I like what one pastor says...obey God and leave the consequences up to Him. Pretty straightforward. And if a pastor is in total obedience to God....God will take care of Him at all costs, but the pastor has to believe and trust God to accomplish this. The people are not the churches biggest giver....God is.
Religion over faith
- Thread starter eric m williams
- Start date
I like what one pastor says...obey God and leave the consequences up to Him. Pretty straightforward. And if a pastor is in total obedience to God....God will take care of Him at all costs, but the pastor has to believe and trust God to accomplish this. The people are not the churches biggest giver....God is.
AMEN !! Some people seem to forget this. God is their source and not the biggest giver.
I dont know how pastors get paid its different for different churches, some are able to have their food and accomodation provided for...they not responisble for church buildings upkeep, in fact many congregations just rent space for sunday services in a hall or something or have meetings at home.
In all cases God is providing, it is not dependent on how many attend or give. If a church is planted where there wasnt one before God gives the growth. Im a bit weary of this one pastor taking the responisbility of everyone approach. The church body is given many pastors, teachers, evangelists etc. many pastors have other occupations they honestly earn their living from they are not relying on just their parish or whatever its called for income...to make a career out of being a christian is a bit strange IMHO.
In all cases God is providing, it is not dependent on how many attend or give. If a church is planted where there wasnt one before God gives the growth. Im a bit weary of this one pastor taking the responisbility of everyone approach. The church body is given many pastors, teachers, evangelists etc. many pastors have other occupations they honestly earn their living from they are not relying on just their parish or whatever its called for income...to make a career out of being a christian is a bit strange IMHO.
Lanolyn,
What is strange about a pastor having his needs met out side of working other jobs ?
If God calls you to pastor a church then you pastor a church and if He does not say hey go get a job there then you do not. It is as simple as that. You do what God tells you to do.
Blessings
Jim
Perhaps it is different in NZ, but here in the states, most commonly if someone is a pastor/priest/minister, than that is their profession, their job. They work at it basically 7 days a week, and live in a house provided by the church. Since house and utilities (and oftentimes a car - typically in the form of a church van) are provided for them, they usually receive just enough pay to cover basic expenses like groceries. Nothing strange about it here - just always the way it has been. Of course there are exceptions, but that is the norm.
I have no doubt that it can be a bit painful to see people leave...scratch that, very painful. That said, those who enter into the pastorate are dedicating themselves to act in person of Christ. Granted, even us lay people are supposed to do that, but especially those who become clergy. It would mean taking up one's cross. Even Jesus spoke to thousands in John 6 and offended them, so they left. This sort of thing happens.
Many of the Catholic parishes I've visited, I've noticed that the ones that water down the message are the ones that are hurting the most for more congregants and younger people, where as the ones that tend to perform the traditional are gaining more people including millennial. I suspect this isn't limited to Catholic -- it's probably common with other denominations too depending, but it's something I have noticed. That said, you will get some who won't tolerate it and will leave. I don't think these are the people who are intending to really worship Christ...often times, people pick a church because it is more of a social club to them. I get the idea -- being social is good -- but that's supposed to be a very secondary aspect to Sundays.
I think Lanolyn meant that it is strange for someone to be a "professional Christian" rather than allowing one's profession be the cause of his Christianity. In the first scenario, Christianity is just a means to the gig, where as the second scenario, it's not a gig, it's one's life. The pay is just a means to continue on with the service. And I do agree with her.
From Americas beginning freedom of religion by using "constitutional restraint" has been a cornerstone for our protection against increasing despotism; yet despotism increases going through the two other doors which were left wide open. New laws that forbid religious practices (even ones deemed evil) which do not commit aggress to person or property have diluted that freedom.
A compulsory conservative nation is a nation of slavery; however in contrast a nation void of compulsory conservatism which also is full of free personal Christian conservatives will increase and maintain their liberty to serve God. Compulsory conservatism is the "monarchical throne model" where edicts deliver all things moral, fair and safe using arbitrary violence.
Can we agree that its good for a nation to remain "classically liberal" and for the individual in their liberty to be "personally conservative?"
Is it possible that ethics from scripture would require the opposite; that marriage is between people and God? What if instead of the responsibility of marriage leaving the church, it would leave government?
Is it possible that being tax exempt is “ethics according to scripture” and that paying taxes is our scriptural strategy to prevent offenses with compulsory governments?
To Take this professional Christian in another direction - YES thats me !! I am NOT going to be a part time Christian or an on and off Christian. You know that would make a good thread. How professional are you as a Born again Spirit Filled Believer ?
Thanks for the thought @Lanolin and @LysanderShapiro
Have a very Joyful Day
Jim
One of the reasons I dislike titles is that meaning changes. What is liberal or conservative changes from generation to generation and culture to culture. Mixing up different generations and different cultures ends up with a tangled morass of hard to navigate/understand ideaologies.
Without a common reference for those involved it is impossible for groups of people to work together.
The easiest way to get folks to work together is to highlight a 'common enemy'. Many people will jump into a fight without thinking since it makes them feel like they are doing something. The American church and political landscape are rife with folks fighting one thing or another for just that reason.
Occasionally you can get folks to work together by building something, but most folks don't like that. Most typically it involves a long view and delayed reward. That runs contrary to our general nature. That said, if you can get them to fight something at the same time you are getting them to build something you might be able to channel that energy in a somewhat constructive manner.
The absolute hardest thing to get folks to do is surrender. We can't stand giving up the illusion of control even once we know it is an illusion.
Within our current mass of property, inheritance, and medical laws that simply cannot happen.
Instead of our leaders in religions being leaders in the faith, they went (and are still going) the easier route.
Attempts to force compliance with their opinions through legal and executive action are easier than urging people to surrender to Holy God and His will have led to the imminent collapse of this nation and the religions that hide behind it.
