₦airaland Forum

McKren,

My dictionary defines constitution as, The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution. The document in which such a system is recorded.
Constitution The fundamental law of the United States, framed in 1787, ratified in 1789, and variously amended since then.
So that the laws of the land is a component of the constitution. When you break the law you thus break the constitution.
Yes Obasanjo has questions to answer about some impeachments but there is need to separate which from which. If you have brought the EFCC into the equation then you are approximating the whole thing which is not fair. Let me explain,
The impeachment of Ladoja and Obi where unconstitutional no doubts but they had nothing to do with EFCC.
I find it very disturbing when people talk about spate of impeachment and count those as 5, for me there are only 2 unjustified impeachment and we must know this.
DSP Alameiseigha was caught in the act so too was Dariye, That of Fayose the facts are there. When people start talking about of constitutionality in defence of a thieving governor you begin to wonder if the constitution in the first place empowers these governors to embezzle state funds. Where was the so-called constitution when they stole. If we had an ideal democracy most of the state assembly will not wait EFCC to remind them that such people should be impeached. They refuse to do their job, rather collude with the governor to pepertrate more evils on the people. Even when the EFCC reminds the house to do their job the governors try to exploit the slow process of our justice system to remain in office till the end of their tenure after which they hope to escape from the country.
The truth is that I don't know the problem with Nigerians, instead of people to protest the immunity clause in our constitution which has meant as soon as you vote a governor you are invariably giving him the right to embezzle all you got or kill your brother and not answer for it we are busy criticizing the EFCC.
For me I don't care what any person thinks I will tell my grand children about Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, the man who is single-handedly fighting Nigeria's revolution.
His job is not easy, if he is to follow religously ourconstitution which in the first place I think is flawed he would achieve anything.
At least if not for anything virtually every politician is pledging to fight corruption meaning he has been able to bring to our awareness that coruption should no longer be our way of life. He has identified the need to weed it out of our system.
Kudos Nuhu Ribadu!!!!! you are the Giovanni Falcone of our time.

I will not go into detailed arguments with you about the differences or peculiarities between a constitution of a country and it's laws. But going by the definition you provided, I believe you need to take a look at the phrase "fundamental laws" and compare that to what I mentioned.
You do make a valid point about the immunity clause in our constitution and I agree with you on that, but until that is changed there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
You strike me as biased when you can not see that the constitution was clearly violated in the cases of Fayose and Dariye. I can't recall the full details of Alam's case so I wont even go there. A chief Judge that was unconstitutionally appointed set up an unconstitutional panel to try a constitutionally elected Governor and you tell me that you are okay with that? You got to be kidding me. As for Dariye, only 5 members of the House meeting outside the chambers at 6 in the morning felt so power-drunk that they impeached a sitting Governor. Do you realise you need two-thirds of the whole house to constituionally impeach the Governor?

Now, I am not saying these men are clean. all I am saying is you don't fight criminality with unconstitutionality which is exactly what OBJ sanctioned and encouraged. He is the greater sinner.

Whether it exploded or not is beside the point. The fact that they attempted to carry out such a dastardly act goes to show that they are extremeely sick. Just like Ndipe, my wife and our unborn child were at the Airport when this happened and were directly affected by the whole thing. I got the information first from her at the scene.

If not that the Counsel of the Lord stood at that point, who knows what could have happened. The Bastard(s) actually parked the car by the gas stations used by the car rental companies.

For those who want to be politically correct, go on and do so. I have no apologies for my statement above. We know the blood-thirstiness of Allah is what drives his subjects to steal, kill and destroy. But their counsel shall not stand. Indeed, we shall bind thier princes with chains and their nobles with fetters of iron. We shall execute the judgment of God that is written against them. None of the weapons they have fashioned against us shall prosper and we condemn every tongue that is risen against us in judgment.

