On preaching and the hearer's responsibilities.

[Tarheel Baptist]

FTR I am "pro-pastor" in my ecclesiology.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite of what I described in my last post. The first time I serve as a deacon I found my self on a board with men who thought their role was to be a sea anchor on the pastor. They used great words like oversight and discernment to describe their activities but you didn't have to scratch hard to see that they felt their role was mostly to keep him in check and prevent anything in the church from changing. Those men were just as twisted in their application of scripture as are those pastors who would see themselves as some sort of a king. Of course our church never had a pastor king because we had the other guys there to obstruct anything he might want to do.

So while we may have had a king or two, their title was more likely to be deacon or chairman of the board than pastor.  8)

I have seen that also....and, like you I'm sure, I have also seen Pastors who were narcissistic pompous dictators.
But that doesn't lead me to believe that a true NT church consists of 5 people around a kitchen table and 4 of them are 'equal elders'.

And I know you don't believe that, but some here seem to....

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

FTR I am "pro-pastor" in my ecclesiology.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite of what I described in my last post. The first time I serve as a deacon I found my self on a board with men who thought their role was to be a sea anchor on the pastor. They used great words like oversight and discernment to describe their activities but you didn't have to scratch hard to see that they felt their role was mostly to keep him in check and prevent anything in the church from changing. Those men were just as twisted in their application of scripture as are those pastors who would see themselves as some sort of a king. Of course our church never had a pastor king because we had the other guys there to obstruct anything he might want to do.

So while we may have had a king or two, their title was more likely to be deacon or chairman of the board than pastor.  8)

I have seen that also....and, like you I'm sure, I have also seen Pastors who were narcissistic pompous dictators.
But that doesn't lead me to believe that a true NT church consists of 5 people around a kitchen table and 4 of them are 'equal elders'.

And I know you don't believe that, but some here seem to....

No, you pretty much just pulled that out of your buttocks to mock home assemblies. 

 

[rsc2a]

No, you pretty much just pulled that out of your buttocks to mock home assemblies.

You must be new here.  Welcome!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

FTR I am "pro-pastor" in my ecclesiology.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite of what I described in my last post. The first time I serve as a deacon I found my self on a board with men who thought their role was to be a sea anchor on the pastor. They used great words like oversight and discernment to describe their activities but you didn't have to scratch hard to see that they felt their role was mostly to keep him in check and prevent anything in the church from changing. Those men were just as twisted in their application of scripture as are those pastors who would see themselves as some sort of a king. Of course our church never had a pastor king because we had the other guys there to obstruct anything he might want to do.

So while we may have had a king or two, their title was more likely to be deacon or chairman of the board than pastor.  8)

I have seen that also....and, like you I'm sure, I have also seen Pastors who were narcissistic pompous dictators.
But that doesn't lead me to believe that a true NT church consists of 5 people around a kitchen table and 4 of them are 'equal elders'.

And I know you don't believe that, but some here seem to....

No, you pretty much just pulled that out of your buttocks to mock home assemblies.

I do not mock home assemblies as some mock churches that have grown past meeting in a home. I have Pastored/led a home assembly.
I mock those who believe the only biblical church is 5 people assembling of which 3-4 are 'equal elders'. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

It's the same claim the kings of old made, divine right.

See, this is why NOBODY on this forum should take you seriously.  First, you don't answer questions honestly (that's a nice way of saying you lie), and then when you do answer in your lying fashion you pull stuff out of your nether region.  For those who don't understand what Ratboy just did, here's the short version of Divine Right of Kings....

The divine right of kings or divine right is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God.


Now, for those who aren't knowledgeable of Tozer, to assert what Ratboy just did is (charitably speaking) a bait and switch, but calling a spade a spade, it's lying.  Tozer believed NOTHING of the sort, and as the rodent made the claim I'd like to see him back up his bovine scat with ANY quote that demonstrates what he lies about.  Go ahead rodent, show us.  You're on the clock...


tick-tock

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

FTR I am "pro-pastor" in my ecclesiology.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite of what I described in my last post. The first time I serve as a deacon I found my self on a board with men who thought their role was to be a sea anchor on the pastor. They used great words like oversight and discernment to describe their activities but you didn't have to scratch hard to see that they felt their role was mostly to keep him in check and prevent anything in the church from changing. Those men were just as twisted in their application of scripture as are those pastors who would see themselves as some sort of a king. Of course our church never had a pastor king because we had the other guys there to obstruct anything he might want to do.

