qualifier: I say these words not to Danny, but realizing that many will be reading this post) Keep a good humor, my friends, and enjoy our race together.

If an Evangelist, does - in truth - what Christ intends for an Evangelist to do, why is it necessary for personalities to be considered an issue unless it be for the reason of the modern churches "traditions'. (I am using the word 'traditions' to describe anything that cannot be shown in Scripture. This would include everything from a building (whatever the type) to the order of service when the assembly assembles. Specifically, I speak to the manner in which we have patterned the church after an American business. (Qualifier: speaking of those congregations that have done so…) You have the head CEO (Pastor), the board of trustees (the elders and in some cases deacons/deaconesses, etc…), the share holders (the congregation each with an equal vote), plus other similarities on ad infinitum.

Is it fair to say that (IDEALLY) an Evangelist's personality ought to submit itself to the work that Christ has given to the Evangelist? Is it fair to the discussion to consider Paul's words when he said, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some”? (NIV I Cor. 9:23b)

Mind you, these are thoughts that have come into my mind when considering things from an ideal perspective... at least in as much as it seems to me. And I realize that I may be on an island of thought here, that is to say, all by myself. Give it some thought. I am interested in hearing them.

Come let us reason together,,, From one who is still studying and thinking,

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2001

Danny,

I see your point, and have reasoned that way as well. I still wrestle with the personality "thing" though. I do trust that God will make known His will as to where He can best use us for the benefit of His kingdom. If, in part, that is because of our personality match, then so be it. My part is to pay attention to that will and submit accordingly. Ain't God Great!

Personal note: Since moving out here to sunny California, I miss the personal time in the woods that I enjoyed so much while living in Ohio and Kentucky. I have not fired my 30/30 or my shotgun since moving out here some 10 years ago. I dearly miss the personal enjoyment of target shooting and hunting. There is much hunting out here, but it is just not the same as back east. Therefore, I have not pursued it. Do me a favor, if you will. Next time you break out your lunch sack while in the woods, look for a chipmunk to share with.

I remember while out deer hunting one day, sitting on a log and breaking out my thermos and sandwich, only to look over and watch a chipmunk grab an acorn from off the ground, and jump up on the other end of the log. We sat there and watched each other eat.

"And the lion will lay down with the lamb",,, hee hee. Well, maybe not a fulfillment, but it was kind of cool.

Your brother in Christ,

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2001