Well thought out posting, Havila. God bless.

ghengis:

One of my favourite quotes remains: "the best of men are still men at their very best". the fact that a preacher "messes up" does not change the possible truth in the message(s) he's preached. If verifiable news about Pastor Adeboye of RCCG (or anyother preacher for that matter) filters in to reveal some sordid habits, does that change how many people God has blessed through them?

1. Yes they are still men at best, and thats why the exaltation and glorying  that man-made religious structure engenders will always prove problematic at best.

2. Absolutely, a preacher can mess up and still preach truth. Presumably the caution behind Mathew 7:15+. Please note the end of such. Does that mean that the preachers end is of no consequence?

ghengis:

My call is; follow God, pick his possible messages from men but don't wlak blindly behind them. I've headed a campus fellowship before and i sincerely know the times i was really on a low point in my life but was required to still encourage people in fellowship. I see it that most God help us all.

1. Nothing essentially wrong with picking "messages" from men, but why does it sound as if you are implying that's the primary or best way to hear from God? Nobody is called to walk behind any man. He said "Follow me", "My voice". Enough of this "man" thing already!

2. If by low point you meant sin, what would have been "required" is confession, repentance and your being encouraged and loved by the fellowship. It's nothing short of galloping hubris to suggest that those in an unrepented sinful state are somehow essential to the well-being of others, or their Christian walk will be halted without you. Well did He call them hypocrites. It's that same sort of warped thinking that led to this whole sorry mess. It stops you from dealing with the sin in your life and it thus abounds. It gives them cause to look up to you as somehow "holier than thou", engendering the kind of exaltation and veneration. And the obvious end? I guess you get your own thread  !

If however, you just meant low, as a feeling or situational thing, there are very few people who don't have a thorn or two at any given time. But we press on.

~ Sin doesn't just happen
~ The enemy has a plan and it's deeper than just toppling a few mogs.
~ Ever think that sexual immorality in the physical may well be a reflection of spiritual fornication?
~ There's a bride, but there's also a LovePeddler. Get understanding & discern the difference.

God bless.

@TV01
I agree with you that in many instance mere men have been placed in a intermediary position between God and the congregaion. so many people refuse to make any effort to know God on their own relying totally on the pastor. and in many instance this is encouraged by the pastors. however I'ld like to know if u are totally against a structured church [i.e. church structure].

@TV01
I agree with you that in many instance mere men have been placed in a intermediary position between God and the congregaion. so many people refuse to make any effort to know God on their own relying totally on the pastor. and in many instance this is encouraged by the pastors. however  I'ld like to know if u are totally against a structured church [i.e. church structure].

There is nothing to agree on with one who sees himself as exalted and from that high place points fingers at others and has no heart of compassion.

TV01,the world would know us by our love and that includes how we treat our wounded.
Pride cometh before a fall,most things I've read from you are laden with arrogance.
That is not of God.

God is a merciful God and the fruit of the Spirit  is well known to those who are led of Him.
Get off that high horse of yours,while you still have breathe in you.
Christians,(by that I mean)those who are washed by the blood and recognise that they are not of themselves,have prayed and are still praying for Pastor Ted.
If indeed you are one(as you claim),pray for him,it is impossible not to love people you pray for and love would change a haughty heart.


I make bold to say here that no one who is truly born of God, filled with his Spirit and spends time in his presence can give your same or similar analysis to this situation.

_{I may have come out hard on you,it's all in love,if I make silly comments,I would want Christians who care about me making heaven,to come out and chastise me in love.}

TV01,if we were having a discussion on sin in Christiandom and you said the things you said,perhaps I and many others would see your point.
But here we are talking specifically of a man of God that has fallen,recognises his mistakes(no matter how it happened) and no words of compassion comes out of your mouths.
What does your Bible say to do when your brother is caught up in a wrongdoing?
Hold a foot down on him and keep him down?

All your utterances here scream out accusations.
That is the job of the enemy!!
Not yours.

God indeed humbles the proud(or lets situations humble them)

Hi Lafile,

In response to your question about church structure, my response is appended below.

I wouldn’t say I’m against, what I am, is “for”. I am for proper, biblically mandated church structure.

The gospel is simple, nothing convoluted or high-falutin’ about “The Way”.

The Bible outlines a church which requires only 2 offices, that of elder and deacon. Bishops, Shepherds, Pastors etcetera, are all different renderings of the role/functions of an Elder and are essentially synonymous and interchangeable. Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop, General Overseer, Superintendent, Senior Pastor and the like, are all symptomatic of men playing religion (as is denominationalism, the notion of “body splits” i.e. clergy/laity or leaders/followers, and other variants of the sectarian spirit).

