Archive

Archive for the ‘church government’ Category

Church Property Reversion Clause: License to Steal

August 13th, 2012 No comments

REVERSION CLAUSE IN THE CHRISTIAN & MISSIONARY ALLIANCE
CHURCH AND ASSEMBLIES OF GOD
& ENFORCEMENT OF CHURCH GROWTH TECHNIQUES
By James Sundquist

The latest seizure of Grace Community Alliance Church property by the Christian Missionary Alliance of one of their local churches in Baldwin Park, California, by William Malick, District Superintendent, South Pacific District of the C&MA…full story at:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/church-occupied-after-offices-ransacked/

is just the latest installment in an epidemic of serial abuse of local churches. It is one of the snares in Assemblies of God, Christian Missionary Alliance, The Episcopal Church and other Denominations. What most of the local churches that tithe and send offerings to their headquarters and districts don’t know is that the money is used to sue their own brothers and sisters in Christ. The leaders and and districts in these denominations of course supply NONE of these funds for the local church being sued to pay to defend themselves. In criminal law, a defendant who has no money at least can secure a public defender, paid for by the State. Not so in Christian and Missionary Alliance or Assemblies of God. The leaders in these denominations are masters in greed and deception, they will have you believe that they are the victims and the victims are the perpetrators, even though these local churches have paid most if not all of the mortgages on these local church properties. Truly Isaiah was right about these holy hijackers:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20
Read more…

RICK WARREN’S TYRANNY OF TITHING COVENANTS

June 18th, 2012 5 comments

Dr. Russell Kelly, who did his Doctorate in Tithing, and is one of the foremost biblical scholars on the subject, has just released this report after investigating Rick Warren’s tithing covenants and published teachings on the subject. Dr. Kelly totally demolishes Rick Warren’s Principality.


DR. RUSSELL EARL KELLY REBUTS RICK WARREN ON TITHING
June 17, 2012

The report is now posted at:

http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id217.html

Dr. Russell Kelly exposed Rick Warren’s Tyranny of Tithing Scam Covenants on June 23, 2012 on
Susan Puzio’s PROPHECTIC NEWS RADIO SHOW:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/prophetic-news/2012/06/23/rick-warren-tithing-scam-with-tithe-expert-russell-kelly-phd

Dr. Kelly has also published biblical demolitions of four other Rick Warren tithing collaborators and strongholds:

JOHN MAXWELL (RICK WARREN’S GLOBAL PEACE PLAN PARTNER [effectively the "E" in the P.E.A.C.E. acronym]),

http://www.perfectpeaceplan.com/post/category/tithing/

JACK HAYFORD (President of Foursquare Church International)…and principal leader in promoting Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church teachings and programs:

http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id201.html


DAVE RAMSEY
(Taught Tithing at Rick Warren’s Financial Management Conference, Fall 2011 at Warren’s Saddleback Church):

http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id74.html

also see:

http://www.daveramsey.com/article/daves-advice-on-tithing-and-giving/lifeandmoney_church/

ROBERT MORRIS, Pastor of Gateway, and Dave Ramsey (Spoke at same Rick Warren Saddleback Church Conference as Dave Ramsey)

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/09/rick-warren-exposes-his-congregation-to.html

ED YOUNG, Pastor of Fellowship Church, Grapevine,Texas
DR. RUSSELL KELLY PUBLIC REBUKE OF ED YOUNG’S
“If You Can’t Tithe, ‘DON’T COME BACK!’

http://tithing-russkelly.com/id221.html

Read more…

Church Under siege by South Pacific District of the Christian and Missionary Alliance

June 18th, 2012 2 comments

JUNE 15, 20102

Déjà Vu ALL OVER AGAIN…CHRISTIAN & MISSIONARY ALLIANCE ATTEMPTING TO SEIZE ANOTHER LOCAL CHURCH IN CALIFORNIA,
WHILE ANOTHER CHURCH IN NEW JERSEY FIGHTS IN APPEALS COURT AGAINST C&MA LAWSUIT

Hello Mr. Sundquist,

I am writing as our Church is under siege by our local South Pacific District of the Christian and Missionary Alliance. Our local church is located in Baldwin Park California. We are currently vigilantly occupying the property to avoid being locked out. Please contact us if you can offer any guidance or assistance.

