Agreed.
The legal term "Chruch" means that whne that group of people register their gathering as a "Church" , they then have a tax exemption on the facility AND the members of that congregation get a vote on business meeting night.
Tithing - A Systematic Study
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
Agreed.
The legal term "Chruch" means that whne that group of people register their gathering as a "Church" , they then have a tax exemption on the facility AND the members of that congregation get a vote on business meeting night.
That is the key Bob! ACCOUNTIBILITY!
Without any structure, or authority or accountability, a man or woman can say anything that sounds good, be a charismatic personality and there will always be those people who will flock to them.
Right now, this very day......if I chose to do so, I could advertise my Church and teach that everyone who is an alcoholic whiskey drinker can come and be welcome and feel NO pressure to stop drinking and I would have 50 or 60 people show up!
I could do the same thing with Abortion and get a like Number of people.
Same thing with homosexuality.
A great number of people are looking to be "RELIGEOUS" but continue in their Known Pet sins.
However.....when we have a system of accountability to a higher authority, that kind of silly teaching would not or should not be allowed or that particular church would be ostracized.
You can also have chokos and feijoas in season.
But then everyone else also has chokos and feijoas, but that is because they produce so abundantly.
as far as maintaining a building goes, it isn't one time you build it and it stays like that forever. You have to look after it, and make sure it doesn't fall down, termites don't eat it, the roof doesn't have a hole in it, and the plumbing doesn't get blocked up. Whereas if it's just a tent, you can just pack it up and go. Though why camp out when the weather will be bad I don't know.
But then everyone else also has chokos and feijoas, but that is because they produce so abundantly.
as far as maintaining a building goes, it isn't one time you build it and it stays like that forever. You have to look after it, and make sure it doesn't fall down, termites don't eat it, the roof doesn't have a hole in it, and the plumbing doesn't get blocked up. Whereas if it's just a tent, you can just pack it up and go. Though why camp out when the weather will be bad I don't know.
The issue is priorities. Most groups prioritize the care and upkeep of facilities above that of the needs fellow believers have, and the needy in the community. Most generally, the needs of fellow believers takes a back seat to the 'needs' of the facility and its expenditures.
So, the question remains as to how each and every grouping should and can realign their priorities in the direction of how they should handle the primary giving of the believers in each congregation. Those dead buildings are going to burn with the rest of this earth. People live forever, buildings are not even alive, much less everlasting, and yet many say that giving to meet the needs of the facility if akin to 'giving to God...'
Really?
MM
i agree my point was they have such a fancy building and fancy furniture and decorations . i sometimes feel like they are trying to impress God.
as per my point on the tithe many churches only see dollar and 5 dollar bills in the collection plate . my first church i was pastor at. small rural church . we put the offering plate up on a table by the pulpit. you walked up a put your offering in..
true story i had man walk up and break a money bill to get change back i think it was a twenty lol Those lavish facilities can soon turn into a god .
and this i am %100 in agreement with what ever happened to just a nice building with nice furnishings
I've never heard of people say they are 'giving to God' when they put money in a collection
Maybe its just the churches you have been to. But most people know it's to pay for upkeep because the AGMs always talk about it and they have an annual report on expenditure etc. It's all transparent in the churches I have attended.
One church just leased out part of their land to a daycare and the daycare pays rent to the church. I am sure other churches in the past did the whole 'rent-a-pew' thing.
I don't agree with it they don't lie and say 'this money is used for buying food and pyjamas for the homeless' when people are already giving their FOOD and PYJAMAS. The money is obviously used to pay things like bills that can only be paid in money.
Public schools, some of them do not or are not allowed to fundraise and ask for parents to donate money, because they get funding from the government. The govt gets its money from taxes paid and also business taxes.
Churches do not get funding from the govt. Unless very rich people in the congregation decide to give or sell some land or whatever, they rely on whatever is given from everyone. That's just the way it has always been, unless you can show how its done differently. Churches don't charge for their services, well many don't. If you walk in a church, you don't expect to pay a cover charge for your sip of wine and bread.
When you go to a gathering, generally the host organises and pays for everything they don't charge people for their presence.
Churches do not get funding from the govt. Unless very rich people in the congregation decide to give or sell some land or whatever, they rely on whatever is given from everyone. That's just the way it has always been, unless you can show how its done differently. Churches don't charge for their services, well many don't. If you walk in a church, you don't expect to pay a cover charge for your sip of wine and bread.
