Logged on as Guest

  • Post new topic
  • Reply to topic

A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Share

G
Guest

A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by G on Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:11 am

This closely reflects the process in which David Vicary split from the Beechboro Potters House and started ECC.
I suspect that this is most likely to be revoked by David Slate.
Which King are you?
It warmed your heart to know a man like Absalom, who saw things so clearly. Discerning. Yes, that was the word that best described him—discerning. He could penetrate to the heart of any problem.
Men felt secure just being with Absalom. They even longed to have time with him. Talking with him, they realized that they themselves were wiser than they'd realized. Such a revelation made them feel good. As he discussed problem after problem and solution after solution, men began to long for the day when this one would be their leader. He could right so many wrongs. He gave them a sense of hope.
But this imposing, insightful man would never deliberately hasten the day of his own rule, of this they were certain. He was far too humble, too respectful of the present leader. Those around him began to feel a little frustrated that they would have to keep waiting for the better days of this man's rule.
The more they sat in his living room and talked, the more they realized there were things presently amiss in the kingdom. Yes, things amiss which they had never thought of before. And problems. Problems were coming to light they had never dreamed of. Yes, they really were growing in wisdom and in insight.
As the days passed, more and more of them came to listen. Word spread quietly. "Here is one who understands and has the answers." The frustrated came. They listened. They asked questions. They received excellent answers and began to hope.
Heads nodded. Dreams were born. As time passed, there were more such gatherings. Ideas turned into stories, stories of injustice that others might have deemed trivial. But not this listener! Absalom was compassionate. And as those around him talked, the discovered injustices seemed to grow in number and severity. With each new story, men were more shocked at unfairness that was now, it seemed, rampant.
But the wise young Absalom sat quietly and added not a word to these murmurings. He was too noble, you see. He always closed the evening conversations with an humble word of deference toward those with responsibility...
But it was too much to expect that any man could sit quietly by forever. This endless parade of injustice was bound to stir even the most respectful man. Even the purest in heart would be smitten with anger. (And this man was certainly the very purest in heart!)
Such a compassionate man could not forever turn his face from these sufferings nor forever remain silent. Such noble character as this had someday to speak out.
Finally his followers, which he vowed he did not have, were almost livid. Their insights into the wrongdoings of the kingdom not only grew but abounded. They all wanted to do something about these endless injustices.
At last, it seemed, the magnificent young Absalom might concede. At the outset it was only a word. Later, a sentence. Men's hearts leaped. Glee, if not joy, reigned. Nobility was at last arousing itself to action. But no! He cautioned them not to misunderstand. He was grieved, yes, but he could not speak against those in seats of responsibility. No, absolutely not. No matter how great the grievances, no matter how justified. He would not.
Yet he grieved more and more. It was obvious that some reports drove him to agony. Finally, his righteous anger broke out in cool, controlled words of strength. "These things ought not to be." He stood, eyes blazing. "If I were in responsibility, this is what I would do..."
And with these words, the rebellion was ignited. Ignited in all but one, that is. In the noblest and purest man in the room, this was not the case.
Rebellion had been in his heart for years.
He is both sincere and ambitious. A contradiction, perhaps, but true, nonetheless. He probably means some of what he says. But his ambition will continue long after he discovers his inability to do the things he promises. Righting the wrongs always becomes secondary to ascent to power.
He (Absalom) was very emphatic that there should be more freedom in the kingdom. Everyone liked that. 'A people should be led only by God, and not by men,' he said. " Men should do only what they feel led of God to do. We should follow God, not a man.' I believe those were his words.
He (Absalom) spoke of the great visions he had for God's kingdom—of the great achievements the people were capable of. On the other hand, he spoke of many changes he would make in the way the kingdom is run. Although he did not seem to notice it, he had stated two irreconcilable propositions. Many changes, more freedom.
Absalom dreams. Dreams of what should be, of what will be: 'This is what I will do,' he says. But to fulfill those dreams, he must have the people's cooperation. Ah, this is the point men overlook. Such dreams rest totally on the premise that the people of God will be with the new leader, that all will see as he sees. Such men can envision no problems in there own future kingdom. What will Absalom do when people stop following him willingly? Ah, now there is a question.
You see, there is no kingdom without discord. Even God had His critics in heaven, you know. All kingdoms follow a bumpy course.
In the spiritual realm, a man who will lead a rebellion has already proven, no matter how grandiose his words or angelic his ways, that he has a critical nature, an unprincipled character, and hidden motives in his heart. Frankly, he is a thief. He creates dissatisfaction and tension within the realm, and then either seizes power or siphons off followers. The followers he gets, he uses to found his own dominion. Such a sorry beginning, built on the foundation of insurrection...No, God never honors division in His realm. "I find it curious that men who feel qualified to split God's kingdom do not feel capable of going somewhere else, to another land, to raise up a completely new kingdom. No, they must steal from another leader. I have never seen the exception. They seem always to need at least a few pre-packaged followers.
Beginning empty-handed and alone frightens the best of men. It also speaks volumes of just how sure they are that God is with them. Their every word, if seen true, tells of their insecurity.
There are many lands unspoiled and unpossessed. There are many people in other places waiting to follow a true king, a true man of God. I repeat myself. Why don't 'would-be kings and prophets' simply walk quietly away, alone, find another people in another place, and there raise up the kingdom they envision?
Men who lead rebellions in the spiritual world are unworthy men. There are no exceptions.

Alpine

Posts: 279
Reputation: 23
Join date: 2009-04-22

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Alpine on Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:29 am

Umm, I wonder if the Four Square leadership used the same analogy for Pastor Mitchell?

Still, logic and reason dictate it's a possibility for the Mitchell/Vicary relationship.

The problem for Ps Wayman and his 'advisors', can he back up his words with evidence in two keys areas of his accusation against David.


But your blog IS valid and makes for interesting re-reading of An Open Door. Like father, like son....

Mythbuster

Posts: 1248
Reputation: 126
Join date: 2009-04-30
Location: here

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Mythbuster on Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:33 pm

I don't see the correlation here, wasn't Absalom the mover and shaker behind his own rebellion? Was Absalom fired from being a son? Wasn't David put on the throne by God? Did he dislike King Saul and seek to undermind his Kingship or did he just do as the king commanded? etc etc. hmmm I can't see a valid point within that essay that matches up to the situation that happen a year ago.
Nice story though. 'A' for effort.

DaVe

Posts: 585
Reputation: 74
Join date: 2009-04-15

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by DaVe on Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:00 pm

Alpine wrote:Umm, I wonder if the Four Square leadership used the same analogy for Pastor Mitchell?

That's a good point Alpine. You could read the above article in light of this excerpt from The Vine and the Branches (Foursquare History).

G, feel free to read more posts on the forum. We've already been over any points that article may be implying.

For reference, the article posted by G is from here, a website that has a few articles on church splits:
http://www.therealchurch.com/church_splits/tale_of_three_kings.html


What's interesting is that the same website lists some criteria for whether a split is justifiable:

1. Is there a list of the persons faults and are they biblically justifiable? 1 Cor 13:5b NIV

2. Are we giving the accused ample time to defend himself? John 7:51

3. Are we doing to him or her, what we would want them to do to us? Matt 7:21

4. Is this going to be a good example for others to follow? Phil 3:17

5. Do we sense the presence and pleasure of God in what we are doing? Would revival spring from this behavior? 2 Chron 7:1-3

6. Are we considering the consequence of our behavior should we miss God? Judas, Absalom...

7. Are we endeavoring to maintain the unity of the body of Christ? Would Jesus, after praying for the unity of the church, be pleased with such behavior? Eph 4:3

8. Is the Holy Spirit leading this action? Rom 8:14

9. Is the person leaving willing to leave and take no one with him without reservation or excuse? Acts 20:29,30

10. Has conversations taken place without the presence of the accused. Gal 5:15

11. Has the goal always been reconciliation? 2 Cor 5:18

http://www.therealchurch.com/church_splits/church_splits.html

Darth Vader
Moderator

Posts: 400
Reputation: 65
Join date: 2009-05-25

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Darth Vader on Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:22 pm

G, your analogy is a flawed one but one that is not unexpected. Given that I spent 25 years in the PH, and a lot of those close to certain individuals who shared "convictions" within the PH that sum up your analogy. I myself used to quote these sorts of things in reference to other "rebels" who left the fellowship and all the while expressing my judgment and righteous indignation against them (just who did I think I was??). Seeds planted in me bearing fruit I guess. It is a flawed analogy for a number of reasonslisted below.

