Value to local church

[RuSKY]

I know we have visited tis topic before, but with all the curent events taking place it might be worthy to re visit it once again.

The growth of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement could be even greater if:

The central headquarters of these Spirit Filled movements would become more supportive and less controling. More open to being more of a fellowship of like minded churches who share a common doctrine and purpose.

Becoming less of a central depository of funds, and less top down in governmental structure. Being that their is no true theocracy in operation as described in the word. each church should operate not independant but more interdependant one on another.,

Each church should be given the option of their giving both in offering and in tithe and the freedom to choose which programs they desire to be a part of. Thus allowing for many church's to truly "give with a cheerful heart."

Accounability to a headquarters should be only in situations where the local level fails in areas of morals and ethics. Eliminate the political dynamics that have come to destroy to many churches and ministers

Quoting Paul from another thread, I was wondering, what support, you
feel that your local church recieves from the type of government that
_ _COG_ _ s (you fill in the blanks) have.

Are they, State Hdq., or Gen. Hdq., doing anything for your local that
you couldn't do for yourself, other than hosting the G.A., State Conventions,
and appointing your pastor?

Or, do you feel it is more you supporting them?


RuSKY

[Pastor Bill]

Our State offices are very supportive, IF you take advantage of what they are providing. Leadership training for pastors and ministry leaders has been a big focus lately, but many in the state don't participate, so I guess it depends on how much you let them support you.

[Dr. Ron]

Having been on both sides of this issue, the pros and cons differ with the mentality of the individual preacher/pastor/ church...

There are some pastors who are very entrepreneural. They are self starters, seek their own inspiration, do their own research, and adapt it to their particular location and situation. They do not need a lot of prodding, encouragement, and the like to do their work. They seek out the best seminars and ministry opportunities for their own needs, they seek God for and set the vision for their churches, and plan to be there until they die or retire.

There are others who are not so much that way. They feel safer theologically, inspirationally, relationally , and emotionally by being a part of something that sets the overall vision for a conglomerate. That is not really all that bad but it does limit growth and effectiveness in the individual pastor and or church. These folks will not usually start new ministries, will accept the training provided by their denomination as it is. They don't question too much about proceedure, learn the polity, adhere to the rules and generally enforce them in the local church. They are company men. There is no harm in that either.

One has to decide which catagory he falls into. I have been in both situations as a company man and as a church planter. I know what it is to abide by the rules as set forth by the main body and I know what it means to have to find direction and inspiration for my flock.

I know where I fit better and find more fullfillment. I have no ax to grind with those who chose to stay in a denom....even though that is not the scriptural form of church movement.....it is fine by me. I do think there is a lot of wasted time, money , effort, involved in that because people are waiting on the approval of the "body" before they move forward with their vision.

Again, it is more about the personallity( temperament) of the pastor and their commitment to their ministry than anything else.

Does and HQ really serve the body????? Not much.

[Pastor Bill]

Dr. Ron

I'd agree with you on most of that, but I don't think those 2 categories are all there is. There are some who are more of a combination of the two, which is where I am right now. I am learning alot from opportunities provided to me by the State offices, but I can't say my church is really typical so most of the work I am doing doesn't exactly fit the "company man" either.

I think there are some that want to be the first, but don't have the experience, so they still rely on the structure to help them in that, and others that fit the first more in their local ministry, but also pour back into the structure to aid the second group.

There are also those that are such an extreme in either conforming to structure that they refuse to grow, or in pushing away from others that they never learn.

Alot also depends on the expectations of the State Overseer. State overseers that want only the second of your types listed do probably still exist, and often stifle growth, but there are those out there that encourage the first type, and actually seek to bring those in to mentor others as well.

[paul]

Having been on both sides of this issue, the pros and cons differ with the mentality of the individual preacher/pastor/ church...

There are some pastors who are very entrepreneural. They are self starters, seek their own inspiration, do their own research, and adapt it to their particular location and situation. They do not need a lot of prodding, encouragement, and the like to do their work. They seek out the best seminars and ministry opportunities for their own needs, they seek God for and set the vision for their churches, and plan to be there until they die or retire.

There are others who are not so much that way. They feel safer theologically, inspirationally, relationally , and emotionally by being a part of something that sets the overall vision for a conglomerate. That is not really all that bad but it does limit growth and effectiveness in the individual pastor and or church. These folks will not usually start new ministries, will accept the training provided by their denomination as it is. They don't question too much about proceedure, learn the polity, adhere to the rules and generally enforce them in the local church. They are company men. There is no harm in that either.

One has to decide which catagory he falls into. I have been in both situations as a company man and as a church planter. I know what it is to abide by the rules as set forth by the main body and I know what it means to have to find direction and inspiration for my flock.

I know where I fit better and find more fullfillment. I have no ax to grind with those who chose to stay in a denom....even though that is not the scriptural form of church movement.....it is fine by me. I do think there is a lot of wasted time, money , effort, involved in that because people are waiting on the approval of the "body" before they move forward with their vision.

Again, it is more about the personallity( temperament) of the pastor and their commitment to their ministry than anything else.

Does and HQ really serve the body????? Not much.

Dr. Ron

I would agree with your assessment. basicly two types. managers and Leaders. Both are needed and necessary. And I would have to say that their are good and bad in both groups.

I have a younger brother who has managed Sizzler and Golden Corrals for years. Every store he has taken he has doubled and tripled the income. He is incrediable. He tried to do his own resturant twice...never worked.

I know some who are leaders, no question..but they use the it for self gain and manipulation.

[RuSKY]

Does and HQ really serve the body????? Not much.

Other than Dr. Ron's above statement, each of you have said
what value the Pastor recieved, but none of you said what the
Local Church recieved. The pastor's further training could be
of value to the local, but that training could come from elswhere.

What I was asking, Does your State and General Hdq. provide
anything of value that your Local couldn't do without. Would you,
as a Local, cease to be if you didn't have these, providing what
they do?


RuSKY

[Dr. Ron]

Rusky,

My answer should have included that. Sorry.

Again, it depends on the pastor's ability. Some of the "company men" are very fervent in seeing to it that everything coming down from "above" is filtered to the local church. But that is about as far as it goes.

I will agree with some idea of SOs in a denomination, but a General Office and all those Secs.....don't do much for the local church....if anything it is a drain on the finances.

[Pastor Bill]

For the local church, again it depends alot on the State and the church.

In our state there are alot of things offered for ministry leaders (other than just pastors) which helps, as well as various retreats (men's, women's, couples, youth, camps, etc.). Some of those are a great blessing to a local church that has people who choose to attend. They aren't the only conferences out there, and some will have more interest than others.

For our local church, the main one is the women's retreat, and we have a group of ladies that look forward to that every year, a second smaller retreat was started this year which our ladies attended, as well as a small one hosted by one of the larger churches in the state, our ladies went to all 3. Haven't had any go to youth retreat from this congregation or most of the others (other than camp) but that's not to say other congregations aren't touched by those and not the Women's retreat.

I think like any ministry, State ministries are an optional thing, if your state is putting out things that help you, you'll make use of them, if not, then you won't. If an area of state ministry is dying off or of no use, get rid of it, or make it relevant and people will want to come.

THe State offices can't run your church for you, (I don't like the "company men" label, because that's really what it implies) and that's not who you need to be as a pastor IMHO, but they can be a good resource and support.