August 28, 2007
12:07 p.m.
By: Allen Dvorak
The style of this article is a bit different than you will normally see on here, but this one is too good not to post. I hope it will move us all to examine ourselves and ask if we have the right attitude twoard and during worship. [jle]
I'm not quitting the Lord, but I am definitely not going back to that church. I can't believe that the preacher said what he did. He made me so mad! I know that what he preached is in the Bible, but he hurt my feelings so I'm just not going back. Besides, I can turn on my television on Sunday and get all the preaching I want and, at least with the television, I have a volume control!
It wasn't just the preacher. The song leader sometimes leads too many songs. Occasionally he also leads songs that I don't really like. It's not that I'm quitting the Lord, but I am tired of some members dragging the singing; it sounds like a funeral march! In addition, some of the members are constantly off-key. I don't think that I will go back to that church anymore; I'll just stay home and listen to some religious music tapes that I have.
You know, I've been a member of that church for a long time and yet brother GreetEmAll didn't speak to me last Sunday. I am just sure that he saw me, but did he speak to me or shake my hand? I'm not quitting the Lord, but if that is the way that I am going to be treated at that church, I might just as well stay home. And then there's sister NotAware; she said something several years ago that I'm sure was intended to make fun of me and now I can hardly stand to sit near her in worship anymore. They'll probably not even miss me if I stay home this Sunday-- serves them right.
Now that I think about it, all I seem to hear about when I go to services is give, give, give. You would think that I am made of money the way that the brethren are always talking about supporting the work of the church with my ''prosperity.'' Don't they know that after I make my payments on my house, cars, boat, wide-screen television, hunting lease, motorcycle, vacation time-share and retirement fund, there is barely enough money left to contribute to my vacation budget and pay my weekly green fees? I'm not quitting the Lord, but maybe this Sunday I'll just stay home and avoid the greediness of that church. Religion is not about money, you know.
I'm not feeling all that well anyway. That reminds me. The last time I was sick, no one even called to see how I was doing. Of course, I don't normally come on Sunday night or Wednesday anyway, but that's no excuse for them not knowing that I was sick. I wouldn't exactly say that I am quitting the Lord, but I don't think that I will worship with the church this Sunday either.
Sound familiar? I have heard every one of these excuses for why some member has stopped worshiping with the church. What a relief to know that he hasn't ''quit the Lord''!
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Five Myths to Socalized Medicine
August 21, 2007
12:15 p.m.
By: Dr. John C. Goodman
This is a popular topic these days, especially with maniacs like Michael Moore running around on the loose. I liked this article. I know it is a tad on the long side, but trust me. YOU NEED TO READ THIS. This is what almost, if not every single Democratic presidential candidate is pushing right now! Check it out and tell me what you think in the Forum. (jle)
In the United States there are about 14 million people - more than a third of the uninsured - who are, in principle, eligible to get free medical care by joining either the Medicaid program or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. And yet they don't bother to enroll.
To understand why they don't, you might go to the emergency room of Parkland Hospital in my hometown of Dallas. The uninsured and Medicaid patients come there to get their medical care. They all see the same doctors. They get the same treatment. If they're admitted to the hospital, they stay in the same beds. From the patient's point of view, there is no real reason to join Medicaid, because they get the same care whether or not they are formally insured. The doctors and nurses get paid the same regardless of who is enrolled in what plan. The only people who really care whether or not someone is enrolled in Medicaid are the hospital administrators, because that determines how they get their money. So they actually have paid employees who go through the emergency room and try to get people to sign up for Medicaid. Over half the time they fail. Then they literally go hospital room by hospital room, trying to get admitted patients to enroll in Medicaid. And even then they don’t always succeed. Now, it's not that unusual for people to go to hospital emergency rooms for their care. It's a common feature of health systems around the world. It may not be an efficient way to deliver health care, but the same thing happens in Toronto and London. Canadians take pride in the fact that patients who get free care in Toronto emergency rooms are ''insured.'' But in Dallas, we're ashamed to say that our patients are ''uninsured", even though the care they receive in Dallas is probably better than the care they get in Toronto.