1. David Vicary was not and did not lead ANY rebellion or plant any seeds against Wayman Mitchell or the greater fellowship. You can verify that information with not only all those who left but even those who stayed in Beechboro.

2. David Vicary was Pastoring his Church and doing the best he could where he was. He wasn't sitting at Waymans gate wanting the throne. Who would want to usurp him? Who would want to lead the PH worldwide except a few ambitious men close to him. Why would DV want to move to Prescott if he could?

3.Wayman Mitchell is not a King of a kingdom, but rather we are all a part of God's kingdom in which Jesus is the ONLY king. Revelations 1:5 & 6 is worthy of mention.
"and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,
and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen".
We are all priests in his kingdom.

4. Wayman should not be Lording it over people telling them what to do and commanding them to do this and that expecting absolute obedience. Jesus himself said so. Mathew 23:1-11

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.5“Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteriesa wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’8“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.b 11The greatest among you will be your servant.12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Would be worthwhile you read the whole chapter. Jesus taught above that you don't have to live the way people who have set themselves up as "Spiritual Rulers" especially when they are hypocrites.This chapter has some very real insight into what happens to Pastors who forget they are there to serve God's people and not Lord over them. Isn't it interesting Jesus "ENCOURAGED" people to not "DO" what the Pharisees do even though they were the religious rulers of the day. WOW. Isn't Jesus being ABSOLOM if you want to use the same analogy? And didn't the Pharisees want him dead because of it? Isn't Jesus being a REBEL???
Some good questions to ask yourself I think.

5."Men who lead rebellions in the spiritual world are unworthy men. There are no exceptions."
You quoted the above, this can be just as easily applied to Wayman Mitchell as others have suggested/refer to his split with Foursquare. He did not get thrown out as he would have you believe but he rose up in so called "rebellion". So is Wayman unworthy also???

6. What I find VERY interesting is King David's response to Absolom's rebellion. If for a moment we apply it to this situation. What was David's response??
David fled his Kingdom...David trusted God for his safe return to the throne...David mourned his son's death when he found out...David blamed himself for the outcomes of this tragic story. David responded how God would have him.
Now let's look at Wayman's response.
Wayman spent years chasing David Vicary to catch him in error...Wayman did not trust God for DV's so called rebellion and seek restoration and a righteous outcome...Wayman has not mourned DV's sacking or the outcome, but rather has publicly slandered him after the fact...Wayman has blamed DV for everything even though HE was the one who pulled the trigger on the whole affair. In fact Wayman sounds more like King Saul to me if you want to apply any analogy.

Jesus said these words "All men will know you are my disciples if you love one another" Where was Wayman's love for DV that shone out to the world to prove he is a disciple of Christ?? It isn't there.

So whilst I welcome your input here at the forum, I would have to say that the analogy is not applicable in this circumstance except for the fact we need to be warned against ambition in our lives.

Happy new year.


(Edit in Bold italics)


Last edited by Darth Vader on Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:27 am; edited 2 times in total


_________________
"Luke...I am your father...Search your heart you know it to be true!"

mamajo

Posts: 49
Reputation: 12
Join date: 2009-06-27

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by mamajo on Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:38 pm

ditto what Darth Says!

heavenscent

Posts: 1
Reputation: 0
Join date: 2010-01-04

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by heavenscent on Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:17 pm

ditto ditto what darth says!