Almost anything is possible, but that leads to the question...
If the American church was acting as and structured as what we are shown in scripture, would there be a point that was so easy for its opponents to attack?
I want to offer some history, possibly much history that you are aware of, so please know that I am not trying to insult your intelligence my friend if I mention historical things you already know, yet I would like to bust out an historical timeline in order to make a very important point for how critical it is for us to protect terminological distinctions.
I agree that liberalism and conservatism are two terms that have mutated in their meanings for four hundred years. For the first liberals were those who simply wanted “liberty” from a tyrannical king, who got their original title from the original conservatives who had a “prevailing tendency” or “disposition” to keep in place the traditional monarchial order of thrones. The first Classical Liberals like John Locke and Hugo Grotius established by different derivations natural law and natural rights theories which empowered the first liberal events such as the English Civil War, and the Glorious Revolution.
Then later the Saint Simononians and Maxrist’s defined a major splinter which is “Social Liberalism” which created a new major presence in the world, a movement which would abandon Natural Rights Theory and usher in a Socialistic strategy to engineer economic equivalence by force. Yet they were opposed to many like Frederic Bastiat who were still “Classically Liberal.” Later the American Classical Liberal movement would oppose another king and declared independence. Then to further mutation (early Jeffersonian-republicans) would opposed the federalists. Later again to further mutation the hard money democrats up till Grover Cleveland would continue the Classical Liberal Tradition with more differences. Nearly all the American Classical Liberals would move away incrementally from the Lockean rigid defense of life, liberty and property within their Lockean positions in variance, where life and liberty would only be somewhat protected constitutionally but not rigidly.
Then the classical liberal movement was dead after Cleveland and the dawn of the “Socialist Progressive Era (republicans and democrats) started in the later 1800’s which would dominate in a fifty year legacy of increasing Socialism. Then in the mid 1930’s a resurgence of classical liberal ideologies which was further mutated, resurfaced with what is called the “Old Right” which was an organic push-back to the socialistic FDR “New Deal.” This movement was again crushed by modern conservatives on one side and social liberals on the other side. It was during this time in the mid 1900’s that the “trichotomy” congealed to modern primary camps, but with many minor splinters with all three.
The “Old Right Diluted Classical Liberals” “Progressive Conservative Republicanism led by Kirk, and Buckley which had its pinnacle with Reagan” and the “progressive or social democrats” would set our current stage for our current divisions.
Today the trichotomy has again mutated with names and ideology, but now with several new members.
Progressive Conservatives
Progressive Social Liberals - Socialism
Progressive Communists/ Marxists
Constitutional Conservatives, (tea party)
Soft Libertarians or Classical Liberals (Lockean, Misesian or Randian)
Strict Libertarian ethics, and Rigid Classical Liberalism, Blind Liberalism
Anarcho-Capitalists
Classical Liberalism “still means” what it has always meant; it’s a general meaning that “individual liberty is ethical for the individual” and only the media falls to ignorance in their determination to further pollute what things mean. The Social Liberal will gladly accept their differentiating position and keep the word “Social” attached to their liberal name and movement; for they will also be quick to differentiate themselves from the “Classical Liberal.”
Thus I want to make two points
1. – Liberalism/ Classical Liberalism “still means what it meant four hundred years ago though many groups have tried to dilute it.
2. - Also that the word “Liberal” is as important to the word “Liberalism” as the word "Christ" is to "Christianity” coming from a “terminological perspective.”
Christ of course is the King of Kings and cannot and is not here compared to Liberals, yet from terminological dictums in the English language the terms and their collorarys are paramount.
Analogous example: If a Satanist group of people declared themselves to be a type of Christian and perverted the “word Christian”, then would we say, “We shall no longer use the term Christian or Christ because the words no longer mean what they used to?” Of course not, we would instead challenge for austerity for what the word “Christian means,” saying it’s a relationship with “Christ” not satan.
In the same way we should also “protect the word Liberal” even if satan in the media would seek to destroy its meaning. Scripture supports “strict liberalism” and condemns “progressive conservatism and progressive socialism that would use arbitrary violence upon innocent people”; for when a person is “able to be strictly liberal” in their country, they are “free to live personally conservative according to scripture.” However if a country is “politically progressively conservative or socialistic” then the individual is “not free” to live conservatively by their conscience and scripture. Thus this is why many in the new testament were thrown in jail when exercising Natural Rights.
Thus finally for my long winded point, we must protect the word “Liberalism” and “Liberal” and deny the satanic media the license to pervert it further. Liberalism is not righteousness, it is “justice and ethics” which scripture puts in place first and foremost in Genesis.
I would offer that the proper spiritual battle is to war against Satan upon our knees, win the lost by our kind persuasion, help the helpless with our honest means, and influence as many people in society as possible to stand rigidly upon the ethical substrate of Natural Rights Theory.
Natural Rights Theory is the “unifier” for all people in society that shuns violence and is able to diminish evil in realms of despotic authoritarianism. I would contend this only to be possible if the church understands the substrate and will defend it in prayer, and in communication with each other. It is that substrate that will further the gospel, and usher in increasing liberty to win the lost. It is that substrate that will diminish poverty, differentiate sin from crime, and cause the church to once again receive a reputation of love instead of violence.
Yet isn’t it wise that we operate with ethics in mind; for we ought to at least stand up for what is right, just and ethical according to both our contracts from scripture?
I also think it’s possible my friend…
I agree and also think that we are far from operating according to a scriptural model; for we have abandoned Natural Rights Theory from Genesis. I should hope that our reputation soon improves to be “harmless as doves”; where our legacy in the body is founded on ethics instead of political maneuvers.
Last edited: