How does your church choose a pastor?

[cmodrmac]

We form a search committee - initially get a list of nominees from the Bishop-no obligation to accept one on the list however-always a fun situation with the various liturgy styles extant in our church-“low” versus Anglo catholic (minority)

The entire congregation gets a voice in the process-

 

[skigirl1689]

So I found out our pastor wants our opinions as to what he should do. I want to give him my opinion but feel odd doing so. What would you do?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

In the ELCA [Lutheran] the synod bishop provides the names of several candidates for a parish to consider. In consultation with the Synod, the local parish selects a pastor.

 

[JonNC]

If I’m not mistaken, the United Methodist Church has a policy that requires pastor rotation after so many years. Neither the pastor or the congregation can keep a church/minister they like longer than a few years.

I had a first grade teacher who was married to a UMC pastor. They moved away when his time was up.

I have a colleague whose father is a Methodist pastor. It seems, from what she says, that in times past, the frequency of these moves was in the range of every 3 or 4 years. It seems to be a good bit longer now.

Jon

 

[Erich]

In the Catholic Church, pastors are generally appointed by the bishop presiding over the diocese. Often, the local parishes really get little to no say in the matter, as diocesan priests have given a vow of obedience to the local bishop (given, by the way, when they become transitional deacons, as deacons ALSO take vows of obedience to the local bishop). Priests belonging to a religious order also sometimes are pastors of parishes, if they reside in a diocese that has a shortage of diocesan priests - but even they are named by the local bishop, as they need permission from the local bishop to celebrate Mass in his diocese outside their communities. The bishop has the final word on where a priest is assigned.

What is a “pastor?” The word is from the Latin, in fact, and it means - quite simply - “shepherd.” Those who call themselves a pastor are claiming to be a shepherd of God’s flock.

The term “pastor” is also interwoven with the biblical term “overseer,” or “elder” - in the Greek, episkopos, or “bishop.” We see this in St. Paul’s farewell discourse to the elders of Ephesus: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” (Acts 20:28) There is the connection: the “episkopoi” of the church at Ephesus have guardianship over “the flock” of God’s people.

Further, to be a “pastor” (shepherd, overseer, elder) is also to be an “ambassador” for Christ (c.f. 2 Cor. 5:18ff). An ambassador is an “authorized messenger or representative” - thus, an ambassador must be sent. In fact, the word “apostle” is Greek for “sent one.” To this we can add the words of St. Paul, who says that preachers must be “sent.” (Rom. 10:15)

Now, what does “to be sent” mean, except that someone in authority over you has conferred the privilege and authority upon you? In fact, it goes without saying that the one who confers the authority must be superior in authority to the one being commissioned, since no one can confer that which he does not possess himself.
In other words, a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation (of inferior authority) cannot confer superior authority upon a man.

The appointment of pastors by bishops follows a Scriptural pattern: God the Father (the superior authority) sends Jesus Christ. Jesus, in turn, sends the Apostles “…As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). Jesus sends these Apostles “as the Father has sent me,” that is, in the same manner, with the same authority: “all authority” (Matt. 28:18). The Apostles pass the mission and authority on to men like St. Timothy and St. Titus (“with all authority” Tit 2:15) . The second apostolic generation is expected to entrust the mission to the next generation, ad infinitum. “What you [Timothy’s generation] have heard from me [Paul’s generation] before many witnesses entrust to faithful men [next generation] who will be able to teach others [subsequent generation] also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

This link goes into much greater detail.

 

[Zenas]

Baptists choose a pastor very much like a company chooses a CEO, or like a college chooses a president. The only difference is that the process takes a lot longer and there is prayer involved.

 

[steido01]

What is a “pastor?” The word is from the Latin, in fact, and it means - quite simply - “shepherd.” Those who call themselves a pastor are claiming to be a shepherd of God’s flock.

Yup.