MYTH: ''A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE''
People who believe in socialized medicine have come to believe many myths. One is that socialized medicine gives you a right to health care. If you ask the head of Parkland Hospital and his counterpart in Toronto or London what the difference is in these systems, I think all three would say that in Toronto and London people have a ''right'' to health care, whereas in Dallas they do not. That is just not true. If you're a citizen of Canada, you don't really have a right to any particular health care service. You don't have a right to heart surgery. You don't even have a right to a place in the waiting line. If you're the hundredth person waiting for heart surgery, you're not entitled to the hundredth surgery. Other people can and do get in ahead of you. From time to time, even Americans go to Canada and jump the queue, because Americans can do something that Canadians cannot - Americans can pay for care. Canadian hospitals love to admit American patients, because that means cash into their budgets. The British government says that, at any one time, there are about a million people waiting to get into hospitals. According to the Fraser Institute, almost 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list at any point in time. And, according to the New Zealand government, 90,000 people are on the waiting lists there. Those people constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of the population in those countries, but keep in mind that only about 15 percent of the population actually enters a hospital each year. Many of the people waiting are waiting in pain. Many are risking their lives by waiting. And there is no market mechanism in these countries to get care first to people who need it first.
MYTH: ''HIGHER QUALITY''
Another myth has to do with the quality of care that patients receive. British ministers of health have told British citizens for years that their health system is the envy of the world. Canadian ministers of health say much the same thing. In fact, Canadian and British doctors see 50 percent more patients than American doctors do, and, as a consequence, they have less time to spend with each patient. In Britain, the typical general practitioner barely has time to take your temperature and write a prescription. And even if they discover something wrong with you, they may not have the technology to solve your problem. Among people with chronic renal failure, only half as many Canadians as Americans get dialysis, and only a third as many Britons on a per capita basis. The American rate of coronary bypass surgeries is three or four times what it is in Canada, and five times what it is in Britain. Britain is the country that invented the CAT scanner, back in the 1970s. For awhile it exported more than half the CAT scanners used in the world. Yet they bought very few for their own citizens. Today, Britain has half the number of CAT scanners per capita as we do in the United States. A similar problem exists in Canada.
MYTH: ''MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK''
Yet another myth is that although the United States spends more on health care, we don't get more. That argument is often supported by pointing to life expectancy, which is not that much different among developed countries, and infant mortality, which is actually higher in the United States than it is in most other developed countries. What do we get for our money? The first thing we need to do is separate those phenomena that have little to do with health care from those that do. In the United States, life expectancy at birth for African American men is 68 years, while for Asian American men it's 81 years. We find wide differences in life expectancy among women, too. Nobody thinks that those differences are due to the health care system. What, then, would we want to look at if we really wanted to compare the efficacy of health care systems? We would look at those conditions for which we know medical services can make a real difference. Among women who are diagnosed with breast cancer, only one fifth die in the United States, compared to one third in France and Germany, and almost half in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Among men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer, fewer than one fifth die in the United States, compared to one fourth in Canada, almost half in France, and more than half in the United Kingdom.
MYTH: ''EQUAL ACCESS''
Perhaps no notion is more closely tied to national health insurance than the idea of equal access to health care. Every prime minister of health in Britain, from the day the National Health Service started, has said that is the primary goal of the NHS. Similar things are said in Canada and in other countries. The British government - unlike most other governments - studies the problem from time to time to see what kind of progress they're making. In 1980, they had a major report that said, essentially: ''We really haven't made very much progress in achieving equality of access to health care in our country. In fact, it looks like things are worse today, in 1980, than they were 30 years ago when the British National Health Service was started.'' Everybody deplored the results of that report, and they all promised to do better. There were a lot of articles written, a lot of conferences, and a lot of discussions. Another 10 years passed and they pondered another report, which said that things had deteriorated further. Today we are long overdue for a third report, but no one expects the situation to have improved. It's true that racial and ethnic minorities are underserved in the United States. But we are hardly alone. In Canada, the indigenous groups are the Cree and the Inuits. In New Zealand, they are Maoris. In Australia, the Aborigines. Those populations have more health care problems, shorter life expectancies, higher infant mortality, more health care needs, and they get less health care. When health care is rationed, racial and ethnic minorities do not usually do well in the rationing scheme. A Canadian study showed vast inequalities among the health regions of British Columbia. In some cases, there were spending differences of 10 to 1 in services provided in one area compared to another. That probably would not surprise most health policy analysts; you just don’t usually get this kind of data. But if we had the data, we would probably find similar inequalities in access to health care all over the developed world. I'm especially interested in the elderly, because I find that - not only in Britain and Canada, but also in the United States - when people have to make decisions about who is going to get care and who is not, they frequently choose the younger patient. Surveys of the elderly show that senior citizens in the United States say it’s much easier to get surgery, see doctors, see specialists, and enter hospitals, than say seniors in other countries.