Elders should always be in plurality (one obvious reason for this is to stop any one person becoming the focus of, or bearing overwhelming influence on the assembly). There is no requirement for salaried workers (with the possible exception of far flung missionaries whose sole purpose is to spread the gospel in as yet unreached places). That is why Elders receive double honour, as in addition to caring and providing for their families, they also share the burden of shepherding the flock of God.

Furthermore, the church is to be local, with locals ministering to each other and elders to be chosen from amongst proven, mature local men. No church requires or derives “apostolic succession”? authority or covering from any other. Neither is networking on a conference or regional basis necessary. The Lord Jesus is “Head” of the Church (His church, His bride), wherever it exists. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that the church is either “hierarchical”, or an “institution”. Neither is God Chairman/CEO. The church is a family and God is our Father.

Keeping it local obviates the need for temples (God no longer dwells in physical ones anyway), and keeps fellowship size manageable. It places church right back into the community like I believe God intended. Instead of what current churches do, which is to take believers out of their communities, effectively ghettoizing the church (taking the light out of the world, and hiding it in a temple).

Tithing is not required (neither is it biblically warranted). So, with no salaried workers, no temples, and no tithe, money essentially ceases to be an issue, and is only required when there is a genuine financial need within in the body (As is the pattern throughout Acts & the NT).

The Bible demands that provision is made for one’s family first (again torpedoing that evil “tithe” notion), for the needy in the church second and the needy outside after that.

I’ll stop for now to enable further comment from interested parties. Like I said, simple.

God bless.

BabyOsisi,

I quote you below:

"But here we are talking specifically of a man of God that has fallen",

The "we" here does not include me.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, I discuss, scripture, doctine, theology, faith, practice, outworking, concepts ideas, events, but not people.

No where have I accused, judged, condemned, ridiculed or even commented on Ted Haggard or the "scandal". In fact I'll go as far as to say I am only vaguely aware of the details of the case and simply skipped the letter from him you posted earlier.

If I have, please quote/reference where and I'll respond accordingly. Either to apologise and repent, or clear up any misunderstanding.

After all, I am covering for no one and authority over none. No reputation to defend and no position to protect. I have nothing to hide or to lose  !

Thanks & God bless

suit yourself then.
you have to be always right.
your response to lafile tells me more about you.

I doubt if I could refer to you as brother.
and please don't change the focus on the thread.
This is not about you and your agenda.

as the Bible says (paraphrasing) - "not all those who call me 'Lord, Lord' will enter into the kingdom of heaven". Personally, I am always iffy about those who wear their christianity on their sleeves. I blv the Bible also says we shouldn't blow our trumpets (again, paraphrasing). To me, you should let your christiainity show in the way you carry yourself and not in how many times you say "God bless you" or "By the grace of God"

Oh boy, I can't wait for those who will label me the anti-christ after this post

I'm currently laughing at all the sheep stupid enough to listen to dearest Ted. Especially those who are now angered and offended by his homosexuality.

But what really and truely makes me chuckle is the inner turmoil he must be going through.

For a man such as dearest Ted, taught to hate those like himself, this must be agony.

Unless, of course, he's a really adept liar. Being a 'preacher' he probably is.

It's like the Catholic Church (a.k.a. NAMBLA) scandals all over again.

Good times.

What makes this case so offensive is that this is a man that advocates intolerance towards homosexuals.

@Seun,

Neither Ted nor any Christian advocates intolerance towards homosexuals. We condemn the sin of homosexuality while praying for, admonishing and loving those who are caught in this vilest of sins.

That we condemn stealing does not mean we are intolerant towards thieves. I hope you will make that correction in your mind and not hold to the current one so as to remain an ally with those who have an agenda.

@TV01,

I chose to respond to you not because I feel you are here to learn from others as you share valuable knowledge too, but because some of weak faith might take your bold-face stance as the Gospel truth.   I must admit that I understand your quest to ensure that Christians live by the Bible, but you have only suceeded in moving from the ditch on one side of the road into a ditch on the other side.  The goal here is to stay in the middle of the road and not vear off-course.

Pray tell, did the Lord expect these fed to remain in need of feeding forever? Would you expect a younger brother of yours to be dependant on your for the entirety of his life?

Of course the Lord expect us to be fed for ever.  He only expects that we do not remain on the diet of milk forever.  Milk is fed to the babies, while strong meat is fed to those that are of full age.  A sheep will always remain a sheep and will always require a shepherd.  Jesus is described as the Chief Shepherd in scriptures, indicating that there are some under-shepherds under Him.  