When you go to a gathering, generally the host organises and pays for everything they don't charge people for their presence.
Almost every time I turn around, I run across preacher's or laymen voices on the radio radio or in Youtube videos claiming that "Giving to the church is giving to God."
The first century Church didn't spew that kind of terminology. There were the collections on the first day of the week, all of which (to our knowledge) went for meeting of needs for those who were under severe persecution, the local needy, which included support of itinerant ministers of the Gospels and church planters, not the local elders who were always gainfully employed or business owners, and therefore not a perpetual burden upon the people to whom they ministered. The "career clergyman" concept is mostly a creation of roman catholicism and other purely religious groupings, and individuals who love to parrot the assumption that Timothy was a professional clergyman who received all his living from the local church where he ministered. I still have not found a credible source for that information, and even where they got it...other than for them to point at the Bible itself...but still a bunch of assumptions flying about in the mix of so many others on this topic...
What we CAN observe, for example, is that there was, in John's day, a fair representation for much of what can be said is symbolic of modern churchianity:
3 John 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
Preeminence...what a tragic mindset. I've attended a number of such organizations through the years, and have seen them on TV.
Jesus is recorded as having said:
John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
How true this is in modern times...
MM
It's a given that all our experiences are different.
When it comes to the institutional model (and a model it is, built upon the fragility of being man-made), many a time I've heard from its adherents that all the rest of us believers 'should' join and support one of them in out locale. Now, I'm not one to take away from others their freedoms to form, build up, and erect facilities for their collective use, but when they tell me that I 'should' join up and support one of them, that's where I depart from agreement with them, and ask from what authority that they make such a statement that's peppered with foundational assumptions for ethics and morality in association. In other words, what moral or ethical demand is there in scripture that says I must join up with, and support something with origins in man-made constructs?
I know you're not saying we 'must' join up and support one, but there are many out there who do. It is they who are stuck in the glamorization mode for man-made institutions. I'm simply not of that mind. I left the institutional model behind not because I had ever been abused and/or ostracized by one in the past. I simply walked away in order to become more functional in the body of Christ, freed from the fetters of the assumed requirements that we ALL must be under the authority of some 'pastor'. I firmly believe that we are to be subject, one to another, as it is written in scripture. That speaks of collective subjugation since we are all on the same level in the body, with each member supplying the vital nutrients of spiritual life to the other through our common Lord, who is the Head.
MM
well, maybe its the way things are done in the US
but it's not done that way here in NZ. There is a bit of difference between a social club, and a church. In all the churches I've been to, there's never been a charge, its just whatever is in your heart to give. Or if there is a charge, its always clear what its for eg. if you want to sell your stuff in the church car boot sale, you just need to pay $5 for a parking space, and the wardens make sure you get one. You keep the profits of whatever you sell from your car boot.
In the pacific islands, they do things differently again. They just announce what people give ie give the figures, and people try to outdo each other by giving the most. In the end sometimes it ends up bankrupting some families, because they want to be the ones that give the most.
I think in the US, some wolves just treat church like a profit making enterprise, because thats how they've learned to do business in the secular world, and they just carried over their practice into it. The book 'The purpose driven church' was based on the pastor as CEO model.
It doesn't work for most but that pastor lived in a wealthy area, think it was Orange County, where people can afford to be generous. But you don't need to go to those types of churches that always ask for money. Well in nz, there are plenty of other churches. Nobody is bound to be part of something they don't agree with.
but it's not done that way here in NZ. There is a bit of difference between a social club, and a church. In all the churches I've been to, there's never been a charge, its just whatever is in your heart to give. Or if there is a charge, its always clear what its for eg. if you want to sell your stuff in the church car boot sale, you just need to pay $5 for a parking space, and the wardens make sure you get one. You keep the profits of whatever you sell from your car boot.
In the pacific islands, they do things differently again. They just announce what people give ie give the figures, and people try to outdo each other by giving the most. In the end sometimes it ends up bankrupting some families, because they want to be the ones that give the most.
I think in the US, some wolves just treat church like a profit making enterprise, because thats how they've learned to do business in the secular world, and they just carried over their practice into it. The book 'The purpose driven church' was based on the pastor as CEO model.