So while we may have had a king or two, their title was more likely to be deacon or chairman of the board than pastor.  8)

I have seen that also....and, like you I'm sure, I have also seen Pastors who were narcissistic pompous dictators.
But that doesn't lead me to believe that a true NT church consists of 5 people around a kitchen table and 4 of them are 'equal elders'.

And I know you don't believe that, but some here seem to....

No, you pretty much just pulled that out of your buttocks to mock home assemblies.

I do not mock home assemblies as some mock churches that have grown past meeting in a home. I have Pastored/led a home assembly.
I mock those who believe the only biblical church is 5 people assembling of which 3-4 are 'equal elders'. 

If you can dig up someone who believes that, let us know.

 

[rsc2a]

You really are incapable of reading,  aren't you?

...A preacher under God's unction should reign from his pulpit as a king from his throne. He should not reign by law or by regulation or by man's authority. He ought to reign by moral ascendancy. The divine authority is missing from many pulpits...

The divine right of kings or divine right is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God

 

[ALAYMAN]

You really are incapable of reading,  aren't you?

...A preacher under God's unction should reign from his pulpit as a king from his throne. He should not reign by law or by regulation or by man's authority. He ought to reign by moral ascendancy. The divine authority is missing from many pulpits...

The divine right of kings or divine right is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God

When you actually prove, rather than just assert, that part of "subject to no earthly authority" then you'll have a modest amount of cred.  Until you prove that, rather than merely assert it, you'll remain a bloviating boob.  It shouldn't be that difficult to provide the source quote from Tozer.  He was a prodigious writer, well critiqued by friend and foe alike.  Provide the proof, or, well, just shut your piehole and slither away as the obtuse one you are.

tick-tock

 

[ALAYMAN]

If Pastors were the spiritual authority on God's word that they think they are, one would expect all of them to preach the same exact interpretation of the Bible. 

This does well to show a very informative peak into how TRT thinks theologically.  It is the same sort of cynical argument that atheists use to discredit the Christian faith. 

"If Christianity is real then why don't they all agree on that Bible they so passionately defend".

 

[subllibrm]

I have shared this before but it fits the conversation and therefore bears repeating.

A former pastor of mine was called by a large baptist church in the Winston-Salem area earlier in his ministry. The previous pastor had died and my pastor was his replacement. At some point early in his time there the new pastor had some wrangling with folks over something or other. He dove into the turmoil per Matt 18 and realized that he had made some serious mistakes and that it was important to say so to the congregation. The next Sunday he concluded the service with a confession and apology for his part in letting things get out of hand. He came before the people with a humble heart seeking their forgiveness.

I would love for that to be the end of the story. After the service ended and he made his way to the back where the widow of the former pastor waited. She took his hand and said "That was nice. Now get back up on your throne where you belong."

There is no way to support that from scripture. None. And my saying so does not "undermine" anyone nor does it betray some sort of anti-authority rebelliousness in my heart.

Serious question.  Do you actually believe that the story you told is somehow analogous to how Tozer used the "king" allusion in the context that he did?

Serious answer. I believe as Aleshanee has already said; he was sloppy to use that language in the context of describing the servant-shepherd. The fact that the story I shared is true and guys like Frag exist show that there is danger in such an allusion.

Have you ever heard any story that depicts Tozer in the light of somebody like Vineyard, Hyles,  or Gray?  Why assume the worst about such a small snippet that obviously is an attempt to elevate respect for hearing the word?  It seems that what you're doing is what people do when they look to Jimmy and Jimmie then lump Graham in with "all them sex-crazed money-hungry preacher types".  I expect that lost wordly hardcore atheists will use that type of hyper-critical judgment, but not people who know that there are true servants of God that want others to pay attention to what He has to say to them.

I didn't realize the word "sloppy" was hyper-critical. I already said that I am a Tozer admirer. I have also said that I am pro-pastor. Why are you responding to me as if I was the lead blocker on an end around by Mater?

It isn't much of a conversation if you limit the rest of us to responding with "yeah, you're right again Ayman".

 

[subllibrm]

He's not trying to elevate the preaching of Scripture.  He's trying to elevate the preacher of Scripture.

Thank you holy spirit.

...A preacher of this gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ should have the authority of God upon him, so that he makes the people responsible to listen to him. When they will not listen to him...

...A preacher under God's unction should reign from his pulpit as a king from his throne. He should not reign by law or by regulation or by man's authority. He ought to reign by moral ascendancy. The divine authority is missing from many pulpits...