You really do believe that faith in Jesus Christ is at least in part predicated on a relationship with MOGS don’t you. The Lord said “My sheep” He also said “My voice”. He went on to say “follow me”. And further “Take up your cross and follow me”. Due mostly to your flawed understanding of Christian relationship and interaction (you probably – knowingly or unknowingly – cling to an organisational/hierarchical model of church), you really can’t see it can you? Paul met with the Lord. Have you? Have you even met with Paul? “The treasure is in jars of clay, that the excellency may be of God”. We all imitate our earthly fathers or elder brothers, but you have to be able to stand. You really feel that giving attention to men will aid your walk? Can you tell the difference between a sheep and a lemming?

I do not understand what you mean by a relationship with MOG.  I can't remember if I've ever had to ask or seek a personal time with my Pastor in over 10 years.  Like my Pastor in naija used to say, no one would ever need to see him if all will make good use of the ministry teaching tapes, because there is nothing that he will say now in that situation that'll be differnet from what he said before.   The same Word of God hasn't changed and that is all that matters.  Have I met the Lord you ask.  The answer to that is Yes, and I met Him and believed on Him through men John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.

Follow their faith, not them. Their example. Daddy was a coal miner and worked hard. Is it about being a coal miner or working hard? Dude, get understanding!

I must hand it to you TV01, you have the unique gift of ascribing things and acts to people that are alien to them.  I know you might think it strange, but I do not pray to my Pastor at all, I do not even pray in his name, and neither do I see him as the Comforter who shall lead me into all truth.  So does this answer your question?  And by the way, the 'HIM' in whom I live, and move and have my beign which you must have seen as my signature on this forum is actually not my Pastor  .  

Again, you fail to read and respond in turn. I said you were misapplying the OT, your response is to say I am declaring it redundant. Speaks volumes about your reasoning and thought processes. BTW, the NT says rebuke sin and restore a fallen brother in love. The OT is not a template for NT Christian life. BY trying to force fit it, and ham-fistedly misapply it, you are undermining the fullness to be found in the NT.

Why are you trying to teach me anything when the Holy Spirit is the one meant to teach me all things?  Are you trying to usurp His role?  While the OT is not a template for the Christian life, there is no instruction or admonition in it that is not relevant to our daily experience.  Can you count how many times the NT writings refernces the OT?  And by the way, if your application of a NT reality contradicts the  principle and Spirit of the OT, then something must be wrong somewhere.

Again your ignorance thunders. An elder and a pastor are to a great degree synonymous. Again, you wrongly ascribe and plain misunderstand. I believe in the Lord. “Pastorship” is not something one believes in, it’s something one understands (or fails to) and applies (or mis-applies)accordingly. I have said time and again, there is no scriptural mandate for a “Pastorship” as commonly used in many churches these days, and that would include the sort assumed by Ted Haggard (I’m 100% sure that you won’t attempt to validate your “pastorship” stance from scripture, as it can’t be done!).

I have no problem if I'm ignorant.  I know I do not know it all, and the more I know, the more I realise I don't know.  Like someone said knowledge is going from an unconscious to a conscious knoweldge of one's ignorance.   As long as you realise that pastor does not necessarily means elder, then I have no problem with you.  An elder might be a pastor, but not necessarily one; while a pastor might also be an elder but not necessarily one.  A common denominator with all elders is their ages and maturity.  The elder concept was adopted by the church from the Mosaic tradition, where the affairs of the community is handled by those that are advance in years.   However, the principle that spiritality and wisdom transcends age was well laid out by Elihu who said: I thought that age should speak and multitude of years should teach wisdom, but there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Lord gives them understanding.  Going by this same prinsiple, Paul instructed Timothy (the young Pastor of the church in Ephesus) that he should ensure no one despises his youth.  This same young pastor had the sole power and responsibility to appoint elders and to rebuke them when they are out of line.  It is also curious that Jesus in the Book of Revelation had to mention just one messenger when addressing the churches.  Elders were conspicuosly absent in His messages.

Please see my immediate previous response. The flawed structure and unscriptural mandates speak to and feed the flesh. The outworking is what you see all around you. There is a difference between a man honoured and respected as an elder (scriptural), and one revered and deferred to as a MOG (not scriptural).