It doesn't work for most but that pastor lived in a wealthy area, think it was Orange County, where people can afford to be generous. But you don't need to go to those types of churches that always ask for money. Well in nz, there are plenty of other churches. Nobody is bound to be part of something they don't agree with.
Last edited:
Again, so that I'm clear, and in agreement with you to that extent, this is not about a set amount.
What I'm talking about is my complete departure from the institutional model. It's just a model, and what they do within them is their business. One of the main problems I have with the institutional model is with any of them that teach the necessity for tithing on the basis of any contrived biblical requirement or 'principle' they tend to make up out of thin air.
Oh, and that pastor in the previous messages between him and myself, his dad ended up in the hospital, so we did not meet yesterday as planned. He is of the mind that we can meet sometime next week to discuss a statement on his church's website that he didn't know was there.
MM
the fermiology /wording is right provided the Church is using it for the work of the Lord . not to edify themselves . if giving to the Church then we are giving to the Lord. if i do something at the church i pastor i do it for the Church which belongs to the Lord . in fact i ray every day what ever is done. is done in His WILL not mine. my reference scripture would be Colossians 3 12Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; 13Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. 14And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. 15And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
imo its like what ever you do in any type ministry. its done for the Lord not your self .
In principle, I agree with you. In practice, what you quoted from scripture isn't necessarily always the case.
MM
it all depends on how one looks at it.. i am not toot my own horn or patting myself on the back. i take no money from the Church even though it is biblically correct to pay the pastor. in the words of john Wesley were going to have to agree not to disagree . we have areas we agree on areas we dont. it has always stayed civil with the two of us. like a buddy of mine asked me this evening on the phone.. i told him i was going to a Methodist church for a 9a.m service to preach then came back to my church at 10:30 preach again separate messages
he asked how my church felt about going to a different denom . my reply i dont care my Bible says go into all the world preach teach.
i am not a loyal baptist i try to be note TRY to be loyal to Christ in my calling go where called ( rabbit trail chase lol )
I understand your meaning when you say that it depends on how one looks at it. The scriptures did indeed advocate the itinerant minister receiving from those to whom they ministered. I will even go so far as to agree that any man-made institutional church organization has the right to hire professional clergy staffing. No problem there. The issue is when they try to build that system upon the merits and foundations of scripture. That's where the departure exists. That doesn't mean that what they are doing is utterly wrong. What I mean by this is that attempts to claim that scripture is the basis for the creation of such organizations are flawed. I'm not saying that you are saying such. Just sharing that the institutional model itself is a creation of men, not something dredged up from the scriptures.
MM
we will probably always have the type churches built to impress God and bring members in inside those big beautiful buildings there can be dead men bones . we have a church in our area has a pastor but via internet or some how they do satellite preaching . more revivals has started in small country churches . i honestly earn for the day the preacher does not need to preach. the Holy spirit is already at work . The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, God, You will not despise... we have to be broken in order to be fixed
The discussion continues:
Jason invited me to visit his facility and hear an evangelist, so I asked him:
"I don't understand your meaning. He's an evangelist, correct? I'm a mature believer who knows and loves the Gospel, and who evangelizes others. The Gospel does not, and has not, changed. Does this man have a new message? The Cannon is closed, so I am not aware of anything new the Lord has allegedly added to the Gospel or His written word. I realize there are those who believe and teach God is allegedly doing new things, although scripture doesn't back that up. Please elaborate. I am not aware of anything new given. We have prophecy to which we may look as to what's coming. I'd appreciate it if you would elaborate further."
His answer was somewhat remarkable, to say the least:
"He is an evangelist Ephesians 4:11-16
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
We believe this is still true today. Have you not seen that? Or do you just disagree with the Bible on that?"
Wow. THAT was a tone I was not expecting. Here was my response to him this morning:
================
"Oh, no, no, no. The Bible is completely true, and evangelists are indeed an integral part of the function of ministry to the lost. I'm glad their function has not passed away, as did the prophets now that the Cannon is closed.
Jason, I was simply asking questions. I wasn't trying to be adversarial. It just seemed odd to me that a man who serves the Lord under the title of 'evangelist' is speaking to what should be the saved in your church organization. The elders and teachers should be the ones who perfect the saints, and serving as the overseers in an endeavor to perform the function of discipling believers into spiritual maturity. Evangelists reach out to the lost and bring them to the understanding for their need to be cleansed of their sins. Are there a number of unsaved in your congregation? Are you expecting unsaved people to come and hear that man (which is great if that's the case)? Letting him use your facility to reach out to the utterly lost and the curious, that's a wonderful thing.