MYTH: ''LESS RED TAPE''
Then we have the myth that national health insurance is an efficient way to deliver health care. I hear this frequently repeated by advocates in the United States. Probably the most telling statistic for hospitals is average length of stay. In general, efficient hospitals get people in and out more quickly. By that standard, the U.S. hospital sector is the most efficient in the world. And I think by many other standards it would not be much in dispute that the U.S. hospital sector is far more efficient than the hospital sectors of other countries. In Britain, where at any one time there are a million people waiting to get into British hospitals, 15 percent of the beds are empty, and another 15 percent are filled with chronic patients who really don't need the services of hospital; they're simply using the hospital as an expensive nursing home. So, effectively, almost one-third of the beds are closed off to acute care patients. A study compared Kaiser in California with the NHS and concluded that, after you make all of the appropriate adjustments, Kaiser spends about the same per capita on its enrollees as Britain spends on its population. But the Kaiser enrollees were getting more care, more access to specialists, and other services. We often hear that Medicare and Medicaid are efficient. The government says Medicaid only spends about 2 percent of its budget on administration. But that ignores all the costs that are shifted to doctors and hospitals. When you incorporate all those costs, it turns out that actually Medicare is not very efficient at all.
WHAT'S MISSING IS CAPITALISM
While our health care system is more market-oriented than in most industrialized nations, we don't really have a free market in health care in the United States. Half the spending is done by government. Most of the rest is done by bureaucratic institutions. The cosmetic surgery market is about the only market where patients are really spending their own money. And guess what? It works like a real market. People get package prices. They can compare prices. And over the decade of the 1990s, the average price of cosmetic surgery actually went down in real terms, even as there were all kinds of technological innovations that we are told drive up costs else where. Most of what I'm telling you here today I learned, not from right-wing critics of national health insurance, but from people who believe in it. If you look at my book, there are probably a thousand different references, and 95 percent of them are references to government reports, academic studies, and newspaper investigations. And in almost every case, the author of those reports is someone who believes in national health insurance. No matter how many problems they document, no matter how many failures they write about, they don't give up their faith in the system. They all believe that all the failures that they write about can be reformed away.
They all believe that we just haven't tried hard enough to reform the system and make it work. Sadly, they are wrong. Virtually all of these problems are inevitable consequences of the politicization of medicine. Why do these systems over provide to the healthy and under provide to the sick? Well, in the United States, about 4 percent of the patients spend half the money. If you’re a politician allocating health care dollars, you cannot afford to spend half your money on 4 percent of the voters - 4 percent who may be too sick to go to the polls and vote for you anyway. Why is the hospital sector so inefficient? Because it's in the self-interest of hospital managers to be inefficient. The chronic care patients and the empty beds are the cheap beds. It’s the acute care patients that cost money. Why can the rich and powerful jump to the head of the waiting lines? Because those are the people who control the sys-tem. They can change the system. If members of parliament, the wealthy, and the powerful had to wait for care along with everyone else, these systems would not last for a minute.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
12:15 p.m.
By: Dr. John C. Goodman
This is a popular topic these days, especially with maniacs like Michael Moore running around on the loose. I liked this article. I know it is a tad on the long side, but trust me. YOU NEED TO READ THIS. This is what almost, if not every single Democratic presidential candidate is pushing right now! Check it out and tell me what you think in the Forum. (jle)
In the United States there are about 14 million people - more than a third of the uninsured - who are, in principle, eligible to get free medical care by joining either the Medicaid program or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. And yet they don't bother to enroll.