Praying for their willingness to reconcile,

Avery Schott
GCACLA.ORG

Hello James,

Thank you for your response. The following is a brief summary of our situation and some email correspondence. I have attached documents we received from the District:

This past Feb a leader in our church, who is related to a family that has demonstrated a dislike for our pastor over the years, was suspended by the board and pastor (majority vote) and ordered to stop teaching Sunday school. This was due to an ongoing unresolved issue of adultery. This caused division within our congregation and board as this individual felt it was a personal attack from our pastor. Since the voluntary exodus of this leader and his supporters another congregation came to worship with us as they had no place for themselves. We began to enjoy unity and peacefulness without the distraction or gossiping of those related to this leader who over the years have voiced their discontent with our pastor. We even were able to launch a new food ministry, glory to God for the abundant provisions. The unhappy parties approach the local C&MA district with complaints and this began the siege upon our local congregation. You see the district Superintendent Bill Malick was already displeased with our pastor for speaking out against the closure of a nearby local church. I believe that because of this the Bill is bringing up numerous complaints filed in prior years from this family who since 2004 has been consistently attacking and poisoning our congregation. Bill has demonstrated bias and support by limiting his contact to just that family and their supporters. We have not had visits or notice of any complaints that warrant action over the years and really feel that this bias is based upon a personal agenda and the intent to control the property owned by the local church. So we arrive at the current week in which the district attempted to lock us out of the property. We have been vigilantly occupying the property to avoid the district from taking possession.

Thank you James and God Bless you for lending your ear,

Avery Schott

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2012, 8:08 AM

(Please distribute to friends of GCAC who have received previous emails)

June 12, 2012

Dear Friends,

The South Pacific District of the Christian and Missionary Alliance has had to make the difficult decision to take possession of the Grace Community Alliance Church (GCAC) property. Today the building was secured and all services and use of the building cancelled until further notice. As you know from our letter of May 23, 2012, it was not our intention to cancel services, in fact we “…invited San Gabriel Valley Christian Fellowship under the leadership of Pastor Hernan Pada, to continue meeting at the church facility during this time of evaluation” to “provide a place of worship and care.” However, it became necessary to take this action as a result of the decisions and actions of former GCAC pastor, Fred Cheock, and with the apparent agreement and approval of his supporters.

Mr. Cheock was clearly instructed via registered letter and other communications, and again at a meeting on June 7, 2012, that he was removed from the pastoral assignment of Grace Community Alliance Church effective May 23, 2012. Present at the June 7, 2012, meeting were district Filipino pastors, the president of the Association of Filipino Churches, Bong Collado (see attached letter), and other interested parties.

Though directed “not to attend activities and services of the church,” Mr. Cheock has refused to submit to this directive even after stating that he would comply. Those who continue to attend GCAC are apparently in support his actions.

Grace Community Alliance Church has a long history as an Alliance Church. The Uniform Constitution and the By-laws clearly describe the relationship with the C&MA and the constituted authority. Unfortunately, GCAC now stands in violation of that authority.

While we still have hope for a better and effective future for GCAC, these actions have left us with no alternative but to cancel all services and activities at GCAC until further notice.

Sincerely,

Rev. Bill Malick
Re: Friends of GCAC and SGVCF

Hide Details
FROM:
AVERY SCHOTT
TO:
Bill Malick

Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:04 PM

Hello SPD Leadership,

This Letter is to inform you of my grave disappointment in your recent attempt to bully our Local Congregation by breaking in to and desecrating the GCAC property. I arrived at the property at 3:30pm 6-12-12 to find that the locks on the outside of the gates were removed, I proceeded to enter the property and investigate the apparent break in. As the building administrator I have the responsibility to insure the property is free from vandalism and theft. Not knowing what had happened I proceeded to enter and inspect both buildings to assess the situation. I was surprised to find the accounting office ransacked as well as the Pastors office. I proceeded to contact the Leadership of GCAC and the local authorities to inform them of my findings. I noticed many items missing and photographed all areas.
I am very surprised that you would violate local laws simply to impose your will on the Local Church. I had read and heard of your doing so in the past but was taken aback by this blatant display of disregard and respect for the Body. There was no prior notice of intent or posting of any notice on the property, simply malicious, unscrupulous and immoral behavior.