So, my question remains...why have you opened up your pulpit to an evangelist? If you opened up your pulpit to someone like Dr. John Barnett, who is a teacher/elder, then I would understand that. Bringing in an evangelist intimates to me that this is an attempt at possibly sparking a localized revival, bringing new believers into the fold, if unbelievers show up. Is that the case, here? That's all I'm asking.
Inviting other mature believers to hear the man seems to be a plea to have other mature believers present to assist the evangelist at the altar call. Otherwise, I remain mystified at your invite. The conclusions one could draw from that are many, so rather than to assume anything, I'm simply asking. Is that so strange? Lecturing me about Ephesians 4, of which I am well aware, appears to be a dodging of my questions.
So, I'm simply asking what his purpose is in speaking at your facility? Would he become as defensive were the questions directed at him? Is he of the same mind as yourself? Are you two blood-related? I'm just trying to get answers that fill in the blanks. Most ministers don't invite evolutionary-minded professors of biology to speak at their churches because of the difference in not only world views, but also in their function. Biology doesn't build up the saints in the place of God's written word to us, and the guidance from His indwelling Holy Spirit gives to us.
So, please, may I hear from you the answers to my questions? If you don't have the time, then I understand. You have a huge flock to which you must attend.
I would still like to meet with you.
Thank you for your time."
================
One other thing occurred to after I sent that message, and it's something Bob said to me about Jason having such a young organization. This may be a "church-building" effort, getting the congregation to go out there and bring in more members. I'm all for the congregants becoming more active in reaching the lost in their respective communities, but to use that as a church-growth endeavor as the prime focus...yeah, I have a problem with that. The reason for my saying that is on the basis of an understanding that efforts originating from God will prosper, whereby efforts originating with man is reliant upon the strength of the arm of man.
Paul was an evangelist, and a teacher, and a helper and... He was many things, so when all I'm told about this guy is that he's an evangelist, yes, I could lapse into bubbleheaded ignorance and simply turn a blind eye to the actual purpose for that guy's visit and speaking, but I'm simply too inquisitive.
MM
Jason invited me to visit his facility and hear an evangelist, so I asked him:
"I don't understand your meaning. He's an evangelist, correct? I'm a mature believer who knows and loves the Gospel, and who evangelizes others. The Gospel does not, and has not, changed. Does this man have a new message? The Cannon is closed, so I am not aware of anything new the Lord has allegedly added to the Gospel or His written word. I realize there are those who believe and teach God is allegedly doing new things, although scripture doesn't back that up. Please elaborate. I am not aware of anything new given. We have prophecy to which we may look as to what's coming. I'd appreciate it if you would elaborate further."
His answer was somewhat remarkable, to say the least:
"He is an evangelist Ephesians 4:11-16
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
We believe this is still true today. Have you not seen that? Or do you just disagree with the Bible on that?"
Wow. THAT was a tone I was not expecting. Here was my response to him this morning:
================
"Oh, no, no, no. The Bible is completely true, and evangelists are indeed an integral part of the function of ministry to the lost. I'm glad their function has not passed away, as did the prophets now that the Cannon is closed.
Jason, I was simply asking questions. I wasn't trying to be adversarial. It just seemed odd to me that a man who serves the Lord under the title of 'evangelist' is speaking to what should be the saved in your church organization. The elders and teachers should be the ones who perfect the saints, and serving as the overseers in an endeavor to perform the function of discipling believers into spiritual maturity. Evangelists reach out to the lost and bring them to the understanding for their need to be cleansed of their sins. Are there a number of unsaved in your congregation? Are you expecting unsaved people to come and hear that man (which is great if that's the case)? Letting him use your facility to reach out to the utterly lost and the curious, that's a wonderful thing.
So, my question remains...why have you opened up your pulpit to an evangelist? If you opened up your pulpit to someone like Dr. John Barnett, who is a teacher/elder, then I would understand that. Bringing in an evangelist intimates to me that this is an attempt at possibly sparking a localized revival, bringing new believers into the fold, if unbelievers show up. Is that the case, here? That's all I'm asking.