The term “pastor” is also interwoven with the biblical term “overseer,” or “elder” - in the Greek, episkopos, or “bishop.” We see this in St. Paul’s farewell discourse to the elders of Ephesus: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” (Acts 20:28) There is the connection: the “episkopoi” of the church at Ephesus have guardianship over “the flock” of God’s people.

Yup. Pastor and bishop appear to be synonymous.

Further, to be a “pastor” (shepherd, overseer, elder) is also to be an “ambassador” for Christ (c.f. 2 Cor. 5:18ff). An ambassador is an “authorized messenger or representative” - thus, an ambassador must be sent. In fact, the word “apostle” is Greek for “sent one.” To this we can add the words of St. Paul, who says that preachers must be “sent.” (Rom. 10:15)

Yup. Sent by the power that has been given to the church, for the church.

Now, what does “to be sent” mean, except that someone in authority over you has conferred the privilege and authority upon you? In fact, it goes without saying that the one who confers the authority must be superior in authority to the one being commissioned, since no one can confer that which he does not possess himself.

No disagreement. The church has been given the power to call and send.

In other words, a congregation’s vote cannot suffice, Scripturally speaking, to appoint a man as “pastor,” since the congregation (of inferior authority) cannot confer superior authority upon a man.

Now this is quite the leap. What are we to make of the method used by the early church in Rome’s to select their bishop? One was selected from among themselves and confirmed by the the laying on of hands by the surrounding bishops. Certainly sounds as though the local congregation, acting with the power of the church, selected its own pastor/bishop.

Today, when a congregation calls a pastor, it is calling him to, in effect, be the local bishop. This is consistent with the early church’s method of selecting their bishop.

 

[Erich]

Sent by the power that has been given to the church, for the church.

No disagreement. The church has been given the power to call and send.

Scripture shows that only the Apostles are “entrusted” with the care of the Gospel message (Gal. 2:7, 2 Cor. 5:19, 1 Tim. 1:11, 1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4, 1 Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim. 1:14). Scripture also shows that only the Apostles refer to the Gospel message as their own personal possession (Rom. 2:16, Rom. 16:25, 2 Tim. 2:8, 1 Thess. 1:1 & 5, 2 Thess. 1:1 & 2:13-14). The Apostles possess the Gospel message precisely because it was (as the above passages demonstrate) “entrusted” to them, i.e., given to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative.

The mission and the message can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it. That is, the mission does not merely entail preaching the message, but with it comes the authority to spiritually “reproduce” and pass on the necessary authority to the next generation.

Look at the implicit Father/Son imagery that is used in the creation narrative:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him… then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Gen. 1:27, 2:7)
“When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.” (Gen. 5:3)

What these two passages tell us is that, when God created Adam, He was fathering a son in His own image and likeness. Note that God, in the act of fathering his first human son, breathes on the Man, at which point the Man receives his living spirit.

Compare this to Jesus and the Apostles:
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (John 20:21-22)

In the context of conferring His authority on the Apostles, commissioning them to go in His name to build and govern His Church, Jesus does the very same thing His Father did to the First Adam: He breathes upon them, gives them the Spirit, and “fathers” them, spiritually speaking.

This is why the Apostles then turn around and “father” new sons (that is, pastors, bishops, etc., with apostolic authority) - because this is what Jesus did to them. Thus we see St. Paul referring to Ss. Titus and Timothy (both second-generation apostles, according to Scripture) as his “sons,” and calling himself their “father”.

There can be no other reason why St. Paul would leave his two spiritual “sons” (Ss. Titus and Timothy) explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (c.f. 1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9), than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority on new men who meet those requirements.

Note, also, that **these words were written to Sts. Timothy and Titus specifically, not to the congregation in general. **

Now this is quite the leap. What are we to make of the method used by the early church in Rome’s to select their bishop? One was selected from among themselves and confirmed by the the laying on of hands by the surrounding bishops. Certainly sounds as though the local congregation, acting with the power of the church, selected its own pastor/bishop.

Today, when a congregation calls a pastor, it is calling him to, in effect, be the local bishop. This is consistent with the early church’s method of selecting their bishop.