I received an email at 5:44pm 6-12-12 forwarded by Felix Lucero with the attached letter indicating that in fact you did commit the offense. Again, we will continue to function as a Local Church until such time we can meet and reconcile. I would also appreciate advance notice of any future attempt to visit the property as there will be a caretaker on the premises at all times.
Praying for reconciliation,
Avery Schott

From: Ernesto Villalon

Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2012 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Friends of GCAC and SGVCF
DEXCOM,
In response to the letter dated June 8, 2012 from Bill Malick SPD Superintendent the Board of Grace Community Alliance Church would like to express the following;
The informal meeting in which all parties with interest in your discussion were not invited is an inappropriate forum as basis for any decision affecting the local church body. As such no decisions can be seen as proper or binding.
We do not agree that you, as the leadership in the South Pacific District, have followed the policy and guidelines set forth in the governing documents. As such the arbitrary nature of the decisions made can not be held as valid.
The decision to place GCAC in Development status is again arbitrary as the conditions to qualify this change were not met according to the procedure for reclassifying accredited churches to developing status. As such we do not see this change as valid.
Again we encourage you all to meet with our local governance board which has been duly elected and in consideration of and regard for our local congregation honor the request to work collaboratively to clarify any misunderstandings and work to restore and reconcile.

The Board of Elders of GCAC,
[names removed for security reasons]

FROM:
AVERY SCHOTT
TO:
Bill Malick
[email protected]
[email protected]
13 More…
CC:

47 More…

Tuesday, June 5, 2012 6:16 AM

Hello All,

It is with a heavy heart that I write this note to you all, to bring to our District leadership and your attention this matter that Prayerfully you all will consider.
Attached is a letter that was initially sent to [name removed for security reasons] only and not to the rest of the board or congregation, from Pastor Bill Malick regarding the decision of the District leadership.

We have made several attempts to encourage a dialogue between Pastor Bill Malick and the Current congregation and leadership. The Current local church body is relevant as Pastor Malick has only chosen to speak to those members who left the church at various times throughout the past and for various reasons. This disregard for the Current Local Church Body and Leadership is contrary to the Christian doctrine. The lack of willingness to Restore and Reconcile the Body is disappointing to say the least. The rush to Judgement and imposition of personal will without taking the time to Observe and Submit to the working of the Lord in our local church, is also discouraging. The testimony of Sharon, Pastor Fred’s daughter, regarding Pastor Bills “yelling” at her father over the phone on multiple occasions is disturbing, to say the least. The assertions of Pastor Bill in the attached letter to the “Friends of GCAC” are as follows:
First, the issue of “Leadership Compatibility,” well the Current and Relevant leadership has been Harmoniously working with the congregation and our guests while following the leading of the Lord to his Glory. We have a renewed hope and spiritual peace within the church. Those who decided to leave willingly while being lovingly encouraged to stay have made a decision I can only hope was prayerful and I trust the Lords leading.
Second, Pastor Bill cites the “Significant Division within the body and leadership,” Again, this statement is not based upon the testimony of current members or observation, but only on the testimony of those who have had issue.
Third, Pastor Bill noted a “significant decline in attendance as well as financial viability,” what is this based upon? We have faithfully recorded attendance for many years and our records will demonstrate our attendance is well above that which would place our church in jeopardy of losing accreditation status. Our current attendance with our fellow worshipers actually well exceeds our average for the past two years. Praise God for his work. In regards to our “financial viability,” we are current with our mortgage payment and all other expenses other than our Pastor Fred’s salary, which he has willingly given up as he relies upon the Lord for provision and the Lord has been faithful to insure his well being. Also, we have always faithfully paid more than required of the offering to the District. As a matter of fact please check the records of the last financials offered by the District which detail GCAC’s stability and faithfulness.
In addition, is our Pastor and his family so much worse than a sinner that they are banned from the church property? You have, on so many occasions, failed to acknowledge the position that Pastor Fred holds referring to him in your correspondence as simply Fred. This title is acknowledged as it is his calling from the Lord and not a title you can revoke.

Lastly, It is not by your invitation, Pastor Bill, that San Gabriel Valley Christian Fellowship came to GCAC and have come to be one in spirit with us, this was the work of the Lord!