It hasn't made it to the news yet, but a bomb has just been discovered at the Minneapolis Airport. It was hidden in a car that was parked where it could make a very high impact: by some gas tanks. Thankfully, the bomb has been detonated by a bomb squad and another bloodshed to satisfy Allah's appetite has been avoided.

I hope these bastards are caught and burned alive on a stake. They shoud burn in fire on there way to eternal hell fire.

@babyosiosi,

I dey kampe. You got your info a little wrong. I met my wifey at Isi Alangwa, but she is actually from Ekiti State. I guess I can refer to myself as your in-law with a little stretch of the meaning of that word.

Is it wrong for you to enjoy the fruits of your labour? Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you". He is not out of touch at all. I have a friend who I learnt Okotie raised some money for during one of the church servies early this year. Guess how much he raised for the guy? Over 3 million naira. His charitable disposition is only questioned by those who know not what they are talking about. Abeg, find another tenable reason.

What do you mean "he doesn't look bombicidal"? Can't you see his life-long dream written below his picture - 'to be a hero.' The only reason why Osama, Attah and co are heros in the eyes of the muslim world is 911. Better be safe than sorry. No info for this guy!!!!

Sirbuddy,

You attention is clearly on the wrong person. You need to begin from the head where the greater acts of lawlessness is perpetrated. I am talking of Baba Iyabo himself. Why wont the likes of Atiku and co be bold about illegality when the greatest illegality was and is being perpetuated by Obasanjo.

Forget the fight against corruption he is telling us about. I lost all admiration for the man with the recent spate of unconstitutional impeachments of the State Governors. He swore to protect the constitution and he empowered EFCC to brazenly violate it in thier quest for vendetta. You don't fight corruption with unconstitutionality, and the greatest sin anyone can commit against a nation is not to break its laws, but to break its constitution. Baba is the greatest of the criminals. I stand to be corrected on this.

Abeg, no one should provide any info o. Who knows, this may be a ploy by some to gather relevant information to carry out a suicide bombing. To the Islamo-fascists, taking the life of thousands of Nigerians would be justified as long as a Jew or an American is killed in the process.

There is nothing humorous about this. Will you find it funny if someone put your Dad's picture up on the internet with such a comparison? I still stand by the fact that this is absolute trash and is only fit for the dust bin.

This is such a bad taste.  Seun, can you kindly delete this?  While you claim Bush crossed the line, I can assure you that you are on the same divide with him.  What a piece of trash.

Don't you think you'll be a better earth citizen if you spend more time thinking of how to do good than this venture into a matter that you or I have no apparent answer for?

Interesting topic indeed.

While all sins deserve one consequence: death; the Bible is very clear that some sins are really more grievous than others.  Some have cited these in earlier posts, so I will not bore us with repeatition.  But come to think of it, the seemingly simple sin of disobedience is what broguht evil on the world today.  I guess Adam and Eve couldn't have imagined such a consequence to their sin.  That teaches us one thing: flee every appearance of evil (as apostle Paul admonished).

Now to the sin of homosexuality.  I am of the persuasion that after the sin against the Holy Spirit (which the Bible says is unpardonable), the most reviled sin in God's sight is homosexuality.  I say this because there is no sin that screams "antichrist" as much as the sin of homosexuality.  It is an affront on the image of God: Christ.  Right from the Book of Genesis, the Lord made it clear that sex is meant to be a pointer to the image of God (Christ), and He meant it to be between a man and a woman. 

No wonder that the Antichrist will be a homosexual.  I guess this explains why the sin is so rampant now as the world awaits the coming of this great personality.  God had to destroy Soddom and Gomorrah because they were establishing a state of the anti-christ long before its appointed time.

Even nature teaches us that this sin is heinous above all else.  I'm sure we all know that AIDS was first discovered and perpetuated within the homosexual community.  This lifestyle brought about the near anihilation of the human race a while back, now it is attempting to do the same through the deadly disease.

This is getting real frightening. What exactly was the intention of this man? Does this mean the last few plane crashes could have been a result of such criminalities that went undiscovered? Does this have a political undertone? (Remember the M.A.D. hijackers after June 12?).

I thought this story was embarassing enough until the Aviation minister said he has invited E.F.C.C. to come in and investigate. Can someone please correct this ignorant man that EFCC wasn't set-up to do this sort of job!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/news/national/2006/nov/20/national-20-11-2006-01.htm

Can you interprete the data you are so eager to display to the rest of the world here please. As far as I am concerned, this is utter nonsense and smirks of deep-rooted ignorance.

Sin is missing the mark.

@Odeku,

The Minnesota that you are coming too once had Jesse "The Body" Ventura (a former wrestler) as the Governor. We are all aware that Arnold Schwazeneger is the Governor of California (one of the biggest economies in the U.S.). If people were think the way you do, none of these guys will smell primaries talkless of becoming Governors. All that matters is that they have the compassion, the vision and the necessary administrative skills to be in those exalted positions. And by the way, what is wrong with Charlie Boy? Don't let the outward fool you, he is a very sound guy upstairs.

First you claim Okotie will be biased against muslims, and now you are making some other accusations when you have been shown the fallacy of that statement. To answer your question, please do some investigation about the fact that Okotie has set up a medical insurance scheme in Lagos similar to the one here in the U.S. Though not yet in government, he has done so much in philanthropy and is very socially responsible. Try and do some research before jumping to conclusions.

Kai Odeku,

What are you doing in Minnesota? I thot Chicago is your base. Abeg spend money yanfun-yafun and help us keep our economy no 1 in the U.S.

@odeku,

In other words, your lame effort to back up your prejudice got you to make unreasonable excuses.

Why use the word 'period'. Is that to tell us you are not open to discussions? Such words are inappropriate on a public forum like this. This is where semicolons, commas, hyphens etc, are freely welcome.

@odeku,

You are obviously wasting your time if you regard the so-called Rev king as your example of who a christina should be.

You are right. I thought of that too but to all reading that article all over the world, it is NIGERIA again in the news for all the wrong reasons.

What do you guys make of this story?  In addition to 419, I hope they wont add terrorism to the growing lists of crimes associated with Nigerians.  [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229895,00.html[/url]

Being a Christian makes not only makes you a better person (a newborn to be precise), it also influences your intellect and your behaviour and attitude to whatever you lay your hands to do. In that wise, I would say having a preacher who has proved himself in all the vocations he's ever done just shows that he is the right man for the job.

For those who think he may have problems with muslims, I want to ask how many people do you know that supporteg MKO (a muslim) financially during his campaign to be President? It is on record that Okotie gave him a million naira for this purpose. That doesn't come across as one who has a problem with muslims. At least two muslims have been awarded with the KARIS Award at Okotie's church. He had a muslim woman for running mate in the last election. So please, look for another excuse. it appears the only people who can't get beyond the religion mentality are those who are criticizing him in this regard.

Okotie is indeed popular in the north. For your information. He is the only non-northerner to have ever being elected into the Board of Trustess of the Aminu Kano Foundation. Do you know how weighty that is? Babangida recently voiced out his admiration for that man and a host of people just voted for him, but all you Detractors (using our political parlance) will not give him rest. Na wa o. This man has shown our youths what it is to rise above the underdog status and to vehemently pursue your goals and dreams. I guess the psyche of many Nigerians have been so battered that they just can't accept a change of the status quo. I shake my head for una.

Until you have proofs of a set-up in the popularity poll, please do not make insinuations that stains the character of men and instituions that have proven to be some of the few in our country that are still uncorrupted.

This only goes to show that the last presidential election was won through rigging. Okotie actually polled more than 200% more votes than his closest rival. I hope Vanguard, Silverbird and Akintola Williams will be co-opted into INEC to ensure a free and fair election . In any case, I have always felt Okotie has more to offer than all these people who are just out for what they can eat. His is the only party I know with a clear manifesto for Nigerians to observe and criticise. The next stage of debate will surely see Okotie beating all of them hands down.