Inviting other mature believers to hear the man seems to be a plea to have other mature believers present to assist the evangelist at the altar call. Otherwise, I remain mystified at your invite. The conclusions one could draw from that are many, so rather than to assume anything, I'm simply asking. Is that so strange? Lecturing me about Ephesians 4, of which I am well aware, appears to be a dodging of my questions.
So, I'm simply asking what his purpose is in speaking at your facility? Would he become as defensive were the questions directed at him? Is he of the same mind as yourself? Are you two blood-related? I'm just trying to get answers that fill in the blanks. Most ministers don't invite evolutionary-minded professors of biology to speak at their churches because of the difference in not only world views, but also in their function. Biology doesn't build up the saints in the place of God's written word to us, and the guidance from His indwelling Holy Spirit gives to us.
So, please, may I hear from you the answers to my questions? If you don't have the time, then I understand. You have a huge flock to which you must attend.
I would still like to meet with you.
Thank you for your time."
================
One other thing occurred to after I sent that message, and it's something Bob said to me about Jason having such a young organization. This may be a "church-building" effort, getting the congregation to go out there and bring in more members. I'm all for the congregants becoming more active in reaching the lost in their respective communities, but to use that as a church-growth endeavor as the prime focus...yeah, I have a problem with that. The reason for my saying that is on the basis of an understanding that efforts originating from God will prosper, whereby efforts originating with man is reliant upon the strength of the arm of man.
Paul was an evangelist, and a teacher, and a helper and... He was many things, so when all I'm told about this guy is that he's an evangelist, yes, I could lapse into bubbleheaded ignorance and simply turn a blind eye to the actual purpose for that guy's visit and speaking, but I'm simply too inquisitive.
MM
In a bit of defense for the need of a 'true' evangelist' (i.e. not the TV kind), I would say looking over Christendom today, the Christian needs the Gospel too, (not just the unsaved) because:The discussion continues:
Jason invited me to visit his facility and hear an evangelist, so I asked him:
"I don't understand your meaning. He's an evangelist, correct? I'm a mature believer who knows and loves the Gospel, and who evangelizes others. The Gospel does not, and has not, changed. Does this man have a new message? The Cannon is closed, so I am not aware of anything new the Lord has allegedly added to the Gospel or His written word. I realize there are those who believe and teach God is allegedly doing new things, although scripture doesn't back that up. Please elaborate. I am not aware of anything new given. We have prophecy to which we may look as to what's coming. I'd appreciate it if you would elaborate further."
His answer was somewhat remarkable, to say the least:
"He is an evangelist Ephesians 4:11-16
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
We believe this is still true today. Have you not seen that? Or do you just disagree with the Bible on that?"
Wow. THAT was a tone I was not expecting. Here was my response to him this morning:
================
"Oh, no, no, no. The Bible is completely true, and evangelists are indeed an integral part of the function of ministry to the lost. I'm glad their function has not passed away, as did the prophets now that the Cannon is closed.
Jason, I was simply asking questions. I wasn't trying to be adversarial. It just seemed odd to me that a man who serves the Lord under the title of 'evangelist' is speaking to what should be the saved in your church organization. The elders and teachers should be the ones who perfect the saints, and serving as the overseers in an endeavor to perform the function of discipling believers into spiritual maturity. Evangelists reach out to the lost and bring them to the understanding for their need to be cleansed of their sins. Are there a number of unsaved in your congregation? Are you expecting unsaved people to come and hear that man (which is great if that's the case)? Letting him use your facility to reach out to the utterly lost and the curious, that's a wonderful thing.
So, my question remains...why have you opened up your pulpit to an evangelist? If you opened up your pulpit to someone like Dr. John Barnett, who is a teacher/elder, then I would understand that. Bringing in an evangelist intimates to me that this is an attempt at possibly sparking a localized revival, bringing new believers into the fold, if unbelievers show up. Is that the case, here? That's all I'm asking.
Inviting other mature believers to hear the man seems to be a plea to have other mature believers present to assist the evangelist at the altar call. Otherwise, I remain mystified at your invite. The conclusions one could draw from that are many, so rather than to assume anything, I'm simply asking. Is that so strange? Lecturing me about Ephesians 4, of which I am well aware, appears to be a dodging of my questions.