To understand why they don't, you might go to the emergency room of Parkland Hospital in my hometown of Dallas. The uninsured and Medicaid patients come there to get their medical care. They all see the same doctors. They get the same treatment. If they're admitted to the hospital, they stay in the same beds. From the patient's point of view, there is no real reason to join Medicaid, because they get the same care whether or not they are formally insured. The doctors and nurses get paid the same regardless of who is enrolled in what plan. The only people who really care whether or not someone is enrolled in Medicaid are the hospital administrators, because that determines how they get their money. So they actually have paid employees who go through the emergency room and try to get people to sign up for Medicaid. Over half the time they fail. Then they literally go hospital room by hospital room, trying to get admitted patients to enroll in Medicaid. And even then they don’t always succeed. Now, it's not that unusual for people to go to hospital emergency rooms for their care. It's a common feature of health systems around the world. It may not be an efficient way to deliver health care, but the same thing happens in Toronto and London. Canadians take pride in the fact that patients who get free care in Toronto emergency rooms are ''insured.'' But in Dallas, we're ashamed to say that our patients are ''uninsured", even though the care they receive in Dallas is probably better than the care they get in Toronto.
MYTH: ''A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE''
People who believe in socialized medicine have come to believe many myths. One is that socialized medicine gives you a right to health care. If you ask the head of Parkland Hospital and his counterpart in Toronto or London what the difference is in these systems, I think all three would say that in Toronto and London people have a ''right'' to health care, whereas in Dallas they do not. That is just not true. If you're a citizen of Canada, you don't really have a right to any particular health care service. You don't have a right to heart surgery. You don't even have a right to a place in the waiting line. If you're the hundredth person waiting for heart surgery, you're not entitled to the hundredth surgery. Other people can and do get in ahead of you. From time to time, even Americans go to Canada and jump the queue, because Americans can do something that Canadians cannot - Americans can pay for care. Canadian hospitals love to admit American patients, because that means cash into their budgets. The British government says that, at any one time, there are about a million people waiting to get into hospitals. According to the Fraser Institute, almost 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list at any point in time. And, according to the New Zealand government, 90,000 people are on the waiting lists there. Those people constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of the population in those countries, but keep in mind that only about 15 percent of the population actually enters a hospital each year. Many of the people waiting are waiting in pain. Many are risking their lives by waiting. And there is no market mechanism in these countries to get care first to people who need it first.
MYTH: ''HIGHER QUALITY''
Another myth has to do with the quality of care that patients receive. British ministers of health have told British citizens for years that their health system is the envy of the world. Canadian ministers of health say much the same thing. In fact, Canadian and British doctors see 50 percent more patients than American doctors do, and, as a consequence, they have less time to spend with each patient. In Britain, the typical general practitioner barely has time to take your temperature and write a prescription. And even if they discover something wrong with you, they may not have the technology to solve your problem. Among people with chronic renal failure, only half as many Canadians as Americans get dialysis, and only a third as many Britons on a per capita basis. The American rate of coronary bypass surgeries is three or four times what it is in Canada, and five times what it is in Britain. Britain is the country that invented the CAT scanner, back in the 1970s. For awhile it exported more than half the CAT scanners used in the world. Yet they bought very few for their own citizens. Today, Britain has half the number of CAT scanners per capita as we do in the United States. A similar problem exists in Canada.
MYTH: ''MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK''
Yet another myth is that although the United States spends more on health care, we don't get more. That argument is often supported by pointing to life expectancy, which is not that much different among developed countries, and infant mortality, which is actually higher in the United States than it is in most other developed countries. What do we get for our money? The first thing we need to do is separate those phenomena that have little to do with health care from those that do. In the United States, life expectancy at birth for African American men is 68 years, while for Asian American men it's 81 years. We find wide differences in life expectancy among women, too. Nobody thinks that those differences are due to the health care system. What, then, would we want to look at if we really wanted to compare the efficacy of health care systems? We would look at those conditions for which we know medical services can make a real difference. Among women who are diagnosed with breast cancer, only one fifth die in the United States, compared to one third in France and Germany, and almost half in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Among men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer, fewer than one fifth die in the United States, compared to one fourth in Canada, almost half in France, and more than half in the United Kingdom.