Update!…..Since the attached letter was sent Pastor Bill has continued to push by first imposing his responsibility toward the stewardship of the body, following his placement of GCAC in Development status, on Pastor Pada of SGCVF and then retracting that directive about a week later only to threaten loss of Pastor Padas license if he is not compliant with the demand that he and his congregation must vacate the church property. Pastor Bill is acting in reckless abandon of the Lords will which you can confirm with the testimony of our current worshipers seeking to divide further that which the Lord has brought together.
Again, in Love for you all and for the Holiness of the Gospel and respect for the Lords leading please pray and be patient. Let us not be so quick to abandon and destroy the Lords work. Let us correct the failure to seek restoration and reconciliation.
The following are letters of rebuke to Pastor Malick written separately from myself and my wife on two separate occasions, seeking to encourage a meeting focused on restoration. Please take the time to read and understand the emotional distress under which these were written and forgive us for any offense as our intention was to inform and rebuke.
In Christ,
Avery Schott
—————————————————————————————————————————–

Re: Response to letter for June 9th Meeting
Saturday, May 26, 2012 4:09 PM
From:

“Rosalinda Dominguez”

To:
“Bill Malick”

Hello Mr. Bill,
I am a current member of GCAC and have been active in both ministry as well as financial support of the church for 2 yrs now. In this time period I have not heard of nor have I had the occasion to meet or even see you in or around GCAC. I am completely dumbfounded when I attempt to understand this personal attack that you have embarked upon soliciting the support from other Former GCAC members whom have No relevance to the current congregation and the church business. I am deeply disappointed to see that someone with your level of responsibility could act in such an irresponsible manner and with such unchristian-like character. You have constantly failed to acknowledge the title given to our Pastor Fred Cheock, which is not a title given by you but by a calling from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
You continue to address people outside of our congregation as if they have chosen to continue to support the Lords work at GCAC, which I can personally attest to the Fact that they Don’t and haven’t for quite some time if ever. This is exactly the type of strategy I would expect from a child or someone in the business of Gossip. Again as a Mature adult who believes in the Biblical principals set forth in the gospel I know as FACT that you have only attempted to garner support to continue a personal attack on my Pastor Fred Cheock. This is evidenced by your statements, your demeanor, your disrespect, your lack of willingness to even talk to the congregation, your lack of explanation as to the accusations of those disgruntled members and your lack of orderly process as described in the Discipline policy of the C&MA. I reference the Discipline policy because even as you have stated in your letter addressed to the “Friends” of GCAC you point out that there are no Moral or Disciplinary actions to be taken, but clearly a removal and banishment of a Pastor would fall into the area of Expulsion which is described in the Disciplinary policy.
Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that such a Life altering decision on your part could come so quickly without due process or due diligence on your behalf. I know that our church has records of everything including your discussions with the Board of Elders and Pastor Fred Cheock. Your disregard for the evidence on our behalf is disgusting! You have provided no copy of the accusations brought about and led by one Family from the Congregation who was unable to effect their will upon our Pastor in the past as the C&MA dissolved the prior board citing the fact that the Board was the Problem and not Pastor Fred Cheock and furthermore offered ongoing and Future support to GCAC. Since then, we have seen no effort on your behalf to work out any issues or concerns for our congregation. Furthermore, you have not even felt the need to advise us of any issues that were worthy of concern. I guess since the Superintendent at that time was not you, I would expect anyone in that position to follow the 125 years of policy revision set forth by the C&MA. A policy is only as good as the enforcement and adherence. Please do not demean our congregation by citing such things as you have grossly neglected to follow.
Please understand I am completely aware that this attack is from Satan and not you personally or those disgruntled FORMER members and as such we are more than willing and Able to stand and defend the will of God in our lives and Church. Complete submission you refer to in Romans needs to be filtered through the context of the entire Gospel and there are many instances in which standing in Faith was rewarded by our Lord as the will of God always prevails, so please do me a favor, Demonstrate a little more Love, Compassion, Humility, Holiness, Patience and Restraint of your tongue before going further!
I pray for your consideration,
Rosalinda Dominguez
——————————————————————————————-

Re: Response to letter for June 9th Meeting
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:00 PM
From:
“AVERY SCHOTT”

To:
“Bill Malick”

Hello Pastor Bill,

My name is Avery Schott and I have recently been elected as an Elder at Grace Community Alliance Church. I am married, 40 years old and have three children ages 22, 17 and 12. I have quite a diverse background including fostering over 15 children in my household as well as coaching and personal training one of my nephews to the pro’s in basketball and three of my nephews to the pro’s in tennis all of whom received full ride scholarships to college. My formal education is in Electronics Engineering and I have been involved in Construction Management for the past 8 years.