In the post-Apostolic church, bishops emerged as overseers of urban Christian populations, and a hierarchy of clergy gradually took on the form of episkopoi (overseers), presbyteroi (elders), and diakonoi (ministerial servants). Initially, bishops were chosen by the local clergy and lay Christians with the consent of neighboring bishops. But, as you yourself note, they still had to be confirmed by the laying on of hands by the surrounding bishops (i.e. those in legitimate authority).

Biblically, there is only one way to become a legitimate ambassador of Christ, or “pastor”: by appointment from a superior. This can be done in two ways:
a) being commissioned by a legitimate ambassador (apostolic succession), e.g. Sts. Timothy and Titus, or
b) being called directly by God, e.g. Moses

As to the first method, apostolic succession comes through the laying on of hands in ceremony: “Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands… guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:6, 14). Only a superior can do this, and not an inferior, since an inferior cannot pass on what he does not already possess.

A congregation calling someone to “be the local bishop” is not consistent with the early Church’s method of selecting bishops and pastors. Don’t believe me? Look at Acts 15:24 “…we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions…” Note well what is presumed here: that it was wrong of these men to act in such a way without first having received their commission, their “instructions,” from those in legitimate authority. Scripture does not speak well of those who illegitimately take this position upon themselves (which they, in effect, do when they are not confirmed by those in legitimate authority).

 

[steido01]

In the post-Apostolic church, bishops emerged as overseers of urban Christian populations, and a hierarchy of clergy gradually took on the form of episkopoi (overseers), presbyteroi (elders), and diakonoi (ministerial servants).

The early church developed a great, useful, well-intentioned, man-made system of preserving the teachings of the church.

Initially, bishops were chosen by the local clergy and lay Christians with the consent of neighboring bishops.

Precisely.

But, as you yourself note, they still had to be confirmed by the laying on of hands by the surrounding bishops (i.e. those in legitimate authority).

The laying on of hands still takes place in a Lutheran presbyter ordination. A simple confirmation of the local congregation’s choice, in keeping with the early church.

Biblically, there is only one way to become a legitimate ambassador of Christ, or “pastor”: by appointment from a superior.

Replace “a superior” with “the church,” and this would be much more accurate.

This can be done in two ways:
a) being commissioned by a legitimate ambassador (apostolic succession), e.g. Sts. Timothy and Titus, or

Under this line of thinking, then none of the Popes since Linus are legitimate, since they were chosen not by their predecessor, but by the church.

b) being called directly by God, e.g. Moses

I suppose that works, too.

As to the first method, apostolic succession comes through the laying on of hands in ceremony: “Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands… guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:6, 14). Only a superior can do this, and not an inferior, since an inferior cannot pass on what he does not already possess.

Here is where we disagree. Apostolic Succession, in my limited Lutheran understanding, ought to be the continuation of the Apostolic teaching (confirmed with the laying of hands, not dependent upon it).

A congregation calling someone to “be the local bishop” is not consistent with the early Church’s method of selecting bishops and pastors. Don’t believe me?

That’s simply false.
Celestine I - “Let no bishop be given to a community against its will; the consent and desire of the clergy, people, and nobility is required.”

Leo the Great - “No consideration allows making bishops of those who have not been chosen by the clerics, sought for by the people, and consecrated by the provincial bishops with the consent of the metropolitan.”

Look at Acts 15:24 “…we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions…” Note well what is presumed here: that it was wrong of these men to act in such a way without first having received their commission, their “instructions,” from those in legitimate authority. Scripture does not speak well of those who illegitimately take this position upon themselves (which they, in effect, do when they are not confirmed by those in legitimate authority).

I agree with this paragraph; these men were wrong for “troubling you with words, unsettling your minds,” and otherwise acting without a proper call. No one endorsed them. I also contend that presbyter ordination is entirely orthodox and in keeping with the practice of the early church.