MYTH: ''EQUAL ACCESS''
Perhaps no notion is more closely tied to national health insurance than the idea of equal access to health care. Every prime minister of health in Britain, from the day the National Health Service started, has said that is the primary goal of the NHS. Similar things are said in Canada and in other countries. The British government - unlike most other governments - studies the problem from time to time to see what kind of progress they're making. In 1980, they had a major report that said, essentially: ''We really haven't made very much progress in achieving equality of access to health care in our country. In fact, it looks like things are worse today, in 1980, than they were 30 years ago when the British National Health Service was started.'' Everybody deplored the results of that report, and they all promised to do better. There were a lot of articles written, a lot of conferences, and a lot of discussions. Another 10 years passed and they pondered another report, which said that things had deteriorated further. Today we are long overdue for a third report, but no one expects the situation to have improved. It's true that racial and ethnic minorities are underserved in the United States. But we are hardly alone. In Canada, the indigenous groups are the Cree and the Inuits. In New Zealand, they are Maoris. In Australia, the Aborigines. Those populations have more health care problems, shorter life expectancies, higher infant mortality, more health care needs, and they get less health care. When health care is rationed, racial and ethnic minorities do not usually do well in the rationing scheme. A Canadian study showed vast inequalities among the health regions of British Columbia. In some cases, there were spending differences of 10 to 1 in services provided in one area compared to another. That probably would not surprise most health policy analysts; you just don’t usually get this kind of data. But if we had the data, we would probably find similar inequalities in access to health care all over the developed world. I'm especially interested in the elderly, because I find that - not only in Britain and Canada, but also in the United States - when people have to make decisions about who is going to get care and who is not, they frequently choose the younger patient. Surveys of the elderly show that senior citizens in the United States say it’s much easier to get surgery, see doctors, see specialists, and enter hospitals, than say seniors in other countries.
MYTH: ''LESS RED TAPE''
Then we have the myth that national health insurance is an efficient way to deliver health care. I hear this frequently repeated by advocates in the United States. Probably the most telling statistic for hospitals is average length of stay. In general, efficient hospitals get people in and out more quickly. By that standard, the U.S. hospital sector is the most efficient in the world. And I think by many other standards it would not be much in dispute that the U.S. hospital sector is far more efficient than the hospital sectors of other countries. In Britain, where at any one time there are a million people waiting to get into British hospitals, 15 percent of the beds are empty, and another 15 percent are filled with chronic patients who really don't need the services of hospital; they're simply using the hospital as an expensive nursing home. So, effectively, almost one-third of the beds are closed off to acute care patients. A study compared Kaiser in California with the NHS and concluded that, after you make all of the appropriate adjustments, Kaiser spends about the same per capita on its enrollees as Britain spends on its population. But the Kaiser enrollees were getting more care, more access to specialists, and other services. We often hear that Medicare and Medicaid are efficient. The government says Medicaid only spends about 2 percent of its budget on administration. But that ignores all the costs that are shifted to doctors and hospitals. When you incorporate all those costs, it turns out that actually Medicare is not very efficient at all.
WHAT'S MISSING IS CAPITALISM
While our health care system is more market-oriented than in most industrialized nations, we don't really have a free market in health care in the United States. Half the spending is done by government. Most of the rest is done by bureaucratic institutions. The cosmetic surgery market is about the only market where patients are really spending their own money. And guess what? It works like a real market. People get package prices. They can compare prices. And over the decade of the 1990s, the average price of cosmetic surgery actually went down in real terms, even as there were all kinds of technological innovations that we are told drive up costs else where. Most of what I'm telling you here today I learned, not from right-wing critics of national health insurance, but from people who believe in it. If you look at my book, there are probably a thousand different references, and 95 percent of them are references to government reports, academic studies, and newspaper investigations. And in almost every case, the author of those reports is someone who believes in national health insurance. No matter how many problems they document, no matter how many failures they write about, they don't give up their faith in the system. They all believe that all the failures that they write about can be reformed away.
