Korah, one of the rich leaders of the Levites, and a cousin of Moses and Aaron, felt that he had been slighted and overlooked in the distribution of the highest priestly honors and leadership. He envied Moses and Aaron, and also his cousin Elzaphan, who had been put in charge of the Levites, after Aaron's family had become elevated to the rank of Kohanim (Priests). Realizing that despite his riches and influence he alone could do very little to shake the people's faith and confidence in Moses and Aaron, Korah looked for associates in his campaign against them.

Korah went to the people of the tribe of Reuben, his neighbors in the camping order. Being daily in close contact with them, Korah easily swayed the opinions of their leaders and drew them into his conspiracy.

Amongst the Reubenites were two men, Dathan and Abiram, who since their early days in Egypt had been trouble-makers and the ringleaders of disaffection and rebellion. They were the first to rally to the party of Korah, and they were his most eager agents among their tribesmen. Their experienced and clever campaigning, aided by Korah's riches, influence, and knowledge, induced as many as 250 respected leaders of the Jewish camp to join the rebellion.

They now felt bold enough to go out into the open and speak up against Moses' leadership of the people. Adopting the mantle of piety and justice, and pretending to be a champion of his people, Korah accused Moses and Aaron of imposing their leadership upon the community. "You take too much upon yourselves, for the entire congregation are all holy, and the Lord is in their midst. So why do raise yourselves above the Lord's assembly?" said Korah (Numbers 16:3) and his men to Moses and Aaron.

DrummaBoy:

One day, many years ago, I was reading Acts 15, the place were the apostles sent letters to the church in Antioch to tell them that they need listen to the Judaizers about circumcision. They should follow a certain minimum and they were OK. scripture records somewhere there that the people were happy. I could see relief too in that passage, the very thing Candour is describing here. Acts 15:30-31 - " ... and when they had gathered the multitudes together, they delivered the epistle: which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation". God knows how much more he wants his people to rejoice over, which church leaders prefer to bind people up in misery with.

One of the biggest disservice church leaders can do to a flock is, in their bid to protect the flock, to then begin to list out dos and donts for them. It leads to bondage. When eventually truth is pointed out, relief and joy comes.

Should God's people not have a right to relief, joy and freedom all the time? Should churches bind up people in a bid to protect them? Is God not sufficient to save and keep safe till the end?

Forgive my Lamentations. I cannot help it sometimes.

DrummaBoy: Sorry Gombs I must decline the offer to enter this discussion. I am presently prosecuting two major threads on this forum and would not be able to give this thread the sort of attention it deserve. Maybe some other time but not today.

As for the subject of the thread, my opinion on it is well documented in a couple of posts I have made in this forum. Those interested may search them out.

I believe you will find one person who shares my position and who might be able to engage you in the manner the thread deserves.

I request to be excused.

Gombs: folks have over time on several threads here erroneously think the Church as it were in the bible (old and new church) practiced democracy. They tend to think everyone has a right to an opinion at ALL times, and makes it look like a cooperate federal organization.

The church of God DOES NOT practice democracy, it is not the church of the people, by the people and for the people. Paul instructed in his letter to the Romans verse 4, Chapter 15.

Romans 15:4English Standard Version (ESV)

4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Korah's Rebellion proves completely that the Church DOES NOT practice democracy.


the story ended terribly for him and his crew.

what about Miram and Aaron Against Moses?

what about Baalam?

what about ...?

so many examples to offer. But why then would folks think it should be practiced in today's church?

Drummaboy made a remark in similitude to the above in a thread, and to avoid derailing that thread, i'm creating this one, for him to come defend what he said on the other thread.


https://www.nairaland.com/1842233/pentecostal-experience/3#25291956

i expect a civil discussion with DB on his above statement and Why he is against General Overseers , Senior Pastor , etc for he is toeing the line of Korah!

Kenny4lyfe:

Check out this thread too sir!
https://www.nairaland.com/1386645/dangers-christian-criticism

DrummaBoy: The question that is being sort to be answered here is whether the church practices democracy. And in a case where this not, should they?

The straight forward answer is "No". The church does not practice democracy. I will however want to say that if the church does not practice democracy, should the church allow for autocracy then? Or should church allow for a situation, as in the days of Moses as the OP has shown, where one man leads an organized body of believers? The answer is equally "no".