@Enugu,

Thanks for joining in the conversation.  We still go from house to house breaking bread.  I'm sure you've heard of house fellowships and Cell fellowships.  Those are the kind of things that happen there.

@TV01

I believe my earlier reference to the letters to Timothy & Titus, and the Biblical narrative amply demonstrate the relevance of "Eldership".

I never said having elders in the church is not relevant, rather, I mentioned that the Lord never gave a specific instruction as to appointing elders in the church.  The concept of eldership was introduced by the Apostles in the course of greater administrative needs of the church.  In this, you have not answered my question at all.  Did Jesus specifically instructed that Elders be appointed in the church?  As far as the other T's (Timothy and Titus) in this conversation are concerned, there is no direct witness to the notion that the Lord instructed for Elders to be appointed in the church.

But if something is codified (specific instructions) in scripture and played out in the Biblical narrative, any addition sounds like the traditions of men. Believe me most traditions sounded good and reasonable to begin with, but as men we have an inclination to do what is good in our own sight and then co-opt God in or just get His sign-off.

I do not believe anything must pass for "law" in the NT except it comes directly from Jesus.  If there is no direct instruction from Him, He expects us to follow the principles laid down and not violate our conscience and the law of love.  For instance, the early disciples were known to gather on Sunday which is what we do today.  But the fact remains that this was not a direct command from the Lord.  They did what they thought was "good to them and the Holy Ghost" and the Lord has no problems with it.  and everything is prone to abuse including the Eldership thing you are talking about. You feel the nomenclatures we use to day brings undue visibilty to some, but the fact is even the use of the word Elders for some and not all will result in the same problem.  Nomenclature is not the problem, though it should not be used in a way that violates the Spirit of the NT.

Again, I don't see from scripture that NT Eldership is about the "administative function". It is about the spiritual welfare of the flock, by the spiritually mature. Neither is it dependent on age, hence Timothy. In fact the reason why his relative youth would have been a problem is because he would not have been qualified for an elder role under traditional Judaism.

It is clear that their primary role is "ruling" and some that rule might also labour in word and doctrine.  That is what 1 Ti 5:17 is all implies - Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.  Are you implying that Timothy was considered an Elder?  You got to be kidding me.  The word itself implies you have to be advance in years to be one.  Don't stretch it my friend.

Not to stray, administration is a trifling concern in faith terms. However it becomes core when mans religious imperative starts to make headway. There are only 2 reasons for believers to come together in fellowship. For growth/edification & to care for each other (coporate worship is great, mass evangelism is commendable, but these are not the prime reasons for assembling). Learning/sharing/teaching (not preaching) the Word and mutual care.
Like I say, doctrine can sound great and be concieved with the noblest of intentions, but it must work itself out on practice and conform to biblically prescribed mores.

To you, administration may be no big deal, bu to God, He considers it such a BIGGIE that one of the gifts He bestows specially was the gift of government or administration:  [color=#990000]1 Corinthians 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. [olor]
Do you want to take that back?

Could you please answer your own question, only replacing the "Elders & Deacons" with "Sole Authority Pastors"

This is very simple.  The Lord has a message for His church in several cities.  He thought it best that He would address the message to ONE person who is called the Messenger of that Local Assembly (See Revelations 1 to 3).  He never addressed the message to a group of people but only to one person.  So tell me, doesn't that tell you that the Lord recognises only one person that is ultimately responsible for the "walk" of that body of believers?  Since He has called Pastors to shepherd and to teach His people, is it not only logical to conclude that the messenger must be the Pastor?