Mythbuster

Posts: 1248
Reputation: 126
Join date: 2009-04-30
Location: here

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Mythbuster on Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:11 am

well compiled Darth, I appreciate the thought that went into that post, very insightful and balanced.

aweebitopinionated

Posts: 271
Reputation: 51
Join date: 2009-04-27
Location: in front of the computer

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by aweebitopinionated on Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:45 am

DARTH ROCKS!!..........in a very spiritual and insightful way

Shug
Guest

Very Sad

Post by Shug on Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:26 am

I find it so sad to hear of such men like David Vickary, Rudy Van Deman and Jon Spurgeon, to name but a few, who have given so much of their lives to the building of a fellowship, then be discarded so easily. In the business world we know how to get the best out of employees which may at times result in a difference of opinion but as long as the common goal remains the same it is acheivable. Likewise in building the kingdom of God, as I am sure these men were and hopefully are still pursuing, it is certainly not limited to the fragile and rigid structure that seems to be within the PHCFM. Why then instead of cutting people off whom we have invested so much into, and in return they have invested their lives into extending the kingdom of God, do we not seek to bring more reconciliation before so much damage to God's Kingdom is caused. Or are we more interested in buidling our own little kingdoms while the world looks on and mocks us? Sometimes I wonder if we have ever gotten out of kindergarten where we knock each others little towers of blocks over!!!...from a very sad and dissapointed ex PHCFM disciple who after over ten years has returned to a PHCF church iin the UK only to realise that the heart of the fellowship seems to be gone and replaced with legalisim..or is the real deal still in arizona?

Srettop Shack

Posts: 39
Reputation: 19
Join date: 2010-01-27

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Srettop Shack on Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:10 pm

Hi G
Your comments are interesting. Do you realise what that means in relation to Pastor Wayman Mitchell, who in a significant act of rebellion pulled hundreds of churches out of the Four Square Gospel Church. In the process he left the fellowship that he was saved in, that taught him and discipled him, that gave him ministry and entrusted him with their churches. In doing this he removed himself from all covering, headship and peer scrutiny.
I was in one of those churches at the time and our congregation was never consulted on his plan and strategy. We were simply told after the event that we were no longer Four Square.

Neets

Posts: 203
Reputation: 28
Join date: 2009-04-28

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Neets on Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:38 pm

Good post Darth - well thought out and balanced.

Srettop Shack

Posts: 39
Reputation: 19
Join date: 2010-01-27

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Srettop Shack on Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:09 am

Hi Darth
I appreciate your response, however there is one part that I find confusing, you said:
"Jesus taught above that you don't have to obey those who set themselves
up as "Spiritual Rulers" and especially when they are hypocrites"

However the scripture you quoted said:
2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you
To me there appears to be a contradiction between the scripture and your statement. Could you please explain that to me?
Cheers

Srettop Shack

Posts: 39
Reputation: 19
Join date: 2010-01-27

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Srettop Shack on Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:21 am

.

The Potter

Posts: 34
Reputation: 8
Join date: 2010-01-28

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by The Potter on Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:43 am

There does seem to be a contradiction here - so does God expect us to follow spiritual leaders or not?
Do we only do so when they do right or do we continue to follow even when they wrong? And how do we know when they are wrong if they are the ones telling us what is right and wrong?

Darth Vader
Moderator

Posts: 400
Reputation: 65
Join date: 2009-05-25

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Darth Vader on Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:19 am

Srettop Shack wrote:Hi Darth
I appreciate your response, however there is one part that I find confusing, you said:
"Jesus taught above that you don't have to obey those who set themselves
up as "Spiritual Rulers" and especially when they are hypocrites"

However the scripture you quoted said:
2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you
To me there appears to be a contradiction between the scripture and your statement. Could you please explain that to me?
Cheers


Hi Srettop, yes you make a good point...My intention was to highlight the fact that Jesus made a difference between the Pharisees teachings and their lifestyle. Because they sat in Moses seat they were teaching the law and Jesus never faulted them on their teaching. He faulted them on the "spirit" of their teaching (binding heavy burdens) and their hypocrisy. He taught not to DO what they did because that would lead you into hypocrisy as well. Remember he taught "a little leaven leavens the whole lump"
I will edit my post to reflect this clearly.

To answer your question The Potter..
God does expect us to follow the examples of spiritual leaders but not to follow them. We are to follow Jesus. God's will for their lives may be different to his will for your life. And remember, Jesus taught that whoever wanted to be great had to be a servant of all. Not someone who is commanding you to do this and that and expect obedience. I find it interesting in my Christian walk that God never forces me to do anything, I have a free will. So even God doesn't force obedience and threaten with fear etc but rather he inspires and promises fruit and blessing as a result of obedience.