When we speak of the church of God which Jesus Christ died for, we are speaking of a group of born again people united in purpose with or without a building. In this situation, Jesus Christ is the head of that church. Whatever might detracts from the clear view of Christ's headship should be discouraged. It is erroneous to resort to Moses to get an example of what the church is meant to be.

Moses, like Christ after him, where two distinct circumstances permitted by God for specific purposes. After them both, it's clear that God desires a different manner of government in his church. When the people sort for a king from Samuel, a careful observer will realize that God preferred for Himself to rule the people directly.

A king will detract from this. But he permitted it to their hurt. However, as we come into the New Testament, we begin to see an example of church government as God originally intended.

In Acts 15, a doctrinal dispute erupted that must be settled. The first ever church council was conveyed and the result of the meeting gives us an idea of who were the leaders. Paul and Barnabas spoke. The Judaizers spoke. Peter and James spoke. This James was the brother of Jesus. He was not an apostle in a strict sense. By his conclusion we could tell that there was a body of elders speaking, while he, James, was a mere spokesman. Remember his words "It seem good to the Holy Ghost and to us..." The decision was a collective one and not a one man show.

When Paul wrote his Pastoral epistles, he encouraged the enactment of a body of elders to lead the churches.

An apostolic authority may have planted the church, but a body of elders must lead the church. So much so that the Pastor should answer to these men.

In John epistles, he condemned a man who was running a church with the "GO" style - Diothrephes, saying Christians should not emulate such.

Having at the back of our minds what the NT says about elders leading a church, how do we then regard the things going on in our churches today?

I am sorry to say but the system of one man leading a church that pervade much of Christianity today is unscriptural.

The church is a body of people. Such a body should be spiritual enough to elect (not in a democratic sense) a number of men (not women) to lead them.

If it happens that one man comes up with a vision to lead an assembly, that man must appoint elders to work with him.

These men, like when the deacons where chosen in Acts, must be men of faith and of the Spirit. All of them should be answerable to each others.

The church could elect for a constitution;

they may should not.

But a situation where one man is seen as the main figure: GO, GS, SO, etc, should be discouraged.

It blurs the sight of Christ being Lord and should not be encouraged.

A group of elders like this should be praying men, so that when decisions are made from proposed ideas, it would have the mark of God's Spirit on it. The body of elders may appoint a Pastor;

they may choose not to. But the fact that the buck stops at the feet of a group of godly men, ensures the cases of leadership tyranny that run riot today do not occur. In a rare case where one man leading a fellowship does not have a body of elders to work with yet, that man should answer to another body of elders elsewhere until one is set up.

The case of Korah's rebellion should not be used as a justification for the one man system of church government.

Moses, in the OT, typified a type of Christ or God. Korah's action was a clear rebellion against God. Moses was not autocratic; he was meek and those men sort to take advantage of this. God judged it.

Does this mean that Christians cannot express dissenting views under a body of elders? No. If a believer or group of believers in church have a dissenting view, they should be permitted to express it in private with the elders.

The body of elders can listen to their views and they should sit down together like brethren and discuss it. I can assure you, that no ground will swallow any dissenter today in the church like Korah The elders might then decide on the views. If they disagree with this person or group, they should let this known to people like brethren will do. If the dissension continues, the group can be requested to leave the fellowship.

What must be protected at all cost in church, is freedom and not democracy.

The church should be a place where people are accountable to each other. Elder or not, there should be a sense of equality among brethren. So the question of democracy should not come up at all.

God's people should be led by a body of elders: men of faith and of the Spirit who are obviously led by God.

When God leads a church, the tendency for dissension will be reduced. People usually dissent when there are apparent abuses that come as a result of oppression.

I make bold to say that God is the author of some of these dissensions to draw the church's attention to it's complacency. Jesus is the head of his church and he has full liberty to express himself through anyone, including a dissenter. God's word, under the auspices of a group of godly elders, should be the final arbiter as it was in Acts 15.

Let me know whatever disagreement you mat have with the above.

DrummaBoy: ^^^

Sorry, while I read your post I cannot respond to it. I believe I have gone past this level of piecemeal bit by bit responses that is common with nairalanders. I request a more robust rejoinder.