 

[Erich]

A congregation calling someone to “be the local bishop” is not

, and consecrated by the provincial bishops with the consent of the metropolitan.”

Note: and

There’s more to it than just a local congregation calling someone to “be the local bishop.” Nowhere in Scripture do we see sheep picking their shepherd solely on their own authority (in fact they have zero (name removed by moderator)ut into the process). Likewise, nowhere do we see the flock of God’s people picking their shepherd solely on their own authority (though they have varying degrees of (name removed by moderator)ut into the process).

The laying on of hands still takes place in a Lutheran presbyter ordination. A simple confirmation of the local congregation’s

choice, in keeping with the early church.

What’s the sequence of events after completing one’s studies in a Lutheran seminary? Is one ordained, then placed on a list of those eligible to receive a call? Or is one not ordained until he receives a call? Regardless of sequence, what happens when this person moves on to his next (and every subsequent) assignment? Is he re-ordained each time? Or is his original ordination still “good”?

And who does the laying on of hands? The congregation president? The local Lutheran bishop? Whoever it is, by what authority does he claim his title and position, and who gave him this authority? This is indeed a legitimate question, one that was asked of Jesus Himself: “And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’” (Matt. 21:23) Authority flows from the top down (God the Father, Jesus, the Apostles, bishops/overseers/episkopoi, pastors, sheep); it doesn’t flow from the bottom up.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 shows the relationship between the legitimate ambassador and Scripture: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” There is the relationship: the Scriptures are a tool for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” but who is to use this tool for these purposes? That is, who has the authority to teach, reproof, correct, and train others in righteousness? The “man of God” has this authority.

But, who is the “man of God?” A short survey of Scripture’s use of the title reveals that this, too, is a privileged title that cannot be simply taken upon oneself:

Moses - “This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.” (Deut. 33:1)

“Then the people of Judah came to Joshua at Gilgal; and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, ‘You know what the LORD said to Moses the man of God in Kadesh-barnea concerning you and me.’” (Josh. 14:6)

The Angel of the Lord - “Then the woman came and told her husband, ‘A man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; I did not ask him whence he was, and he did not tell me his name…’ Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said, ‘O, LORD, I pray thee, let the man of God whom thou didst send come again to us, and teach us what we are to do with the boy that will be born.’” (Jud. 13:6, 8)

Samuel - “The servant answered Saul again, ‘Here, I have with me the fourth part of a shekel of silver, and I will give it to the man of God, to tell us our way.’” (1 Sam. 9:8)
Elijah - “And she said to Elijah, ‘What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of my son!’” (1 Kings 17:18)

Elisha - “And she went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out… When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed.” (2 Kings 4:21, 32)

David - “According to the ordinance of David his father, he appointed the divisions of the priests for their service, and the Levites for their offices of praise and ministry before the priests as the duty of each day required, and the gatekeepers in their divisions for the several gates; for so David the man of God had commanded.” (2 Chr. 8:14)

St. Timothy - “But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.” (1 Tim. 6:11)

Contrary to the opinion that the “man of God” can be any Christian without distinction, Scripture itself will not allow such an interpretation, insisting that the “man of God” is a figure of authority, either commissioned by God directly through Divine Intervention (such as Moses or the Angel), or appointed by another holder of authority (such as Samuel, David, Elisha, and St. Timothy).

From this very brief survey of the phrase “man of God,” it should become apparent that what holds true for “pastors” holds true for the “man of God”: it is a title of authority that can in no way be taken upon oneself, but rather, it is bestowed upon a man by a higher authority. Oh, and if the “man of God” is truly called by God directly to his ministry (Moses, Jesus, the first generation of Apostles), Scripture requires the proof of miracles, signs, and wonders for authenticity.

 

[steido01]

Note: and

Note: and

There’s more to it than just a local congregation calling someone to “be the local bishop.” Nowhere in Scripture do we see sheep picking their shepherd solely on their own authority

Sure. The power is given to the church, in general - that’s the point of Celestine and Leo’s words, not only the episcopate. Clergy clearly consent to the selection of the people. It’s akin to the US practice of the electoral college consenting to the vote of the people - the power to elect truly belongs to all, or in the case of the early church, to all the faithful.