I have nothing to say about anyone, but please hear this -  “For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord”. Paul could not even presume to declare himself guiltless. And here you are endorsing a mere man, whom I doubt you even met. But then again, you venerate those who you haven’t even seen. Working hard for that "Mogsbottom" title

Can you point out the differences between the honour and fear of those in authority as you have mentioned above.  I fear and rever no one, but I hold in high esteem and honor those the Lord has placed in authority over me in the local assembly.  And as I said earlier, the elder concept was brought into the church from judaism.  I find no where in the Bible where Jesus called some to be elders, rather He called some to be Pastors etc,    Please compare that Paul's statment with this one 1 Thessalonians 2:10 - Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:  So was Paul endorsing himself as you have claimed?  And how are we to follow their examples if we can't judge what they've done?  And going by the example yo cited earlier, how will I know to follow someon's hardworking example if I can't judge that he was hardworking?  You so contradict yourself in your effort to maintain your unscriptural positing.  And by the way, you mentioned Ted Haggard as an example of a victim of a failed church structure, yet you calim you know no man's reputation.  Now, that is a contemporary case of hypocrisy.

I believe the issue here is The Ted Haggard Scandal not the TV01/TayoD argument, with all due respect my brethren.

Be that as it may, I would like to agree with certain issues:

1) Christianity is not about Pastor this or Pastor that; it's about one's personal relationship with God.  This church thing i.e. structured church if I may borrow TV01's expression, is more man-made than anything, hence the flaws. That is not to say that it is all bad but you put a man/woman on a pedestal, you sure as heaven are putting undue pressure on such a person and when they 'fall' it is not a pretty sight.

2) Compassion is the key thing in our walk with our Master. TV01, I know that you are not honing in on personalities and I quite agreed with your take on this issue but my bros, it was a cold 'take' . No matter what, compassion, compassion, compassion.

3)We are all in this race together and anything can happen; you can stumble in a race, fall, faint out of fatigue, refuse to continue, be distracted, fall ill or die in the course of it

Let us all look to Jesus and Him alone; the Author and Finisher of our faith so that we all can make it in one piece.

Ted Haggard should be an example to us all. The Igbo name for the devil is Ekwensu in other words, onye kwe, osu if you agree/give in/yield, then it will happen.

So at some point, Ted Haggard might have kwe'd (yielded/'gree'd) and being in a position of power may have made it difficult for him to own up or seek help.

He as well as christians worldwide need our prayers so that we can all make it to the end and receive - Well done, thou good and faithful servant

Ka Chineke mezie okwu

enugu:

I believe the issue here is The Ted Haggard Scandal not the TV01/TayoD argument, with all due respect my brethren.

Quite correct to. I apologise if my ongoing dialogue with TayoD may appear to have swamped the dialogue at hand. (TayoD, outside, now!  )

enugu:

2) Compassion is the key thing in our walk with our Master. TV01, I know that you are not honing in on personalities and I quite agreed with your take on this issue but my bros, it was a cold 'take' . No matter what, compassion, compassion, compassion.

Point taken. I hope that people can see that in my effort to remain objective about the issues, I like to be dispassionate when I write. Please don't feel that means I am not compassionate. It's a salutory lesson when anyone who names the name of Christ finds oneself in such a place. However, before this thing broke, I can't honestly say I had any knowledge of the man. It would be hypocritical for me to feign anguish or distress. I am looking to the lesson. Please don't judge me to harshly.

Thanks for your counsel.

I know (I think?) just the one word of Igbo.

Kachifo.

God bless

TayoD,

You said;
1. An elder might be a pastor, but not necessarily one; while a pastor might also be an elder but not necessarily one.

2. The elder concept was adopted by the church from the Mosaic tradition

3. This same young pastor had the sole power and responsibility to appoint elders and to rebuke them when they are out of line.

4. It is also curious that Jesus in the Book of Revelation had to mention just one messenger when addressing the churches.  Elders were conspicuosly absent in His messages.

5. And by the way, you mentioned Ted Haggard as an example of a victim of a failed church structure, yet you calim you know no man's reputation.  Now, that is a contemporary case of hypocrisy.

I shal respond point by point

1. First part correct, second part is not. The pastoral is a function, and in a church setting it is carried out by qualified elders.

2. Paul in (Primarily in 1&2 Timothy & Titus laid out the proper structure and functioning of the church). Firstly, Timothy was not a "Pastor with sole authority" in the sense it is used today. He was acting in conjunction with Paul to establish the church in that locale (it was foundational, not ongoing). Once a church is established it is led by suitably qualified elders. Paul got his revelation about this direct from the Lord (it wasn't the adoption of a well worn Mosaic tradition). New wine, new wine skins.

3. As above. Just as the Apostles etc, all settled into eldership roles once the church had been established, no one in any church (Not counting The Lord of course), is charged with sole authority. Something else you've obviously seen fit to adopt from judaism, along with tithing and a priestly hierarchy. 