They all believe that we just haven't tried hard enough to reform the system and make it work. Sadly, they are wrong. Virtually all of these problems are inevitable consequences of the politicization of medicine. Why do these systems over provide to the healthy and under provide to the sick? Well, in the United States, about 4 percent of the patients spend half the money. If you’re a politician allocating health care dollars, you cannot afford to spend half your money on 4 percent of the voters - 4 percent who may be too sick to go to the polls and vote for you anyway. Why is the hospital sector so inefficient? Because it's in the self-interest of hospital managers to be inefficient. The chronic care patients and the empty beds are the cheap beds. It’s the acute care patients that cost money. Why can the rich and powerful jump to the head of the waiting lines? Because those are the people who control the sys-tem. They can change the system. If members of parliament, the wealthy, and the powerful had to wait for care along with everyone else, these systems would not last for a minute.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
I am a Preacher
August 14, 2007
1:03 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
It has happened many times. I am enjoying a conversation with someone I have just met. We have already gone over the places we grow up, what we do for a living. Most likely we have already laughed over something we have in common. Then, the question comes out. ''So you're a pastor, huh?'' Anymore, I am not surprised by this question as it has happened more than once. I simply smile and explain that I am a preacher and not a pastor. The following question is what has given me the inclination to write this very article. ''What's the difference?''
As I understand, it is a common belief that the preacher and the pastor are basically the same thing. This is why people frequently assume that I am called the pastor. The Bible, however, makes a very clear distinction, between the two, that we would do well not to overlook. ''{11} And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, {12} for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ...'' (Ephesians 4:11-12). See there? Paul mentions both evangelists and pastors. This clearly shows us that they are NOT the same thing. What is a pastor then? According to Strong, pastor (poimen in Greek) literally means shepherd. This word is used in the Bible to refer to one who tends sheep in a literal sense, but it is also used here to refer to those who are charged with tending the flock of a local congregation. ''Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood'' (Acts 20:28).
So far we have noticed things that are not uncommon as far as the general understanding of what a pastor is. However, there is more. The Bible does not offer any specific qualifications that a man needs to meet before he can become a preacher. There are, however, some qualifications that a man must meet before he can be eligible to be considered a pastor or elder (episkopos in Greek), as they are sometimes called (1 Peter 5:1). Also note that these men are called bishops in other places (1 Timothy 3:1). You will see that though the specific names may be different, their qualifications and responsibilities remain the same. So what qualifications does a man have to meet before he can become a pastor/elder/bishop/overseer? We can see these qualifications in Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7. The individual must be the husband of one wife, the father of faithful children, not given to wine, able to teach, and not a novice. These are just a few, but we can easily see that if a man can meet these qualifications, he would be an excellent shepherd in the Lord's church as all of these things, in the individual's life, translate to the necessary characteristics of a leader.
There is one more common misunderstanding regarding pastors. Many people believe that it is acceptable to have one man as the pastor or overseer of the congregation. This is yet another mistake. Notice with me a few passages. ''From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church'' (Acts 20:17). ''This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul'' (Acts 11:30). ''So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed'' (Acts 14:23). See the similarities. Every time elders/pastors are mentioned, there is more than one. This shows us that there was a plurality of overseers in the congregations of the early church. Since there has been no revelation from God since then, which has changed this (2 Peter 1:3); we are to abide by this God given example.
It is unfortunate, but there are many who teach that one man can be a pastor/overseer of a congregation. There are those who teach that unmarried men can serve as elders. There are also some who ignore completely the qualifications of the Bible and simply appoint men who are ''older.'' It is not my intent to offend or to be unkind to anyone. However, it is important that we consult the Bible when we start appointing men to serve as bishops over the Lord's church. One day, I hope to be an elder. However, at this point I am not qualified. Until that time when I am qualified, I will simply smile and answer the question, ''So you're a pastor, huh?'' the same way I have today.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
1:03 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
It has happened many times. I am enjoying a conversation with someone I have just met. We have already gone over the places we grow up, what we do for a living. Most likely we have already laughed over something we have in common. Then, the question comes out. ''So you're a pastor, huh?'' Anymore, I am not surprised by this question as it has happened more than once. I simply smile and explain that I am a preacher and not a pastor. The following question is what has given me the inclination to write this very article. ''What's the difference?''