So, I'm simply asking what his purpose is in speaking at your facility? Would he become as defensive were the questions directed at him? Is he of the same mind as yourself? Are you two blood-related? I'm just trying to get answers that fill in the blanks. Most ministers don't invite evolutionary-minded professors of biology to speak at their churches because of the difference in not only world views, but also in their function. Biology doesn't build up the saints in the place of God's written word to us, and the guidance from His indwelling Holy Spirit gives to us.
So, please, may I hear from you the answers to my questions? If you don't have the time, then I understand. You have a huge flock to which you must attend.
I would still like to meet with you.
Thank you for your time."
================
One other thing occurred to after I sent that message, and it's something Bob said to me about Jason having such a young organization. This may be a "church-building" effort, getting the congregation to go out there and bring in more members. I'm all for the congregants becoming more active in reaching the lost in their respective communities, but to use that as a church-growth endeavor as the prime focus...yeah, I have a problem with that. The reason for my saying that is on the basis of an understanding that efforts originating from God will prosper, whereby efforts originating with man is reliant upon the strength of the arm of man.
Paul was an evangelist, and a teacher, and a helper and... He was many things, so when all I'm told about this guy is that he's an evangelist, yes, I could lapse into bubbleheaded ignorance and simply turn a blind eye to the actual purpose for that guy's visit and speaking, but I'm simply too inquisitive.
MM
1. The mixture of God's grace + man's doing is very prevalent in today's Churches...https://outreachmagazine.com/resour...s-believe-works-are-the-key-to-salvation.html
2. Merit is so inbred into our fallen nature, a constant reminder of the Gospel is needful. (IMHO)
Last edited:
The discussion continues: Jason invited me to visit his facility and hear an evangelist, so I asked him:
One other thing occurred to after I sent that message, and it's something Bob said to me about Jason having such a young organization. This may be a "church-building" effort, getting the congregation to go out there and bring in more members. I'm all for the congregants becoming more active in reaching the lost in their respective communities, but to use that as a church-growth endeavor as the prime focus...yeah, I have a problem with that. The reason for my saying that is on the basis of an understanding that efforts originating from God will prosper, whereby efforts originating with man is reliant upon the strength of the arm of man. Paul was an evangelist, and a teacher, and a helper and... He was many things, so when all I'm told about this guy is that he's an evangelist, yes, I could lapse into bubbleheaded ignorance and simply turn a blind eye to the actual purpose for that guy's visit and speaking, but I'm simply too inquisitive.
MM
Hello MM;
I'd like to add to your discussion with Pastor Jason, who is overseeing a new church plant. Speaking for myself, I was asked the tough questions when we church planted. Church planting is a serious undertaking. I made lots of mistakes mostly with people but there are also the times God blessed me.
So we must pose the question; are we giving our all in all to receive God's Purpose for His new church in the community? Or, is the new plant just "playing church?"
With all respect to Pastors, most have been built up for preaching and teaching, but, again with all respect, they are not well rounded and equipped for targeting demographics, finances, operations, event planning, etc...especially a new church. So they invite these guests to stir up more people to attend. This can hinder the church leadership because instead of "inreach" during a church plant, getting to know each sheep and their personal growth, how can a new church plant assess and prepare for God's leading for advanced ministering, developing Christian babes or both?
Should Pastor Jason's flock be mostly new church goers or Christian babes, then I could see a guest evangelist, God bless their ministry, for presenting the gospel.
MM, continue to meet with Pastor Jason, I know you're not adversarial, because my wife and I know you're a nice guy who carries respect and love the Lord. You just keep asking the questions as the Lord leads you that could very well minister to this Pastor.
If we look at Scripture, Moses was a gifted prophet but look at what he endured with God's people. Paul, an anointed missionary, James, an effective leader in the Jerusalem church both were confronted with tough questions, in their face, and Christ who took the brunt of it at the cross.
These are indeed tough times and our Christian church leaders cannot be sugar coated and must continually grow leading the church they are Shepherding, even church plants.
Hello crossnote;
I agree. We do need the true evangelists, who can discern their role and purpose for the unsaved but also the seasoned believer. But even the seasoned believer needs to reminded of the fundamentals of discipleship.
Something else you posted is a strong point that should speak to all of us. In the mix of our constructiveness of the gospels, Christ's love, grace, understanding, respect must rise above all, first.
God bless you, brothers, and thank you for sharing.