We are not expected to follow anybody that is in error. Paul himself taught this over and again. Galatians is clear. "Who has Bewitiched you" and "If we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel than hat you have already received..." John said to "test the spirits"
I find it amazing that I actually believed for years that I had to follow a man no matter what he taught simply because he was a "Pastor". It is not true, I have a headship and his name is Jesus. My Pastor is not my headship or my ruler. This is where the teaching has gone into error, nowhere will you find in the NT that your Pastor is your headship and has to be obeyed at all costs. In fact the Bible teaches us that Jesus is our headship not a Pastor. (1 Cor 11:3)

To your last question, this is quite a disturbing one. For many years I believed that what my pastor told me was right...was right. Many times I read the Bible and found contradiction between the two. My question is this. At what point in our lives did a man become more of an authority to us than the Word of God did. To know what is right and wrong in life you simply need to know your Bible. Your Spiritual leader shouldn't solely be the one telling you what is wrong and right. Your first port of call should be the Bible. And if any man's teaching doesn't line up with the W.O.G. than the man is wrong. We tend to trust spiritual leaders and pastors too much in my opinion because of relationship.

Hope that helps.


_________________
"Luke...I am your father...Search your heart you know it to be true!"

The Potter

Posts: 34
Reputation: 8
Join date: 2010-01-28

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by The Potter on Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:01 pm

Darth
You have said the following: "nowhere will you find in the NT that your Pastor is your headship and has to be obeyed at all costs". However verse 3 in the scripture that you quoted says: "you must obey them and do everything they tell you". Jesus was taking about the pharisees who he clearly didn't get on well with, however he was telling the people to obey them. And his directive had no caveats - he didn't say obey some of the things they tell you to do, he used the word everything!

Darth Vader
Moderator

Posts: 400
Reputation: 65
Join date: 2009-05-25

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Darth Vader on Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:59 pm

The Potter wrote:Darth
You have said the following: "nowhere will you find in the NT that your Pastor is your headship and has to be obeyed at all costs". However verse 3 in the scripture that you quoted says: "you must obey them and do everything they tell you". Jesus was taking about the pharisees who he clearly didn't get on well with, however he was telling the people to obey them. And his directive had no caveats - he didn't say obey some of the things they tell you to do, he used the word everything!


Hmmm. Interesting point. But Jesus is not talking about Pastors he is talking about Pharisees teaching the law. So I will repeat my statement.
"nowhere will you find in the NT that your Pastor is your headship and has to be obeyed at all costs". Find it for me.

Look at it and see it clearly...."Them" being Pharisees...who sit in Moses seat...teaching the Law...Pastors are not Pharisees. Jesus is not teaching unquestioned obedience to Pastors. Show me in the scriptures where it says your Pastor is your headship. Scripture has to be translated in context and not twisted to suit our interpretation.

However, if my Pastor teaches me what is right from the Word of God then I should listen to what he has to say and obey the scriptures. Agreed.

But it reminds me of kids who say "he told me to do it" and parents who say. "If he told you to jump off a cliff would you do it". You get the picture. How far will you obey your Pastor? Into sin, I can tell you that it has happened to me and many people over the years and it isn't right. A Pastor once told me to say something very nasty to a brother (new convert) in the Church, and as I was very young and believed I had to do everything he told me to do so I went ahead and did it. The result was I lost a friend, he was hurt and ended up leaving the Church and I violated my conscience because I knew it was wrong. So in that instance I should have said "no".

So I ask these questions...
1. Since when in scripture did disobeying a Pastor become disobeying God?
2. Would you obey your Pastor even if it meant you were violating scripture?


_________________
"Luke...I am your father...Search your heart you know it to be true!"

xaine

Posts: 65
Reputation: 13
Join date: 2009-05-05

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by xaine on Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:20 am

I think "at all costs" is a wrong extreme. However, Hebrews 13 (specifically verses 7 and 17) show the importance of having leaders in our lives.