As I understand, it is a common belief that the preacher and the pastor are basically the same thing. This is why people frequently assume that I am called the pastor. The Bible, however, makes a very clear distinction, between the two, that we would do well not to overlook. ''{11} And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, {12} for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ...'' (Ephesians 4:11-12). See there? Paul mentions both evangelists and pastors. This clearly shows us that they are NOT the same thing. What is a pastor then? According to Strong, pastor (poimen in Greek) literally means shepherd. This word is used in the Bible to refer to one who tends sheep in a literal sense, but it is also used here to refer to those who are charged with tending the flock of a local congregation. ''Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood'' (Acts 20:28).
So far we have noticed things that are not uncommon as far as the general understanding of what a pastor is. However, there is more. The Bible does not offer any specific qualifications that a man needs to meet before he can become a preacher. There are, however, some qualifications that a man must meet before he can be eligible to be considered a pastor or elder (episkopos in Greek), as they are sometimes called (1 Peter 5:1). Also note that these men are called bishops in other places (1 Timothy 3:1). You will see that though the specific names may be different, their qualifications and responsibilities remain the same. So what qualifications does a man have to meet before he can become a pastor/elder/bishop/overseer? We can see these qualifications in Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7. The individual must be the husband of one wife, the father of faithful children, not given to wine, able to teach, and not a novice. These are just a few, but we can easily see that if a man can meet these qualifications, he would be an excellent shepherd in the Lord's church as all of these things, in the individual's life, translate to the necessary characteristics of a leader.
There is one more common misunderstanding regarding pastors. Many people believe that it is acceptable to have one man as the pastor or overseer of the congregation. This is yet another mistake. Notice with me a few passages. ''From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church'' (Acts 20:17). ''This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul'' (Acts 11:30). ''So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed'' (Acts 14:23). See the similarities. Every time elders/pastors are mentioned, there is more than one. This shows us that there was a plurality of overseers in the congregations of the early church. Since there has been no revelation from God since then, which has changed this (2 Peter 1:3); we are to abide by this God given example.
It is unfortunate, but there are many who teach that one man can be a pastor/overseer of a congregation. There are those who teach that unmarried men can serve as elders. There are also some who ignore completely the qualifications of the Bible and simply appoint men who are ''older.'' It is not my intent to offend or to be unkind to anyone. However, it is important that we consult the Bible when we start appointing men to serve as bishops over the Lord's church. One day, I hope to be an elder. However, at this point I am not qualified. Until that time when I am qualified, I will simply smile and answer the question, ''So you're a pastor, huh?'' the same way I have today.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Church Discipline
August 7, 2007
12:20 p.m.
By: John W. Quinn
This particular topic has been of recent interest in a close circle of my friends. It is not a particularly enjoyable topic to discuss, but that does not take away from its importance and necessity. I feel this article is a good representation of how the Lord's people should deal with discipline in the church. I hope this will shed some light on what can be a very confusing issue. (jle)
The church where I attend tries to apply the teachings of the New Testament regardless of the what is politically correct and what is not. We recently had to withdraw our fellowship from a couple of our members who were not living according to the commandments of Christ. I am not talking about imperfections or momentary weakness, but ongoing chronic disobedience and a refusal to repent. I would like to share a part of the announcement that was read to the church. I will leave out the identities and the particulars, because neither are anybody else's business. I know that most of the world frowns on churches who would actually carry out the Scripture's teaching on this matter, but then, the world always has had very little regard for the Lord's doctrine. To discipline members of the body is required by the covenant of Jesus Christ. It is my hope that this article will help others understand the purpose, method as well as the Scriptural motives behind such action. The announcement went as follows:
It is our duty and goal to always bring honor to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. This can only be done by respecting and obeying His word. We are all aware that our efforts in this regard are not perfect, but this does not relieve us of the obligation to our Lord to always seek to grow and improve in our service to Him as His body.
It is with sadness that we must acknowledge that some who are members of the body here are not walking according to the commandments of Jesus. Transgression in the case of two of our number has gone beyond human imperfection. Both have been approached patiently and with love, both have acknowledged their sin, but neither have indicated a desire to change their course.
The Covenant of Jesus Christ gives instructions to the local congregation concerning what to do in such circumstances. If we accept His lordship, then we will comply with His teaching. Here are a portion of some of the Scriptures which instruct us concerning the will of Christ:
First, from 2 Thessalonians 3
2TH 3:6 ''Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.''
2TH 3:14-15 ''And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.''