I would like to start by saying that I am deeply concerned about the manner that you and your associates have conducted yourselves. Please know as a fellow brother in Christ, that I seek nothing more than restoration and reconciliation.
I have attended Grace Community Alliance Church for two years now and during this time I have never observed your visitation of the Church. It would seem to be a priority of the District and most especially the Superintendent to periodically visit to share and support our ministries. I am a public servant, employed by local government and as a public employee my dedication to upholding the policies and ordinances of my jurisdiction is of the utmost importance.
I mention this because I do not appreciate your attempt to hide behind the Gospel as you impose your will upon the local church more specifically, in this particular instance, Grace Community Alliance Church. I would hope that someone of your experience while understanding the demands of your position should also feel the importance of adhering to the policy and ordinances of your jurisdiction, respecting those who have, over many years, prayerfully and carefully created and revised the C&MA governing documents.

As one Man to Another, please do not be offended by my words of rebuke but understand my Love for Christ and the local congregation to which I belong. I choose not to post this to a public forum as you have, but instead attempt to reconcile this matter with you personally first. It is my opinion in agreement with the policies set forth in The C&MA governing documents that we should “Collaboratively” (as stated in the Mission Statement of the C&MA) and with the intention of promoting the Health of each and every local church and its ministries.

I will not detail every instance in which the Governing Policy has not been adhered to, but instead seek to encourage a discourse that will lead to reconciliation. My prayers and hope are that you will take some time to reflect and consider our position.
First, I want to address the assertion that we are “standing against God’s clear word”. My understanding of Romans 13 agrees with this well stated commentary from Adam Clarke (Renowned British Theologian):

Commentary on Romans 13-1,”Nothing can justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler but overt attempts on his part to change the constitution, or to rule contrary to law. When the ruler acts thus he dissolves the compact between him and his people; his authority is no longer binding, because illegal; and it is illegal because he is acting contrary to the laws of that constitution, according to which, on being raised to the supreme power, he promised to govern. This conduct justifies opposition to his government.”

I hope that you understand our regard for the Gospel and the desire to follow. I have conviction through prayer and fasting that the Lord’s will is Not for the Leadership or the Ministry at our local church to be replaced or redirected.
I feel I need to share a little history minus all the details which I hope to share with you in the near future. I have come to understand that the reason for the lack of “growth” in our local church was due to a constant poisoning of the body by the actions of a particular family of individuals within the church. The [name removed for security reasons] family has had such an adverse impact on the work and progress of the church beginning from my understanding since before the placement of Pastor Fred Cheock.
I have observed this first hand on many occasions and am proud to say that we finally in prayer and petition to the Lord have seen our God work to systematically free us from that which plagued our ministry. It was not until just the past few months that we finally were released from this bondage, unfortunately so many over the years were affected. This struggle has taken its toll but I am again proud to say that we have a very strong core of Righteous individuals willing to uphold the Holiness of the Gospel.

You cannot imagine how disheartening it was to find that just as the Lord was rewarding our Faithfullness by revealing a vision and direction for our ministry to grow that we suffered attacks once again from the aforementioned family including our very own District leadership. Leadership we would have expected to come to assist and lift us up in support rather than condemn simply based upon the testimony of the “dedicated vocal antagonists” without regard to, or hearing the testimony of those who persevered.
I cannot express the discouragement we all felt.

I am prayerful that you will agree to meet with us soon to work toward reconciliation in our relationship. I pray the Lord will encourage you to reconsider with the understanding that it is never too late to resist divisiveness and come together as one body.

Your Brother in Christ,

Avery Schott
GCACLA.ORG

Should Elders Be Married and Have Children?

May 3rd, 2012 2 comments

AN ELDER’S FAMILY
BY JONATHAN LINDVALL

EXCERPT FROM HOUSE CHURCH
CHAPTER 13: MINISTRY HOUSEHOLDS —
KEY TO HEALTHY CHURCHES, PAGES 172-174
BY STEVE ATKERSON

The explicit minimum qualifications for leadership in the body of Christ include other family matters. An elder/bishop (demonstrably the same thing as the pastor in the New Testament church — see poimaino, presbuteros, and episkopos in Ac 2:17, 28; Tit 1:5, 7; 1Pe 5:1-2) was to be “the husband of one wife” (1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:6). There is some controversy, today, over the application of this. Some simply apply this to polygamy, others suspect it precludes divorced and remarried men from being publicly recognized as exemplary, and still others take it to mean that an elder must be a “one woman type of man.”