(in fact they have zero (name removed by moderator)ut into the process).

Not true.

Likewise, nowhere do we see the flock of God’s people picking their shepherd solely on their own authority (though they have varying degrees of (name removed by moderator)ut into the process).

This seems to contradict your previous sentence. I agree with the “solely.” All the faithful were included. This is a historical fact that even Roman Catholics acknowledge. From “New Advent”: newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm
And another useful read: juiciobrennan.com/files/bishopselection/bishopSelectionFlier.pdf

In these early centuries, the nominations and elections of bishops were done solely by a popular vote of all the faithful. St. Cyprian believed elections prevented unworthy persons from becoming bishops.

What’s the sequence of events after completing one’s studies in a Lutheran seminary? Is one ordained, then placed on a list of those eligible to receive a call? Or is one not ordained until he receives a call?

The former; a man is not eligible for a call until he is deemed worthy of ministering Word and Sacrament by the church (Ordination, then call).

Regardless of sequence, what happens when this person moves on to his next (and every subsequent) assignment? Is he re-ordained each time? Or is his original ordination still “good”?

Ordination happens once; it is a simple confirmation and custom which shows that the man is fit for service to the Office of Holy Ministry. From then on, a pastor is ‘installed’ to each call.

And who does the laying on of hands? The congregation president? The local Lutheran bishop? Whoever it is, by what authority does he claim his title and position, and who gave him this authority?

The authority comes from the church, in general, and is outwardly confirmed by rostered clergy. Typically, this includes the District President (bishop, acting as ecclesiastical supervisor) and the surrounding pastors in the circuit who lay hands. Martin Luther explained it like this, “The whole matter depends on whether the congregation and the bishop are in accord, that is, whether the congregation wishes to be taught by the bishop and the bishop is willing to teach the congregation. This willingness settles the matter. The laying on of hands blesses, ratifies, and witnesses this agreement as a notary public and witnesses testify to a secular matter and as a pastor in blessing groom and bride ratifies their marriage and testifies that they have previously taken one another and made this public.” It looks something like this:

This is indeed a legitimate question, one that was asked of Jesus Himself: “And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’” (Matt. 21:23) Authority flows from the top down (God the Father, Jesus, the Apostles, bishops/overseers/episkopoi, pastors, sheep); it doesn’t flow from the bottom up.

And wasn’t Christ’s response essentially that man-made overseers have no power to halt the proper proclamation of the Word? It has nothing to do with man-made hierarchy (however useful, and at times necessary, it may be).

(cont…)

 

[steido01]

(cont…)

2 Tim. 3:16-17 shows the relationship between the legitimate ambassador and Scripture: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” There is the relationship: the Scriptures are a tool for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” but who is to use this tool for these purposes? That is, who has the authority to teach, reproof, correct, and train others in righteousness? The “man of God” has this authority.

But, who is the “man of God?” A short survey of Scripture’s use of the title reveals that this, too, is a privileged title that cannot be simply taken upon oneself:

Moses - “This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.” (Deut. 33:1)

“Then the people of Judah came to Joshua at Gilgal; and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, ‘You know what the LORD said to Moses the man of God in Kadesh-barnea concerning you and me.’” (Josh. 14:6)

The Angel of the Lord - “Then the woman came and told her husband, ‘A man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; I did not ask him whence he was, and he did not tell me his name…’ Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said, ‘O, LORD, I pray thee, let the man of God whom thou didst send come again to us, and teach us what we are to do with the boy that will be born.’” (Jud. 13:6, 8)

Samuel - “The servant answered Saul again, ‘Here, I have with me the fourth part of a shekel of silver, and I will give it to the man of God, to tell us our way.’” (1 Sam. 9:8)
Elijah - “And she said to Elijah, ‘What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of my son!’” (1 Kings 17:18)