@TV01,

I guess my next question is somehow tied to the first one. Is there any place in the NT where the Spirit of God specifically mentioned that the affairs of the church must be manned by Elders and Deacons? This is very important to our discussions because a careful observance of the Book of Acts indicate that sometimes, the Lord gives specific instructions and atimes, the Disciples do what seems "Good to us and the Holy Ghost". In other words, without a specific instruction, they do what wisdom dictates for them to do as long as it does not violate their conscience and is not in contradiction to the will of God. This is what happened in the case of Deacons and I dare say, in the case of Elders.

The Elder concept was adopted from their custom because they noticed that it works well as a means of administration. It's just like the church today adopting some means of administration that we noticed worked in the community we live in. As long as the principle that such administration ensures that the ministry of the Word and Prayer is not hindered, then the Lord will have no problems with it. And besides, the role played by elders in those days are well taken care of by people in the church today. The only difference is that we do not use that nomenclature; and at the same time we have young people, like Timothy who are not qualified to be called Elders but are functioning in that role.

What have you to say to these?

Hi TV01,

I guess you wanted me "outside" where no parental oversight will limit our no-holds-barred approach to this discussion.

I have this question for you as we move on.  What is the origin of the "Eldership" structure imbibed by the early church?  Was it a product of the society in which they lived or was it a commandment of the Lord?  Same for the role of the Deacon.  Please share the origin of the "pastoral" ministry with us as well.

@TV01,

Every reference you’ve made to pastors, pastorship or the sole pastoral authority has been by inference. You are so blatantly reading the Bible to fit your tradition that I am left wondering if you are really serious, or just having a laugh at my expense. Not funny dude

This statement can only come from one whose dogged stance to his position can never cause him to see the obvious.  Perhaps you should begin by asking yourself what does the word Pastor mean and what are the innevitable concomitance of that name?  Let me help you here.   Going by the Greek word Poimen, a Pastor is a herdsman, he is one to whose care and control others have committed themselves, and whose precepts they follow.   For you to know the job description of a Pastor (shepherd), you will need to understand the revelations of a shepherd as revealed in scriptures.  When you do, then you will begin to understand what Jesus had in mind when HE called some to be Pastors and Teachers.

And one of the things the Apostles took great care to do was leave a blueprint for proper church functioning.

To imply that the Apostles established a "fixed" administrative structure for the church that is meant to be adopted by all is uncorroborated by scripture.  To begin with, the first of two offices you claim is only relevant in the church today was established not because the Lord instructed it to be, but due to necessity.  Remember the situation that necessitated the election of Deacons?  Even the Apostles realise the need for dynamism as the work of the Lord demands.  They set forth a principle in that situation.  Every administrative structure that will ensure that the clergy is focused on the ministry of the Word is very much welcome!  

Here the only people consulted where the Apostles and elders, no mention of Pastors. I remember earlier during our ongoing discussion, you tried to shoe-horn James into the pastors position in the church at Jerusalem. And all because he was commended as a person of note. I shouldn’t be surprised when you ascribe things to me really should I?

Your selective amnesia is beginning to kick in here.  So you no longer remember that I said that Pastors can be, though not necessarily elders?  There is no proof to the composition of those elders and for all you know, Pastors will likely be part of them.  Besides, aren't you the one that said and I concur, that Pastors and Elders are used interchangeably in the NT?  Please swap the word Elders with the Word Pastors in your statement and tell me if you are making any sense.

1 Timothy 5:17 - Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.
Here it is evident that it is only elders (although not necessarily all elders) that are charged with the teaching function/ministry.

Now this is beginning to turn into a situation of "How readest thou"?  1 Timothy 5:17 definitely lays emphasis to the fact that the primary role of an Elder is RULING.  Going by the Lord's plan, what we call the five-fold ministry is actually four-fold.  The Lord called some to the ministry of Pastoring and Teaching.  The Pastoral ministry is meant to be the teaching ministry as well.  That makes sense when you realise that the Shephard (Pastor) is supposed to FEED the sheep with the Word of God.  Now can you show us where the Lord called some to be Elders?  Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, (1.)apostles; and some, (2)prophets; and some, (3)evangelists; and some, (4)pastors and teachers;  Clearly it was the Lord's intentions that the job of teaching should fall to the Pastors.  This is also one of the reasons why I mentioned before that the "Elder" thing is just a carry-over of the judaism tradition into Christianity.  Perhaps that is the Christian Culture you alluded to in our other discussion.