4. So then messenger is synonymous with pastor? I'm sure you are aware that it could be (and would be under vigourous scholarship) translated somewhat differently. Pastor of course suits your tightly held traditions. One is hard pressed to find a translation that uses the word Pastor more than once. It has been made (by men) into what it was never meant to be. The Lord had little to say about church structure (not directly anyway, that's why He sent Paul). It's quite a stretch to fit "Pastor with sole authority over the church" into "messenger". Especially when you think that there where numerous churches in each geographical region. Look harder sir, with a sincere heart you will see it. I'd also appreciate it if you could critique my church blueprint as outlined in my earlier response to Lafile. Scripturally of course .

5. If tradition has become so overwhelming and entrenched, that it has made the commandments of God of no effect, then everyone who partakes knowingly or otherwise, is either a perpetrator or victim. That is not about Ted Haggard. May I refer you to Matthew 23.

I can see that you swallowed wholesale prevailing traditional thinking. I would urge you to read the Bible with unbiased eyes. I am glad that you are aware of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. May He lead us all into all truth. may we allow Him.

God bless.

The US federal government listens to this man, and he did the opposite of preaching tolerance for gays.
I'm not offended because he's homosexual/bisexual, but because he tried to make life difficult for homosexuals.

Isn't it Western Christian Civilization?

Shouldn't one out of deference to the severe problem of homosexuality that whites have been through in the past, allow them to fight against this terrible problem of theirs using their Christianity?

We are talking about people who had society's that believed -- better soldiers are homosexual lovers with their fellow soldiers. They protect whom they love more.

Whose upper classes favored homosexuality.

The Warriors were forced into it, to get dominance against them ever rebelling against the government.

Maybe whitefolks got good historical reasons to make sure life is difficult for homosexuals.

Huh? So homosexuality is a problem and intolerance is the answer? I'm so gonna expose you too!

Seun,

What other lifestyle do you know of that leads to 90+ domestic abuse, drinking/drug problem, etc, etc?

To the point where some homosexuals want to get aids and aids is up in their community? http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939950/bug_chasers

Of course homosexuliaty is a problem. And it's been a bigger problem in the past where the boys were being raped and old Greeks used to have whole towns of boys practicing holding their breathe underwater because that is the way one Greek Ruler liked sex.

Who are we to say we know better than them and we have never faced these types of community's? Where homosexuality seems rampant?

Sodom & Gommorah ring a bell?

A town that waited like vultures to homosexually rape every boy/man who came there?

Even during the crusades the Christian soldiers raped the men and women alike, to gain dominance over the remaining populace.

Whites had to fight such tolerance they had for homosexuality.

What about when you have a society that has too much tolerance for homosexaulity?

We never been through that, we can not be so quick and easy to condemn other cultures for something we can not even comprehend, how bad it was for them?

Drusilla, are you drunk? Homosexuality is common in white and black communities in America atleast.

Donzman,

So if it is common and 86 percent of the American population claims to be Christian. Then where could any talk of Christian intolerance be coming from?

No where. It's a false charge in America against Christians.

TayoD:

@Seun,

Neither Ted nor any Christian advocates intolerance towards homosexuals. We condemn the sin of homosexuality while praying for, admonishing and loving those who are caught in this vilest of sins.

That we condemn stealing does not mean we are intolerant towards thieves. I hope you will make that correction in your mind and not hold to the current one so as to remain an ally with those who have an agenda.

Actually, there are Christians that advocate intolerance towards homosexuals - look through this thread for just one example. I'm not overly familiar with Ted Haggard's preaching, but it seems many believe he was advocating intolerance against homosexuals and the rights of homosexuals.

Donzman:

Drusilla, are you drunk? Homosexuality is common in white and black communities in America atleast.

Good question and good point.

Drusilla:

Seun,

What other lifestyle do you know of that leads to 90+ domestic abuse, drinking/drug problem, etc, etc?

The heterosexual lifestyle?

To the point where some homosexuals want to get aids and aids is up in their community? http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939950/bug_chasers

There are freaky fetishists of all sexual orientations.

Of course homosexuliaty is a problem. And it's been a bigger problem in the past where the boys were being raped and old Greeks used to have whole towns of boys practicing holding their breathe underwater because that is the way one Greek Ruler liked sex.

That would be pedophilia then - peodephilia with another fetish it would seem.

Who are we to say we know better than them and we have never faced these types of community's? Where homosexuality seems rampant?

We are empathic human beings who shouldn't let injustice, bigotry etc. go unchecked. We shouldn't also advocate intolerance under faulty premises and flimsy pretexts.

Drusilla:

Donzman,

So if it is common and 86 percent of the American population claims to be Christian. Then where could any talk of Christian intolerance be coming from?