I suspect the requirement of being “the husband of one wife” not only means a man with more than one wife is disqualified, but that a man with less than one wife also is not qualified to be recognized as a model for the church. While single men certainly have the benefit of fewer distractions and responsibilities, and thus more freedom, this very lack of responsibility is also a handicap when it comes to leading in the church. It is more likely for a single man to be (or at least be perceived as) a novice, but Paul told Timothy (1Ti 3:6) to choose as elders those who were “not a novice.” He further made it clear that the reputation, as well as the reality, of a man’s maturity, was important (1Ti 3:7; “he must have a good testimony among those who are outside”).

Some time after I married my wife, Connie, I began realizing how unprepared for marriage I had been. I was simply not mature enough for marriage. Yet as I pondered the matter, I concluded that I likely would never have been mature enough for marriage, while I was single. But it seems to me that within months of getting married, I had been stretched in wonderful ways that forced me to mature. I doubt I would ever have grown in those areas as a single man. Marriage made me something I could not have become otherwise. Truly in all but a few cases, “It is not good that man should be alone” (Ge 2:18). There are likely exceptions, but a man who is unmarried (or at least who has never been married) is not as likely in a position to be a thorough and balanced role model for the body of Christ as one who has demonstrated his capacity to “rule his own house well.”

In fact, I suspect that a man who has not experienced fatherhood will be similarly handicapped. Paul told Titus (1:6) to only recognize as elders those men who are “the husband of one wife, having faithful children.” Just as I was not ready for marriage until after I married, I was not ready for fatherhood until after Connie and I were blessed with our first child. Being a father pressed me in certain ways that I would likely never have matured in without having children. As the Lord continued blessing us with more children, and as each of them was trained through different stages of childhood and youth, I was being further prepared for eldership.

The other homeschooling fathers and I, in our local congregation, have theorized that God’s reason for leading us to disciple our own children at home rather than sending them to school is not exclusively (perhaps even primarily) for their benefit. God has called us to teach our own children at least partly because of the maturity this brings to us as fathers. Any teacher will acknowledge that the teachers learn as much or more than the students, in the process of teaching. In fact, I suspect one of God’s primary reasons for raising up the homeschool movement in this generation is to prepare truly qualified elders who have learned how to disciple others as a result of discipling their own sons and daughters.

Sadly, as noted earlier, the children of those who are devoted to ministry in the contemporary church often have the worst reputation. I’m blessed to be a PK myself (not Promise Keeper, but Preacher’s Kid). But as a child I learned that the acronym PK is often a derogatory term in the contemporary church. While this is not always deserved (many love to find fault in leaders to excuse their own failures), it is too often true that the children of those in public ministry are not examples to the rest of the body of Christ.

I imagine we have all seen men who seem to have a true call of God on their life for public ministry, yet who are so focused on that ministry that they neglect their own family. Paul included, as a qualification for local church leadership, that an elder’s children must be well trained. He defines “one who rules his own house well” (1Ti 3:4) as “having his children in submission with all reverence.” Then he reasons (1Ti 3:5), “for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God ?”

In his instructions to Titus (1:6) he is more explicit in specifying the expectations of the fruit of an elder’s fatherhood. He must have “faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.” The children of elders must not only be in submission, but their faithfulness must be so evident that they are not even accused of excesses or disobedience.

Obviously elders’ children are going to be selfish and inclined to sin, just as all humanity is. Yet only those men who have proven their capacity to “train up a child in the way he should go” (Pr 22:6) should be publicly recognized as models for the church. The word translated faithful in regard to his children (Greek pistos) is elsewhere translated believing. (For example, Jesus used this word as a contrast to Thomas’ doubting in John 20:27. See also Ac 10:45; 16:1; 2Co 6:15; 1Ti 4:3, 10, 12; 5:16; 6:2.). It is certainly not a stretch to contend that only men who have trained believing children should be considered for eldership.

SOURCE and AVAILABLE AT:
NEW TESTAMENT REFORMED CHURCH

http://www.ntrf.org/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3

Pastor Is Master, Isn’t He? Documentary on Elder Rule and Church Government

May 3rd, 2012 No comments

Pastor is Master, Isn’t He? Four Part Documentary

Part 1

Calvary Chapel Church Government from Chuck Smith’s
Calvary Chapel Distinctives
Chapter Two

Commentary by James Sundquist
Chuck Smith’s book may be accessed at the following website:

http://calvarychapel.com/hope/library/smith-chuck/books/ccd/

What follows is his entire Chapter Two from his Calvary Chapel Distinctives, followed by commentary on each passage.