Also, this from 1 Corinthians 5:
1CO 5:1-7 ''It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.''
The teaching is plain. What is left up to our discernment is how long do we attempt to work with such ones before taking this prescribed action. It is sometimes difficult to reach a consensus on this, and so we must work together with brotherly consideration until we do. We have prayerfully and carefully considered this decision. In the past, if we have erred, it is more likely in that we have waited too long.
Notice that these passages give at least two reasons why one not walking in accordance with the teaching of Christ must be put outside the local church body. First, it is a message to them that their soul is in jeopardy and in hopes that the heart will be touched and that sorrow will lead to repentance. The second is so that the rest of the body will not be adversely effected. We hope that both of these divinely stated purposes will be achieved that we may rejoice with our brother and sister again.
Also notice that our erring brother and sister are not to be looked upon as enemies. They must be respected, loved and encouraged to do the right thing when the opportunity arises in the future to do so. They are not to be looked down upon, regarded as unworthy of our love or despised in any way. The Lord loves them, and so do we. Our future dealings with them should be such that make our concern for their souls obvious.
We hope that those things contrary to the will of Christ will be quickly rectified, and pray that both might turn again to the Lord.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum
12:20 p.m.
By: John W. Quinn
This particular topic has been of recent interest in a close circle of my friends. It is not a particularly enjoyable topic to discuss, but that does not take away from its importance and necessity. I feel this article is a good representation of how the Lord's people should deal with discipline in the church. I hope this will shed some light on what can be a very confusing issue. (jle)
The church where I attend tries to apply the teachings of the New Testament regardless of the what is politically correct and what is not. We recently had to withdraw our fellowship from a couple of our members who were not living according to the commandments of Christ. I am not talking about imperfections or momentary weakness, but ongoing chronic disobedience and a refusal to repent. I would like to share a part of the announcement that was read to the church. I will leave out the identities and the particulars, because neither are anybody else's business. I know that most of the world frowns on churches who would actually carry out the Scripture's teaching on this matter, but then, the world always has had very little regard for the Lord's doctrine. To discipline members of the body is required by the covenant of Jesus Christ. It is my hope that this article will help others understand the purpose, method as well as the Scriptural motives behind such action. The announcement went as follows:
It is our duty and goal to always bring honor to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. This can only be done by respecting and obeying His word. We are all aware that our efforts in this regard are not perfect, but this does not relieve us of the obligation to our Lord to always seek to grow and improve in our service to Him as His body.
It is with sadness that we must acknowledge that some who are members of the body here are not walking according to the commandments of Jesus. Transgression in the case of two of our number has gone beyond human imperfection. Both have been approached patiently and with love, both have acknowledged their sin, but neither have indicated a desire to change their course.
The Covenant of Jesus Christ gives instructions to the local congregation concerning what to do in such circumstances. If we accept His lordship, then we will comply with His teaching. Here are a portion of some of the Scriptures which instruct us concerning the will of Christ:
First, from 2 Thessalonians 3
2TH 3:6 ''Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.''
2TH 3:14-15 ''And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.''
Also, this from 1 Corinthians 5:
1CO 5:1-7 ''It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.''
The teaching is plain. What is left up to our discernment is how long do we attempt to work with such ones before taking this prescribed action. It is sometimes difficult to reach a consensus on this, and so we must work together with brotherly consideration until we do. We have prayerfully and carefully considered this decision. In the past, if we have erred, it is more likely in that we have waited too long.
Notice that these passages give at least two reasons why one not walking in accordance with the teaching of Christ must be put outside the local church body. First, it is a message to them that their soul is in jeopardy and in hopes that the heart will be touched and that sorrow will lead to repentance. The second is so that the rest of the body will not be adversely effected. We hope that both of these divinely stated purposes will be achieved that we may rejoice with our brother and sister again.
Also notice that our erring brother and sister are not to be looked upon as enemies. They must be respected, loved and encouraged to do the right thing when the opportunity arises in the future to do so. They are not to be looked down upon, regarded as unworthy of our love or despised in any way. The Lord loves them, and so do we. Our future dealings with them should be such that make our concern for their souls obvious.
We hope that those things contrary to the will of Christ will be quickly rectified, and pray that both might turn again to the Lord.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)