From the fact that there are intolerant Christians.

No where. It's a false charge in America against Christians.

Sure, they made it up just to spite Christians - even going as far as creating people like Fred Phelps to spearhead their "America against Christians" campaign. Those bastards!

@Enugu,

While I have noted your concern, I do not necessarily think that we have taken this thread off-course.  My reason? TV01 claims that the present church structure is a major contributor to the fall of Ted Haggard.  It is only appropriate that we discuss this church structure in order to clear any doubt in the mind of those who may be swayed by such arguments.  Visibility is not bad in itself, infact, Jesus advocated it saying we should be set up on a hill that cannot be hid.  If Ted wasn't a church leader, he would have done the same thing he did because that problem lies in his flesh. And like someone once said: "That which brings a man down from his position of honour must have climbed up the ladder with him"  SELAH.

@TV01,

Enugu mentioned compassion while refering to your writings.  That is the word I guess I was looking for when I mentioned that you may have the letter of the Word, but you do show a deficiency in the Spirit of it.  Maybe you should be more careful in the future under such circumstances and understand that mercy must always triumoh over judgement.  Now back to your response.

1. First part correct, second part is not. The pastoral is a function, and in a church setting it is carried out by qualified elders.

 I do not agree with you.  The pastoral is an office you are called directly by Jesus to fulfil.  The role of an elder is more of a function, usually of administration.  You have to prove your worth to be qualified to become an elder, while you are called into the pastoral irrespective of your worth.  Same is true of the so-called five-fold ministry.  God's calling even predates our births.

2. Paul in (Primarily in 1&2 Timothy & Titus laid out the proper structure and functioning of the church). Firstly, Timothy was not a "Pastor with sole authority" in the sense it is used today. He was acting in conjunction with Paul to establish the church in that locale (it was foundational, not ongoing). Once a church is established it is led by suitably qualified elders. Paul got his revelation about this direct from the Lord (it wasn't the adoption of a well worn Mosaic tradition). New wine, new wine skins.

A church is not led by suitably qualified elders.  Go back and do your study very well and you will find that elders are appointed over cities to see to the administration of the churches within that city.  The work of feeding and shepherding God's flock is primarily the job of a Pastor (Shephard).  The elders role is more of advice and consent.  And like I said before, an elder who also performs a dual role of laboring in word and doctrine could well be a Pastor.  I can't believe you said the elder concept was not a Mosaic tradition.  This was so practiced by Isreal before the advent of the church.  Like the five-fold ministry in the NT, the offices of the Prophets, Priest and Kings were the only ones ordained in the OT, but the elder concept was adopted also by the people.

3. As above. Just as the Apostles etc, all settled into eldership roles once the church had been established, no one in any church (Not counting The Lord of course), is charged with sole authority. Something else you've obviously seen fit to adopt from judaism, along with tithing and a priestly hierarchy.

Though there is no proof that ALL the Apostles settled into an elderly role, I believe it is not impossible that such a scenario might have played itself out.  I am so convinced by the fact that Jesus recognises only one authority within the local assembly.  Why then would He address only the Messenger and ignore the elders in the Book of Revelation?  I guess it might be because He didn't call anybody to be an Elder.  On the other hand, He is bound to address those He called into the ministry office of a shepherd when He has a message for the local assembly.  He trusts that the ones He puts in charde will get the message across to His sheep.

4. So then messenger is synonymous with pastor? I'm sure you are aware that it could be (and would be under vigourous scholarship) translated somewhat differently. Pastor of course suits your tightly held traditions. One is hard pressed to find a translation that uses the word Pastor more than once. It has been made (by men) into what it was never meant to be. The Lord had little to say about church structure (not directly anyway, that's why He sent Paul). It's quite a stretch to fit "Pastor with sole authority over the church" into "messenger". Especially when you think that there where numerous churches in each geographical region. Look harder sir, with a sincere heart you will see it. I'd also appreciate it if you could critique my church blueprint as outlined in my earlier response to Lafile. Scripturally of course

So is messenger synonymous with Elder(s)?  No doubt He was refering to an individual, and who will He be talking to with respect to the shepherding of His flock if not the under-shepherd (pastor).  So what is the Pastor meant to be?  I personally do not see anything wrong in calling soomeone by the office that He occupies.  Paul always emphasises his office as an Apostle, and he said "I magnify my office" in his letter to the Romans.  I'll discuss your church blueprint (another word for hierachy) in another postings.

5. If tradition has become so overwhelming and entrenched, that it has made the commandments of God of no effect, then everyone who partakes knowingly or otherwise, is either a perpetrator or victim. That is not about Ted Haggard. May I refer you to Matthew 23.