You may return to the above post and craft it into one post and then the discission will continue.

OK, please, it's a simple request.

Bidam: Lemme take up this debate since drummB is busy with the convention. I am in agreement with the new testament multiplicity of ministry where a set man should also be in place.

There is actually governmental order in the church in Antioch where there were teachers and prophets not just a single pastor ministry as we have nowadays.

I would like to use this gentile church as a perfect example here. This church had a multiple ministry under the directives of the Holy Spirit. Even the Apostle Paul was submitted to its leadership.

Even the so-called "great" apostle Paul was not a freelance minister. He, as all true ministries, fell under the authority of God's government. Paul was held accountable. The church at antioch sent him out and it was to them he reported upon his return. Antioch was not under a church system, but under a multiplicity of ministry. Antioch was a church that was properly taught and one that was in order. It was at antioch that they were first called christians, because it was here that they first learned the disciplines of Christ that required proper church government.

No where in the new testament is someone called "the pastor" of a church with a one-man leadership role. Plurality of eldership is the new testament plan.

They ordained elders(plural), in every church(city)( see Acts 14:23). God always sets a man(set ministry) in leadership who raises elders into their place of oversight.

Gombs:

I don't really get ur stand...DB said God's people should have their right to freedom at all time (a suggestive democratic setting), and that he is against such thing as GO, superintendent, etc. Are you of same page?

But from ur above post, who was the pastor of the church at ephesus, and if the church there was run by elders, why did Paul give him the cousel on criterion on how bishops, deacons and such elders be selected, if there were already elders in the church at ephesus?

Bidam: I have read what both of you have to say on this issue and i am afraid that i am neither for you both.

The type of government drummaboy is suggestion is congregational which places authorithy in the hands of selected members of the local assembly. Church boards usually run these churches. Although they have pastors, it is with a board gathered from among church members that decision rests. The pastor serves at the discretion of the board. You on the other hand is talking about episcopal(ONE MAN RULE) government. All these are patterned after men's tradition and not according to the bible.

My post talked about Antioch not Ephesus, but i will obliged you. Paul did not leave timothy to run the church in ephesus as a one man rule. Timothy was a co traveller with Paul. Paul was actually afraid of teachers propounding false doctrines in the apostle's name, leaving timothy to oversee these churches was intended to strengthen them in the apostolic doctrine. As you well know the ephesian church was birthed in controversy where magicians, jews that were casting out devils and a large number of idol followers who worship artemis held the city sway. Paul had to assemble the elders before his depature to Jerusalem. You should note that apart from timothy representing Paul when he departed, the churches are having multiplicity of ministries. Paul never coveted anyone silver or gold or clothings. He even boasted about his hands supplying his own needs and that of timothy( Acts 20:34).

How do i know that these churches have pluralistic eldership? Read Ephesians 4:8; 11-13. These are the Five fold ministry gifts that God has ordained for every local assembly.

But am afraid that in modern churches it is non existent.

It is ONE MAN that ascribes all aspects of the fivefold ministry to himself and thus dwell among his people as the earthly representative of God,

atlthough you will not want to admit this,

but the One man show like Moses of the OT has now become the mediator between God and the Local assembly.

This shouldn't be so. God's system should be made of multiple ministries and not episcopal where one man lords it over the laity. A minister is called to SERVE and not to lord it over a congregation.

Orikinla: God Himself practices democracy.
He does not force anyone to believe in Him and gives everyone the right to choose.
Remember His words.
[size=14pt]
Come, let us reason together. -Isaiah 1:18 KJV, Holy Bible.

Who is on the Lord's side? - Exodus 32:26, Holy Bible.[/size]

Gombs:

Please state clearly your stand.

Certainly, and most churches I know have these offices... CEC for example has
Give examples or are you assuming?

That's strange! You sid paul was answerable to the elders in Jerusalem, right?

I want to know whether Paul was an overseer of the churches in Asia or not!

Why such conclusion?

If God chose the one man show in the OT, what abolished it in the NT?

Your opinion!

Anyway what was Paul trying to say here?