If the role of pastor was that important it would be mentioned somewhere. Highlighted even, at least emphasised, yet it gets barely a passing mentioned. You can only deny this by denying scripture. Go ahead, let me hear you. Unless you can show directly from scripture and not by convoluted inference and recourse to the scarily shoddy exegesis (no doubt based on tradition) that you always resort to.

You amaze me by your words without knowledge.  The pastor aint important, yet it is one of four ministries that Jesus calls His own into.  It is not that important yet Jesus told Peter 3 times He wants His sheep fed (obviously by a shepherd - Pastor).  If we apply this faulty logic of yours, then we will also thrash the office of the Evangelist.  Now I am beginning to see no point in engaging in this discussions with you.  You claim others are wallowing in the deep waters of tradition, yet you are trying to make an obvious tradition into a commandment of the Lord.  I surely can't wish you God-speed when you embark on such a futile journey.

You also came up with this “elders are appointed over cities” notion which just leaves me shaking my head. But please explain more. And pray tell who are the elders over London, I’m just curious sir.

Here is your answers in Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:  The elders of the Nigerian church will be found in the organisation called PFN or CAN.  Issues that affect the church universally are discussed and prayed about in that forum.  Such an organisation in London will fit the same bill.  But wait a minute, these people are performing the role that Elders perform in the Book of Acts, but they only go by a different nomenclature.  That should be understandable when we realise that the Elder concept is one that was obviosuly local to the Jewish community.

The above scriptures should serve to disabuse anyone of that notion. The true church requires little administration, even deacons are charged more with attending to the physical welfare of the flock while elders focus on their spiritual well-being.

If the church remains within the confines of your home, then it obviously requires little administration.  On the other hand if it is the church of the last days that the Word prophesies that ALL nations shall flow into it, then we are talking about a whole new level of administration.

As for salaried workers sir, please listen carefully, a PREACHER is someone who carries the good news from place to place – Even unbelievers know you don’t preach to the converted – It was an itinerant ministry, where almost everything else (Private, jet, 80 grand chariot, big home, servants, adoring wife, loving kids, career progression, safety, security and stability etc) was sacrificed. I mentioned that there was a case for missionaries to be supported.

Please alsways put an addendum behind your own definitions.  Reading through the entire context of 1 Corinthians 9, Paul made it clear that everyone (not missionaries alone), who sow spiritual seeds into our lives have the right to expect to receive carnal rewards from us.  Besides, Missionaries are supported in most cases by people who do not receive ministry directly from them.  In this you show complete ignorance again.  You sure love to go beyond that which is written isn't it?  What is wrong with having a private jet that gets you around to preach the word?  Tell me, who has the potential to reach the unreached better, a preacher on horse back or one with a plane?  I wonder why you are even on the internet whne Jesus never used one during His days on earth.  Arent you compromising your faith?

I always laugh when they cite Paul as reason why they should be paid. He said loud and clear “Yet I have used none of these things” He gave it all and asked nothing in return. Beheading is not a fringe benefit!

Perhaps you are blinded to the part of the scripture in 1 Corinthians 9:13 that says Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.  That Paul wasn't receiving of the Corinthians does not mean he wasn't receiving elsewhere.  He just sensed that the Corinthians will take it in bad faith like you are doing with others right now.  This is an indictment on the church as much as it is a show of maturity on the part of Paul.  The Phillipians who gave to Paul were witnessed to be blessed and fruitful and were a participant in the grace of God upon the life of Paul.   As usual, you have witnessed to your lopsided and narrow-mindedness as regards the teachings of the scriptures.

@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.

@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.