There are good and bad traditions.  If the tradition makes the Word of God of non-effect, then we will do well to jettison it.  Every good thing is subject to abuse, and the ministerial offices is no exception.  At the same time, the Elder concept you talk about are also subject to same abuse.  Such can be worn on the shoulder, and calling a group of believers 'Elders' has same potential to alienate some as you fear the pastoral connotation is doing today.  And will the word "Leading Elder" be the title for the Pastor as some do practice now?  Would that be the denomination you go to?  I wish I can remember which denomination it is that practices that concpet.

@TV01,

Now to your approved church-struture.

The Bible outlines a church which requires only 2 offices, that of elder and deacon. Bishops, Shepherds, Pastors etcetera, are all different renderings of the role/functions of an Elder and are essentially synonymous and interchangeable. Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop, General Overseer, Superintendent, Senior Pastor and the like, are all symptomatic of men playing religion (as is denominationalism, the notion of “body splits” i.e. clergy/laity or leaders/followers, and other variants of the sectarian spirit).

The first thing that screams out loud from the statement is lumping up the office of the pastor with that of the elder and separating the role of a shepherd from the pastor, though they essentially mean the same thing.  The Pastor might be an elder but not necessarily one. A young man, like Timothy could never be called an Elder, even if he performed the role of a Pastor.  Elder is not synonymous with being a Pastor.  Why didn't Ephesians use the Word Elder instead of Pastor? Paul only used the words synonymously on few occasions, and I believe it is because the people he had in mind in those writings performed the dual role.

Elders should always be in plurality (one obvious reason for this is to stop any one person becoming the focus of, or bearing overwhelming influence on the assembly). There is no requirement for salaried workers (with the possible exception of far flung missionaries whose sole purpose is to spread the gospel in as yet unreached places). That is why Elders receive double honour, as in addition to caring and providing for their families, they also share the burden of shepherding the flock of God.

The reason why Elders are in plurality is because they are usually appointed over cities.  It is akin to the Pentecostal Fellowhip of Nigeria where head and hearts come together to advice and consent on church affairs.  I wonder why you will have problems with one person becoming the focus when Jesus obviously didnt in His letter to local assemblies in the Book of Revelation.  
As a response to your salaried workers thing, here is 1 Corinthians 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.   So what are you saying again?  

Furthermore, the church is to be local, with locals ministering to each other and elders to be chosen from amongst proven, mature local men. No church requires or derives “apostolic succession”? authority or covering from any other. Neither is networking on a conference or regional basis necessary. The Lord Jesus is “Head” of the Church (His church, His bride), wherever it exists. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that the church is either “hierarchical”, or an “institution”.  Neither is God Chairman/CEO. The church is a family and God is our Father.

I do not undestand what you mean by Apostolic sucession.  If however you are refering to the office of the Pope, then I am in agreement with you.  "Covering" is another term I really do not understand.  Maybe you mean accountable, and Ted was accountable to others and some were accountable to him not in the sense of Lording it over but in the sense of having people around you who can caution and advice you as required scripturally.  Netwroking is never a bad thing.  Infact, isn't the Bible clear that in the presence of many advisors (networking) there is safety?  While the church is a family, we are also His sheep that must be fed by His under-shepherd (the Pastor).  

Keeping it local obviates the need for temples (God no longer dwells in physical ones anyway), and keeps fellowship size manageable. It places church right back into the community like I believe God intended. Instead of what current churches do, which is to take believers out of their communities, effectively ghettoizing the church (taking the light out of the world, and hiding it in a temple).

So are we to always meet in the open.  Go back to Jesus' time and always meet on mountain tops?  I wonder what we will do during winter periods then; probably requests for the pillar of fire from heaven to keep us warm as in the wilderness journey of Isreal.  Any size can be managed.  The United States is bigger than most countries yet it is better managed than most.  I agree to an extent that the church is withdrawing a little from the society more than it should.  That is why we are getting right back into it and making a differece, even in politics.

Tithing is not required (neither is it biblically warranted). So, with no salaried workers, no temples, and no tithe, money essentially ceases to be an issue, and is only required when there is a genuine financial need within in the body (As is the pattern throughout Acts & the NT).

You know I disagree with you about tithing, and I have shown you from 1 Corinthians about Jesus' command that they which preach the Gospel must live off the Gospel.  And if they which live off the temple in the OT do this through the tithe, revelation dictates that the same must be true of the Gospel.  Money will always be an issue.  So will you tell me your church cannot find a use for a million dollars today if they got one?  Money is needed to preach the Gospel, buy air time, and stadium or whatever space is required to stage a crusade.