CHUCK SMITH: (Opens with the following Scripture)
“And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,” * Ephesians 1:22

COMMENTARY:

I find it very ironic that Chuck Smith (founder of Calvary Chapel), who supports a single-pastor-final-authority form of leadership in the Church, would invoke the above scripture to open this Chapter on Church Government, as he spends the balance of the chapter defending a monarchical pastorship of the local church. The above passage from Ephesians makes no room for two heads in the church. Regarding more than pastor leading a church, I have heard the expression that a two-headed person is a monster. Of course, I agree that a person with two heads is contrary to nature. But if we examine the above passage as well as I Corinthians Chapter 12 we see that a pastor or pastors are not the head of the church. Paul’s description of the Body of Christ and all its parts shows that the only head is Christ himself! There is no other head!

COMMENTARY:

Pastors, Elders, Deacons, Teachers, Evangelists, Prophets, and Apostles, etc. are all parts of the Body of Christ, but none of these offices are the head except Christ alone! None of these offices in the Church or any of the parts of the body are ever described as a head…not in the Church at large for the whole world, nor the individual local church. There is nothing plural in the parts of the body until you get below the head. Paul in minute detail describes the plurality anatomy of the Body of Christ BELOW the head. So, if we are going to be Scriptural let’s keep singular things that are singular and plural things that are plural. The head of the church is singular and in any local church, the head is still singular, but it is Christ himself. Once this is established, authority then pluralizes. But singular, I repeat, singular does not begin with any man but Christ himself, so singular authority cannot remain ascribed to another single pastor, bishop, shepherd, elder, or whatever office is described. I am especially indebted to Vance (Bo) Salisbury for his in depth research in providing a comprehensive list of New Testament and Greek Scholars who unanimously concur that the office of Bishop and Elder are synonymous and plural in the local Church both in the New Testament and during the Apostolic Age. Just some of the names of scholars listed with their quotes are:

Geoffrey Bromiley of Fuller Theological Seminary
Henry De Moor of Calvin Theological Seminary
(Henry De Moor, Associate Professor of Church Polity, Calvin Theological Seminary Leon Morris
Massey Shepherd
J.B. Lightfoot,
Hermann W. Beyer
F.F. Bruce
A.T. Robertson
Philip Schaff
Kenneth Scott Latourette
John Murray
Alexander Strauch
Patrick J. Brennan

1 Tim. 3:2 and Tt. 1:7 speak of the bishop in the sing. and with the art., the reference is to the bishop as a type and not to the number of bishops in a given place. There is no reference to the monarchical episcopate. On the contrary, the evidence of the NT is clearly to the effect that originally several episkopoi took charge of the communities in brotherly comity. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol.2, pg.617, Ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, 1980, Eerdmans)

->->t even seem to clash because they (bishop and elder) are one and the same office! (Chuck Smith spells elders as “presbyteros”, but the correct Greek/English rendering or spelling is “presbuteros.”) The Bible does not clearly teach that bishops are established and elders are appointed. Titus who is alleged to be the “bishop” of Crete is appointed by Paul. But Paul himself states in Titus 1:5 that Titus was an elder “appointed” just like the exact same elders (“presbuteros” that Titus was instructed to appoint in all of the cities of Crete). In other words Paul is telling Titus to do the same thing (same verb) to secure elders in Crete, that I Paul did to you. Chuck Smith in one place states that the form of government is not clear in the NT, then he says here that the New Testament “clearly teaches” regarding church government. It isn’t the Scripture that is confusing here, it is Chuck Smith who is confusing the offices. There is no distinction in the New Testament between establishing bishops and appointing elders. There is no distinction because they are one and the same office! And even if there were two separate offices in the church as Chuck Smith suggests and that Titus is a bishop, why does Paul appoint him as the text states? He should have established him.

It stands to reason that if the office of bishop were such a superior office to elder, then Paul would have called for all of the bishops of Ephesus in the book of Acts, or only Timothy if the church could have only one bishop over the church of Ephesus. Why would Paul call for the elders (presbuteros) of Ephesus in his farewell to the Church of Ephesus in Acts 20:17?