1 Corinthians 4:15 BBE
15  For even if you had ten thousand teachers in Christ, you have not more than one father: for in Christ Jesus I have given birth to you through the good news
16 So my desire is that you take me as your example.
17  For this cause I have sent Timothy to you, who is my dear and true child in the Lord; he will make clear to you my ways in Christ, even as I am teaching everywhere in every church

I have said so in my previous post that there should be multiplicity of ministeries in the local assembly just like the Antioch and Ephesian church, for you to still ask me again and again beats me. No one person except Jesus is called to operate in the five fold ministry gift.

The apostle governs, even Paul wasn't initially an apostle he was under authorithy and was held accountable in antioch until God called him and sent him forth with barnabas..pls do read Acts 13.
The prophet guides-points the way. Paul wasn't a prophet, Barnabas was. The evangelist gathers-Timothy was encouraged in that aspect by Paul...Philip was called an evangelist...The pastor guards or cares for the sheep..Titus was one..The teacher grounds or establishes..Simeon called Niger was one..But for a so called man of God to ascribe all those giftings to himself is not only sickening but preposterous.

This is a lie, i have been to many of these churches including yours and i can confidently say that most of the pastors ascribes all aspects of the fivefold ministry..they prophesy, they preach, they teach, they govern, they pastor, they gather, etc...

I did not say so scripture said so in Acts in Acts 15:22..can you point where Paul was lording it over them in the verse i quoted

Can you tell us the meaning of overseer?

Paul planted the churches...Apollos by right watered..It is God that gives increase

not some one man pastor sitting in Jerusalem and waiting for pledges and offerings to be collected for him from branches over all asia.

Like i said the period of one man show is over.God is raising sons not a Moses..Jesus is the pattern Son.

You don't put new wine in old wine skin...Jesus is the High Priest and all believers are priest..Jesus is the mediator between God and Man not some weak imperfect pastor.

No it is scriptures ..Jesus served, Paul served, Timothy served..Jesus set the pace he said if anyone wants to be great in God's kingdom, he should serve and not lord it like the gentiles. People are saved to serve God by serving others and not to amass wealth by building monuments and acquiring properties.
Thank God you quoted this scripture....This is a call to discipleship but sadly how many of our so called leaders are able to raise legitimate sons today? They just have large number of followers that's all...Our leaders are not SERVANTS, they are ego centered and most churches these days have turned to family businesses and social bless me clubs..It is far better to have a small congregation that you can disciple sons to maturity than large followers who hero worship you as a figure head father...It is all about relationships...but what do we have these days..These men are unapproachable with body guards everywhere and they are arrogant and pompous...That is not a father my brother..that is a boss..Shalom.

Joshthefirst: Interesting thread. I am prone to bidams view as I think it scriptural.

I have some questions though Sir:

1. Is the five-fold ministry intended as a leadership board God set up for each local body?

2. Some local bodies are not grown enough to have all ministers of the five-fold ministry present or available yet. What about that?

I believe the Church is more than a private branch-like denominational pentecostal body. I believe it is made up of men working under the holy Spirit, who have been called to do different edifying things, and I believe these men, these leaders of the Church today, should also work together, as members of the same body, and be regionally cooperative even if they have different ministerial names.

Most importantly I believe they should be accountable to each other, as we all have the Holy Spirit. It is dangerous for a man not to be accountable to close brothers.
I have seen God always put someone around me every time, whom I am accountable to. Who corrects me sometimes, and who bears me witness, that I too am guided by the Holy Ghost.

We see only very little of this in our region of battle, Nigeria. I have been praying though, that the church will rise and come together as a true body, and work together, God giving it increase.

I believe We should always be accountable to our brethren of like mind Sir.

Alwaystrue(ma'am ), please join this conversation.

Bidam: I don't think we digressed, you may not agree with my point of view but all my posts have been talking about is that the church should NOT be a democracy. God hates rule by laity in the church because it places people in the position of God.

People decide for themselves who will be their teacher, what will be taught and how the church will operate. This rule was never sanctioned by God in His word.

This type of government seldom allows for proper correction, edification, or strength because it is outside the order of God.

Without proper order it is difficult to go from glory to glory or from faith to faith..since proper correction is limited by laity's control, many times the rebellious and gossips control the church. Instead of being led by a pastor set by God, they are led by their understanding of what God would want. Some even go as far as to dictate to the pastor what should be taught or spoken.