The Bible demands that provision is made for one’s family first (again torpedoing that evil “tithe” notion), for the needy in the church second and the needy outside after that.

Your conclusion here is unjustified when we consider that the principle in the OT that God must be honored first is violated.  Your family comes after God, then will the poor and needy around you. This is one principle I follow: No sin in the Old Testament is permitted in the NT, and neither is any principle permitted in the OT to be violated in the NT.

I'm not homosexual so I won't bother wading into the murky arguments, but I very much despise such hypocrisy.

Quote from Babyosisi: There is nothing to agree on with one who sees himself as exalted and from that high place points fingers at others and has no heart of compassion. TV01,the world would know us by our love and that includes how we treat our wounded. Pride cometh before a fall,most things I've read from you are laden with arrogance. That is not of God.

,@Dear Babyosisi,
I read you posting above and I found it very amusing. You see, I am not surprised at the sentiments you displayed  because I share it almost totally and I really do not blame you, dear. Communication experts have said that even the best of messages when wrongly packaged will appear wrong. But I just thought I should add that,,,,,well,,,at times we need to handle some people with maturity and occasionaly pick hidden wisdom. The individual you were responding to with your quoted post above is somebody that I personally will NOT engage in a discussion or respond to regardless of whatever he might say; because he is a "self-confessed christian" but with obvious divers and 'strange' doctrine that is prefabricated on spiritual pride and arrogance. Such an individual is the business of holy spirit to teach, educate or enlighten, not man. (thus I commed TayoD's struggle ). I will rather engage an atheist, muslim or pagan than such a 'born again' christian. Why did I say this? in the journey of faith in life, there are 2 stages, first is Conversion and after this comes Regeneration. While Conversion is the product of a conscious and genuine decision by an individual to become saved inspired by the holy spirit; the journey of Regeration (during which we grow or mature in christ and in our individual ministry) is primarily the work of God/Holy Spirit. Thus while I can engage muslims, pagans, atheist etc with the hope of their conversion, I can only pray for a 'born again' christian displaying such spiritual arrogance, i.e. the-I-know-it-all and I-am-always-right-syndrome. This trait is not one-off, it is consistent in all his posts, in all topics, in all threads. So please pray for him,which is what I have done.

PART B: On the other hand, he might have some interesting/sensible points (only very few, mind you), but as I said, the erroneous packaging and the arrogant delivery of such points has confounded the few sensible messages. We as christians, need to always pray for, and uphold our Men of God, not only from attack of the devil but also from the behaviour of people of God ourselves. It is true that in a lot of churces, 'christians' may unknowingly be setting up their Pastors/Leaders by "over-edification", if not more than God himself. Such a thing can isolate our Pastors because they will be afraid of showing any weakness or showing their human side but more importantly to seek help for such weakness, when surronded by such a people who almost 'idolise' them. There is nothing wrong with honouring and respecting our men of God. For example, I've been attending a programme of fasting and prayers in church with a Guest minister from Minneapolis, a good inspirational teacher and prayer warrior; at the end of one of the programmes, he said that "There may be one or two people who God has laid it on their hearts to shake his hand at the end of the programme and he would wait." At the end of the programme, almost the entire church lined up to "shake" his hand for more prayers. A lady now asked me if I am not going to shake the guest minister's hand, I said no because God did not lay it on my heart to do so, but God laid it on my heart to pray for him. She said she will go, and I asked did God lay it on your heart?, she did not reply but laughed. I believe that there are people who God told to do so but most might have turned it to 'opportunity' to shake the MOG'. The point is this: after more than 4 days of praying and fasting to God, some people still believe they need to shake the hand of the MOG. Believe me, even the strongest of men could become weak or proud with such 'adulation'. Now, imagine if somebody like that has a problem and needs help, how easy will it be for him to seek help with such an adulating crowd.?
So, we need to pray for our men of God and for maturity to increase in the body of christ. Because just as TayoD rightly said, God want's us to be fed for life but he also wants us to grow from milk to meat in the journey of faith. Our Pastors are among the most isolated people because of the behaviours of us christians, and this is being used by devil to attack them. So, let's really pray for divine wisdom for men of God particularly to deal with such situations which is very common.

one might wonder, how did he so far in the christendom without being noticed? was he true christian in the first place?

the american evangelical church, especially in the bible belt is more of a cultural and political animal than anything else. Frankly, I am not surprised about Haggard, and will not be shocked if other hgh profile leaders of this group fall in the future.

You can tell the quality of a christian by the fruit of what they do, not just what they say. The americal evangelicals, at this point, are a beehive of hypocrisy. in my opinion and experience.