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” Acts 20:17

For an occasion this monumental (Paul’s farewell), why wouldn’t Paul send for the episkopos of Ephesus….that is if the office is distinct from “presbuteros”? This would be like the President of the United States holding a Governors convention and the Secretaries of State for each of the Fifty States show up. Paul was very concerned about the Ephesian Church and wolves coming in. So he would not bring together a group of men in that church for final instructions that had no real authority in that local congregation…except the rescindible authority that the pastor of Ephesus gave them. Paul would have sent for just this single pastor.

But there is other evidence, too, of the authority elders had in the Council of Jerusalem. In fact, it was not just the elders, but Apostles too that met at that Council. If episkopos is the sole governing authority over a local congregation vs. presbuteros, then why were presbuteros gathered in Jerusalem (twice) to rule on great matters affecting the whole church? It would have been the episkopos, i.e., the overseers that gathered…the Council of Bishops! Paul goes on further when ALL of the elders (presbuteros) from Ephesus actually show up. In addressing them he says:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts 20:28

Wait a minute, I thought it was episkopos that are the overseers, that is if Chuck Smith is correct and they are the rulers (not “presbuteros”)? Paul could not be more clear that elders that rule the church (plural) is who he is giving final instructions to regarding the Church of Ephesus. The truth of the matter is that episkopos and presbuteros are one and the same office in the church and have identical qualifications. There are not two ruling classes.

In one of the councils in Jerusalem the apostles and elders met to decide a matter in the Book of Acts:

“And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” Acts 15:6

Well it should not be altogether surprising to discover that the word for elders once again is presbuteros….an office that Chuck Smith insists is subordinate to episkopos. He maintains that it is episkopos is the overseer NOT the elders and that the elders are subordinate to the overseer. If this is so, and if Greek renders episkopos as a superior church government office, then why don’t we see this word used to describe this council in Jerusalem and the one in Acts 21:18 when Paul was present? If James is the Bishop, he would outrank even the Apostle Paul at this meeting. The title bishop is not a more special, more powerful title applied to James. This title of bishop assigned to James in Jerusalem as well as is to Timothy and Titus is revisionist isagesis, reading backwards into history and the Scripture something that did not exist in the first place.

Well it should not be altogether surprising to discover that the word for elders once again is presbuteros….an office that Chuck Smith insists is subordinate to episkopos. He maintains that it is episkopos is the overseer NOT the elders and that the elders are subordinate to the overseer. If this is so, and if Greek renders episkopos as a superior church government office, then why don’t we see this word used to describe this council in Jerusalem and the one in Acts 21:18 when Paul was present? If James is the Bishop, he would outrank even the Apostle Paul at this meeting. The title bishop is not a more special, more powerful title applied to James. This title of bishop assigned to James in Jerusalem as well as is to Timothy and Titus is revisionist isagesis, reading backwards into history and the Scripture something that did not exist in the first place.

“And the [day] following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.” Acts 21:18

And what do we find? The word elders is translated from the Greek word presbuteros once again. In both cases and in a formal gathering to determine policy in the Church at Jerusalem it is presbuteros (plural) who gather to rule on a matter (not episkopos). The fact is the word episkopos could have been used, since the word did not signify a different office. I only mention all of these passages to prove that elders are not some subordinate office to bishop or pastor, as Chuck Smith teaches and requires all Calvary Chapels to abide by. Chuck Smith has, in fact, diminished the role and authority of elders in the church without any Scriptural precedent or authority to do so. This is harmful to both the pastor as well as the elders and in turn is not healthy for the entire congregation.

We once attended a church that was considering becoming a Calvary Chapel, but was told they can not become one because the church had two pastors. So what is wrong with that I asked myself? Calvary Chapel insisted that they could have only one pastor, because they view pastor as equivalent to bishop, superior in rank to elder, and as Chuck Smith’s chapter on church government confirms, there can only be one bishop who presides over a local congregation. But in effect, they were saying they could only have one elder…after all, that is all a pastor is… that is according to Scripture. So this is not a Calvary Chapel “Distinctive” but rather “Directive.” The fact is, there is not a separate Biblical church office of bishop from elder. The Bible lists the word pastor only once in the New Testament in a list of teachers and evangelists. But there are NO qualifications given for pastor, or teacher or evangelist for that matter. It is true that pastors shepherd or oversee, but that is simply a verb that all that oversee do, meaning all elders are supposed to shepherd the flock. But this is not a singular role!

PART II:

http://rock-to-salt.cephasministry.com/pastor_2.html