But the balance is also brought in verse 9 (which answers the question you posed about obedience at all costs).

I have no problems in "obeying" my pastor (non-PH church) because I see the fruits of his life in being submitted to God. However, I also have the responsibility to correctly discern if he's taking his role seriously, or if he's "lording" it over the flock - if I ever picked up on that (which is highly unlikely given his character), then I'd be asking God to lead me to another church.

I see it like the marriage statements in Eph 5 - yes, wives are to submit to their husbands, but the balance is that husbands are to also be submitted to their wives "as Christ was for the church". Submission is not a lower position - it's an attitude of respect acknowledging the correct posture of a husband that esteems his wife higher than himself (which sadly can and does get abused).

Same with pastors - going back to Heb 13, we are to obey them, but only as we see fruits of a life submitted to Christ and correctly fulfilling the God-ordained office of pastor, seeing as they should actually be feeling the weight of "someone who must give a greater account" later on.

Hope this brings some balance.

xaine

Posts: 65
Reputation: 13
Join date: 2009-05-05

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by xaine on Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:43 am

On reflection, I thought I'd better clarify what I mean by "submission" to my pastor. That is in all spiritual areas of my life, as I believe that is what Hebrew 13 is talking about, not EVERY aspect of my life. My pastor doesn't "recommend" what clothes I wear, or what job I work, or even what church I go to.

If I made that decision, in respect I would tell him the reasons for moving, and I know that I would go with his blessing, regardless of his personal feelings about me going.

The Potter

Posts: 34
Reputation: 8
Join date: 2010-01-28

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by The Potter on Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:10 am

The scripture in Hebrews 13 talks about those who rule over you. This word literally means: to command with the sense of having official authority and is the same word used for a judge or governor. The word obey here means to assent (to evidence or authority). There seems to be a pretty strong indication here that those spiritual rulers (whether you want to call them pastors, pharisees or any other term) have a high level of authority over those who they rule. In addition those who are ruled are directed to obey or assent to their authority not just follow their good (or in some cases bad) examples.

Mythbuster

Posts: 1248
Reputation: 126
Join date: 2009-04-30
Location: here

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Mythbuster on Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:03 am

you guys are forgetting the second part of verse 3, you know the part where Jesus also says, 'do not do as they do because they do not practice what they preach', I think this sits well with what Vader has stated.

Alpine

Posts: 279
Reputation: 23
Join date: 2009-04-22

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Alpine on Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:16 am

The Potter wrote:The scripture in Hebrews 13 talks about those who rule over you. This word literally means: to command with the sense of having official authority and is the same word used for a judge or governor............ In addition those who are ruled are directed to obey or assent to their authority not just follow their good (or in some cases bad) examples.


......and then consider the outcome of their behaviour.....

Mythbuster

Posts: 1248
Reputation: 126
Join date: 2009-04-30
Location: here

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Mythbuster on Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:50 pm

These modern day "spirtual dynamo's" some people refer to as 'pastor's' or 'men of God', if they exert their supposed God given authority beyond the Word of God, then they are nothing, and not to be obeyed or even taken seriously.

Darth Vader
Moderator

Posts: 400
Reputation: 65
Join date: 2009-05-25

Re: A third party analysis of rebellion - Similar to the process of David Vicary

Post by Darth Vader on Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:04 pm

Good points guys...

I think an understanding of Church leadership is required. Pastors are not only shepherds/servants but Spiritual leaders of a Church. Their governance should be (as Mythy alluded to) based on scripture. We remain as members of a congregation in "submission" to their leadership in the Church. I trust my Pastor to lead the church and serve the Church. However he doesn't and won't micromanage my life and tell me what to do in my life. That is what working out your own salvation with fear and trembling means.

This Hebrews 13 scripture indicates submission to a godly leader in the Church as in a Pastor or Elder etc in the area of Church governance. But this is not teaching that they are my anyone's headship or stand between me and my relationship with God.

The Bible also states that we are to "submit one to another". Does this make everybody in the Church our headship?


_________________
"Luke...I am your father...Search your heart you know it to be true!"
  • Post new topic
  • Reply to topic

Current date/time is Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:13 am