Elisha - “And she went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out… When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed.” (2 Kings 4:21, 32)

David - “According to the ordinance of David his father, he appointed the divisions of the priests for their service, and the Levites for their offices of praise and ministry before the priests as the duty of each day required, and the gatekeepers in their divisions for the several gates; for so David the man of God had commanded.” (2 Chr. 8:14)

St. Timothy - “But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.” (1 Tim. 6:11)

Contrary to the opinion that the “man of God” can be any Christian without distinction, Scripture itself will not allow such an interpretation, insisting that the “man of God” is a figure of authority, either commissioned by God directly through Divine Intervention (such as Moses or the Angel), or appointed by another holder of authority (such as Samuel, David, Elisha, and St. Timothy).

Agreed; provided the “holder of authority” is the church, in general. Whatever man-made mode a given communion chooses to exercise that authority is adiaphora, provided it does not contradict Scripture.

From this very brief survey of the phrase “man of God,” it should become apparent that what holds true for “pastors” holds true for the “man of God”: it is a title of authority that can in no way be taken upon oneself, but rather, it is bestowed upon a man by a higher authority. Oh, and if the “man of God” is truly called by God directly to his ministry (Moses, Jesus, the first generation of Apostles), Scripture requires the proof of miracles, signs, and wonders for authenticity.

Agreed; Ordination and Call are required for ministry of Word and Sacrament. I disagree that such authority to confer Ordination or Call must be confined to one individual. The power, ISTM, belongs to the church. Which brings me back to my previous question. If, as you previously stated:

Biblically, there is only one way to become a legitimate ambassador of Christ, or “pastor”: by appointment from a superior. This can be done in two ways:
a) being commissioned by a legitimate ambassador (apostolic succession), e.g. Sts. Timothy and Titus…

Then wouldn’t just about every pope since Linus be illegitimate, since they were chosen not by their predecessor (a man), but by the church?

 

[VanSensei]

Some sort of chain involving the Archbishop. Think about it:

A pastor was appointed to my parish, which means the one from his old parish had to be appointed from somewhere else and THAT one had to be appointed from somewhere else. Either I’m thinking too hard, or it feels like Catholic Groundhog Day.

 

[Erich]

(in fact they have zero (name removed by moderator)ut into the process).

Not true.

In this particular case I was referring to sheep of the four-legged variety. Such sheep truly have no (name removed by moderator)ut into the process of deciding who their shepherds will be.

Peter in his first epistle (I Peter 5:2) describes the duties of an elder (i.e. pastor) - to shepherd or guide those in the church with less maturity or experience in spiritual things. These (two-legged) sheep will of course have some idea of what their spiritual needs are, but they don’t know everything they need, and oftentimes they don’t know what (or even that) they don’t know.

We know that Jesus said that Peter – not Peter and the rest of the Apostles, not Peter’s faith – would be the Rock on whom He would build His Church. We also know that Jesus commanded Peter – and Peter alone – to “feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep.” Finally, we know that there were (and are) false prophets among the people, who “secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.” (2 Peter 2:1) So, Jesus established a visible Church, we (His followers) are like sheep in need of a shepherd, and “there be wolves.”

The New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization; every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization. Now, if Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact. All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

steido01:

And wasn’t Christ’s response essentially that man-made overseers have no power to halt the proper proclamation of the Word?

Christ’s response is recorded in Matthew 21:24-27

24Jesus said to them in reply, “I shall ask you one question, and if you answer it for me, then I shall tell you by what authority I do these things. 25Where was John’s baptism from? Was it of heavenly or of human origin?” They discussed this among themselves and said, “If we say ‘Of heavenly origin,’ he will say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ we fear the crowd, for they all regard John as a prophet.” 27So they said to Jesus in reply, “We do not know.” He himself said to them, “Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things."

 

[Skadi]

we elect our Gothi/Gytha from the group. Sometimes it goes on a rotational basis, realy just depends on the group.