On preaching and the hearer's responsibilities.

[prophet]

I like Tozer but that is just flat out wrong. There is only one throne and only one worthy to sit upon it.

I think that if you keep it in context of "unction" then it is reasonable to say that a <benevolent> king ought to have the ear of his people as he leads them then the Tozer quote makes sense to say that when a sermon is delivered the congregants should tune in and commune with Christ (via the conduit of the human "king").

So much for a called-out royal priesthood of believers...

The Pharisees wanted Jesus dead in part because He undermined their authority.  Nothing has changed.  Pharisees still resent Jesus undermining their authority.

Nailed it.

They were the "God appointed leaders", and no one was gonna unseat them.

Earnestly Contend

 

[ALAYMAN]

I like Tozer but that is just flat out wrong. There is only one throne and only one worthy to sit upon it.

I think that if you keep it in context of "unction" then it is reasonable to say that a <benevolent> king ought to have the ear of his people as he leads them then the Tozer quote makes sense to say that when a sermon is delivered the congregants should tune in and commune with Christ (via the conduit of the human "king").

So much for a called-out royal priesthood of believers...

The Pharisees wanted Jesus dead in part because He undermined their authority.  Nothing has changed.  Pharisees still resent Jesus undermining their authority.

Nailed it.

They were the "God appointed leaders", and no one was gonna unseat them.

Earnestly Contend

Tozer was a Pharisee.....ROFLOL!   

You FFF Freebirds really crack me up.

 

[ALAYMAN]

maybe.... maybe not....... it depends on how he took and applied his own words in that quote of his you posted....... i had never seen that before and never even heard of tozer with the exception of the few times someone here quoted him.....  but i can tell you this.... i think at best what he said was a very careless statement.... and the way many others in the fundamentalist world are taking and applying what he said definitely makes them pharisees..... they have taken the word and will of a single man and placed it above scripture and even above God in the life of other believers...

and if they are doing it based on statements such as his and using his words as inspiration then tozer can rightly be called the leader of those pharisees......  any time servants of God start to talk about being kings and reigning from their own pulpits they are treading dangerously close to playing god themselves.....

It's never right to take another person's words and exploit them for wrong purposes.  Tozer wasn't speaking about preaching with authority for the sake of increasing one's personal power, but speaking of the office of a prophet to proclaim the word faithfully.  As the OP quote points out, the person/Christian who places themselves in the vicinity of such authoritative proclamations (as the word of God is when it is rightfully divided and proclaimed) then becomes responsible for what they do with the truth they have received.  But to claim that those who abuse their power of the office on the basis of Tozer's quote justifies the labeling of Tozer to be a "Phairsee" or leader of them is akin to saying that the ends justifies the means.  It is not Tozer that should be indicted for the wrongheaded actions of hyper-fundys or legalists, but those who contort his words.
It was not Tozers point to justify any clergy-laity distinction anymore than it was his purpose to say "I am the authoritah, listen to me".  To represent the quote in that manner, as some have done in this thread, is to decontextualize his meaning and intent and gut it of its actual purpose of honoring the word of God as it is faithfully preached.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I like Tozer but that is just flat out wrong. There is only one throne and only one worthy to sit upon it.

I think that if you keep it in context of "unction" then it is reasonable to say that a <benevolent> king ought to have the ear of his people as he leads them then the Tozer quote makes sense to say that when a sermon is delivered the congregants should tune in and commune with Christ (via the conduit of the human "king").

So much for a called-out royal priesthood of believers...

The Pharisees wanted Jesus dead in part because He undermined their authority.  Nothing has changed.  Pharisees still resent Jesus undermining their authority.

Nailed it.

They were the "God appointed leaders", and no one was gonna unseat them.

Earnestly Contend

Matthew 27:51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom

And ever since, the Catholic church and Pharisees like ALAYMAN and his kind have been desperately trying to sew the pieces back together.

 

[ALAYMAN]

maybe.... maybe not....... it depends on how he took and applied his own words in that quote of his you posted....... i had never seen that before and never even heard of tozer with the exception of the few times someone here quoted him.....  but i can tell you this.... i think at best what he said was a very careless statement.... and the way many others in the fundamentalist world are taking and applying what he said definitely makes them pharisees..... they have taken the word and will of a single man and placed it above scripture and even above God in the life of other believers...

and if they are doing it based on statements such as his and using his words as inspiration then tozer can rightly be called the leader of those pharisees......  any time servants of God start to talk about being kings and reigning from their own pulpits they are treading dangerously close to playing god themselves.....

It's never right to take another person's words and exploit them for wrong purposes.  Tozer wasn't speaking about preaching with authority for the sake of increasing one's personal power, but speaking of the office of a prophet to proclaim the word faithfully.  As the OP quote points out, the person/Christian who places themselves in the vicinity of such authoritative proclamations (as the word of God is when it is rightfully divided and proclaimed) then becomes responsible for what they do with the truth they have received.  But to claim that those who abuse their power of the office on the basis of Tozer's quote justifies the labeling of Tozer to be a "Phairsee" or leader of them is akin to saying that the ends justifies the means.  It is not Tozer that should be indicted for the wrongheaded actions of hyper-fundys or legalists, but those who contort his words.
It was not Tozers point to justify any clergy-laity distinction anymore than it was his purpose to say "I am the authoritah, listen to me".  To represent the quote in that manner, as some have done in this thread, is to decontextualize his meaning and intent and gut it of its actual purpose of honoring the word of God as it is faithfully preached.