The focus is on the man,  not the actions. A leader of the church should be known for service and humility,  not for a proverbial (and sometimes actual) throne.

If you truly believe Christ has set you free, stop looking for new chains to wear and new masters to serve.  Worse yet, stop trying to give others chains and masters,  thereby creating converts who will also look for chains and masters for others. I believe Jesus refers to such people as children of hell.

When he says "He should not reign by law or by regulation or by man's authority"  what do you think that means?

When he says "reign by moral ascendancy" what do you think that means?

Why does he say "reign" at all?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I didn't realize the word "sloppy" was hyper-critical. I already said that I am a Tozer admirer. I have also said that I am pro-pastor. Why are you responding to me as if I was the lead blocker on an end around by Mater?

It isn't much of a conversation if you limit the rest of us to responding with "yeah, you're right again Ayman".

Again, like aleshanee, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  As to the "Why are you...Mater" question.  That's fair enough.  I've told you before, and I mean it.  I have a ton of respect for the way you think about things (politics and Christianity notwithstanding ) and the clarity with which you approach your analysis, not to mention balance.  I absolutely know that you aren't a classic freebird, hater, or anti-Tozer guy, and that is what perplexes me about how you seized on that snippet and elected to interpret his choice of words in light of (or similar to) the Fundy mannagawd proclamations of "absolute veto power".  At the end of the day, I can agree to disagree, and understand why you have effectively said "it was a poor choice of words", but in light of the totality of his ministry, anybody who is informed about the man would know and give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't trying to usurp the place of Christ, or be a power hungry pastor as Mater (or rsc2a) would make him out to be.

Anyhoo, rather than squabble over the right interpretation of that section of the Tozer quote, I'll just get back to the real point of the OP, that the word of God (preached OR read) is powerful, and we ought to seek to honor Him when we come into corporate worship by giving Him the attention He so deserves.

To put it more bluntly, I love to hear preaching, as it draws my very being closer to Him and rightly orients my priorities and thoughts.

 

[rsc2a]

Why does he say "reign" at all?

Because he's not talking about divine right or something.

 

[subllibrm]

Ayman, all I am saying is that it is the message, not the man and on this point Tozer missed the mark. That is not a slam on Tozer. It is an opinion on the OP as was asked for by you.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Why does he say "reign" at all?

Because he's not talking about divine right or something.

I think this thread deserves the Louis Renault award.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Ayman, all I am saying is that it is the message, not the man and on this point Tozer missed the mark. That is not a slam on Tozer. It is an opinion on the OP as was asked for by you.

I appreciate your opinion, but disagree with your basis that leads to your conclusion, given the nature of Tozer's heritage, as well as indicators within the quote, but it's a dead horse now.

 

[subllibrm]

Ayman, all I am saying is that it is the message, not the man and on this point Tozer missed the mark. That is not a slam on Tozer. It is an opinion on the OP as was asked for by you.

I appreciate your opinion, but disagree with your basis that leads to your conclusion, given the nature of Tozer's heritage, as well as indicators within the quote, but it's a dead horse now.

Well that's never stopped us from beating it before. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Why does he say "reign" at all?

Because he's not talking about divine right or something.

Nothing to back up your absurd claim about Divine Right of Kings yet?  I'm shocked.  Shocked I tell ya.


The reason you won't find supporting evidence, and if you have any intellectual acumen at all you know it, is because it wasn't true of Tozer.  Matter of fact, I don't expect you to support it because I don't think you actually believe what you've asserted about him.  And more to the point, I have evidence (in the form of his own words) that STRONGLY shouts you are full of baloney. 

But....


tick-tock

 

[Smellin Coffee]

To put it more bluntly, I love to hear preaching, as it draws my very being closer to Him and rightly orients my priorities and thoughts.

BINGO!

We have relativity! (Not at all saying it is a bad thing...)

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

To put it more bluntly, I love to hear preaching, as it draws my very being closer to Him and rightly orients my priorities and thoughts.

BINGO!

We have relativity! (Not at all saying it is a bad thing...)

For what it's worth, I love to hear good preaching/teaching.  But that's not the purpose of the assembly.  And, to be honest, 99% of what I hear in traditional churches is rehashed sermons that bore me to tears. 

I have a better chance of hearing good teaching on radio, MP3, etc., with the advantage of easily turning it off if it turns out to be error or just bad preaching. 

Then I can meet with a small Christian assembly for the purpose of intimate interaction and mutual edification.