no where in scripture is a servant of God.... preacher priest or otherwise... described as a king reigning from a pulpit...... i stand by what i said..... tozer spoke carelessly at best and left it open to interpretation that any preacher speaking from a pulpit is speaking on behalf of God just because he says so....... ..... if the word of God is faithfully preached and God is in the message people will know it....... .. a true servant of God who has Gods hand upon his work doesn;t have to proclaim it... or demand allegiance because of it.... any more than a true leader has to proclaim himself such...... .. and when men do constantly proclaim themselves the leader.... or the king.... it actually plants the seeds of rebellion in the hearts of those in the vicinity..... especially in the hearts of those taught that as christians we bow to no earthly king......

whether or not it was tozers intent to say... "i am the authoritah, listen to me..."..... that is exactly how his words come across....... and if he didn;t want them to be contorted and misused by the wrongheaded then he should have chosen them more carefully....... .. and that is not in any way justifying the wrong actions of those who do that and act wrongly using his words as justification.........  but rather indicting both the speaker and the follower who should have known better....  ..... pointing out what is wrong with what he said should be viewed as the duty of anyone who truly follows Christ and wishes to set the record straight.........

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  The essence of Tozer's allusion to a king reigning deals not with his own authority, but with the authority of the preached word.  For example, more illumination of the context (though from a different time than the OP) here's Tozer saying something similar.....

Religion today is not transforming people; rather it is being transformed by the people. It is not raising the moral level of society; it is descending to society's own level, and congratulating itself that it has scored a victory because society is smilingly accepting its surrender.

I could post dozens of other similar quotes from Lloyd Jones to Calvin on the subject of their view of the masses as it relates to how Christians ought to revere the preached word (ie, the proclaimed gospel/Christ).  They are saying in effect, that as long as the word is preached faithfully it amounts to "thus sayeth the Lord" (authority), and with that proclamation, just as Christ effectively said "if you love me keep my commandments", the hearer of a properly exposited sermon ought to give proper heed (as a subject does to his king).  And all that is in direct contrast to those who would navel-gaze or tickle ears from the pulpit (lacking the true authority and unction of Christ on their sermon).

Put another way, the "king" reference wasn't to a "demand" to listen to him, but a demand to listen to the words of Christ (which falls properly under the purview of Christ's Lordship).

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I like Tozer but that is just flat out wrong. There is only one throne and only one worthy to sit upon it.

I think that if you keep it in context of "unction" then it is reasonable to say that a <benevolent> king ought to have the ear of his people as he leads them then the Tozer quote makes sense to say that when a sermon is delivered the congregants should tune in and commune with Christ (via the conduit of the human "king").

So much for a called-out royal priesthood of believers...

The Pharisees wanted Jesus dead in part because He undermined their authority.  Nothing has changed.  Pharisees still resent Jesus undermining their authority.

Nailed it.

They were the "God appointed leaders", and no one was gonna unseat them.

Earnestly Contend

Tozer was a Pharisee.....ROFLOL!   

You FFF Freebirds really crack me up.

Serves him right for believing in pastors.
Believing in preaching.
Believing in pastor's preaching.
Believing a church can be larger than 5 members having 7 elders. 

 

[Recovering IFB]

I can see why you would mock that TB, why share when you could be the star of your own show?

 

[ALAYMAN]

it;s little wonder then that those masses they speak of have concluded that religion is nothing more than a collection of people who fervently believe in the spiritual experiences of somebody else....... somebody who speaks in the place of God..... or thinks he does........ .... rather than having any of their own....or knowing how to understand the ones they have.......

that;s the same mentality that was behind churches in the dark ages of europe... which wanted to keep their congregations illiterate and forbade them to read the bible for themselves..... telling them instead "let us read for it for you and then we will tell you what it says...".....  ...... the catholics... or at least a large part of them... have been for centuries trying to come out of that kind of darkness..... why do so many in the fundamentalists camps desire to go back to it?........

Simply because ministers have noted that there are plenty of the populace that has contempt for the preached word does NOT mean that they likewise think and teach that they are the only source for understanding God's word.  But I'd bet dollars to donuts that the group they have in mind not only disrespects the legitimate instititutional God-given authority within the church, but also neglect the word of God that they have in their homes, neglected and collecting dust on their coffee tables.

 

[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.

 

[ALAYMAN]

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?

 

[subllibrm]

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)

 

[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.

 

[ALAYMAN]

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.

 

[rsc2a]

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

 

[ALAYMAN]

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

Thank you holy spirit.

 

[rsc2a]

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.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

that;s the same mentality that was behind churches in the dark ages of europe... which wanted to keep their congregations illiterate and forbade them to read the bible for themselves..... telling them instead "let us read for it for you and then we will tell you what it says...".....  ...... the catholics... or at least a large part of them... have been for centuries trying to come out of that kind of darkness..... why do so many in the fundamentalists camps desire to go back to it?........

Why?  Power and pride. 

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. 

We haven't progressed much since it was a matter of "let us read for it for you and then we will tell you what it says...".  Sure, people can read it for themselves, if they are so inclined, but why would they?  The MOG is going to tell them what it means on Sunday, anyway.  That's probably one reason why so few people who "go to church" crack open their Bibles at home. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

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?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I can see why you would mock that TB, why share when you could be the star of your own show?

Recovering IFB stood on the fff and said...God, I thank thee, that I and my equal elder rule elders are not as other dictatorial, glory seeking pastors are...

Amen!  :

 

[rsc2a]

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