Blogging I Love
I love blogging. I know, that comes as a surprise to you. But, it’s true.
However, there is a type of blogging that I love more than most. What kind of blogging is that? It’s when a blogger reads another blogger’s post, and then responds with his or her own thoughts. Then, it gets even better when another blogger picks up the topic and continues the discussion.
I’ve seen this happen a couple of times recently, and I wanted to point it out. Here are two “threads” that I’ve been fortunate to be a part of recently:
Elders
“Thinking About Elders” by me
“Also thinking about elders” by Arthur
Church as Family
“It Doesn’t Take a Village… It Takes a Family” by Eric
“All in the Family” by me
“Family Matters” by Danny
A couple of years ago, I started a “chain blog” on the concept of “city church” that was designed to encourage just this sort of interaction. Perhaps I should start another “chain blog”. (Read this post for more information about “Chain Blogging.”)
What topics would you like to see several bloggers write about and discuss?
Thinking About Elders
Last week, on my post “Honest Questions About Elders/Pastors“, I thought the comments were very good. In reply to two of the comments, I said the following:
As I see it, if a person is not acting as an elder before that person is recognized/appointed by the church as an elder, then that person should not be recognized/appointed. Of course, that means that the person is doing everything an elder should do BEFORE he is an elder…
I think of “elder†as a recognition by the church that someone is doing well (or at least consistently) everything that all believers should be doing.
These comments represent my view of elders over the last few years, but a huge change in my view from several years ago. I thought I would take the opportunity to explain some of the implications of this view of elders.
First, there is nothing in the scriptural description of elders that should not be a description of all believers. All believers should have blameless character. All believers should care for their families. All believers should treat other Christians and outsiders properly. All believers should teach and care for (shepherd) and watch out for (oversee) one another.
Second, the fact that all believers SHOULD live in a certain way does not mean that all believers ARE living that way. Thus, the church should recognize (appoint, if you prefer) those who are living more consistently in the way that all believers should live. These are elders.
Third, people are recognized as elders because of the way they are ALREADY living, not so that they will do something different once they are recognized. This requires that all believers be allowed and expected to operate and function together. (In other words, we can’t allow only certain people to teach. All must be allowed to teach so that those who are “able to teach” will be obvious to all.)
Finally, (and I suppose I could add many, many more things to this list) this view of elders requires that believers ALREADY KNOW the people they are recognizing (appointing) as elders. They have already lived with them. They have learned from their teaching. They have grown from their example. They have accepted their correction. They have observed their service.
So, what do you think about my view of elders? What would you add?
Honest Questions About Elders/Pastors
I have an honest question about elders (or pastors, if you prefer). (“Honest” means that I’m actually asking for answers…)
For most of my life (including today), I have heard something like this: “Elders (pastors) are responsible for the teaching/preaching ministry of the church.”
Sometimes, I hear it this way: “The senior pastor is responsible for the teaching/preaching ministry of the church.”
Now, in context, the statement usually means (at least) teaching/preaching to the congregation once per week (usually more often).
But, here’s my honest question: Can this position be justified from Scripture? If so, how?
Like I said, this is an honest question. I would appreciate comments in answer to this question (these questions), especially from those who agree with the positions stated above.
The Pastor as Prophet, Priest, and King?
My friend Adam from “adamic” has posted a very interesting question in his post “Church Leader as Jesus?” He points to a “missional” class that he says sounds like it is teaching that a pastor should “fill Christ’s role in the local body.” He says:
On further digging, my fears appear confirmed. Each course’s description ends, “This course will focus on the pastor as prophet . . . pastor as priest . . . pastor as king.” I’m not sure where in Scripture you get the idea that the pastor is to fill all the offices of Christ in the local body. Do you know?
Like I commented to Adam, this sounds more like Ignatius than Paul. I’m hoping someone answers his concerns.
Women Serving in Context
So, I’ve published two posts in the last two days about “women in ministry,” that is, about women serving others. (see “Spiritual Gifts and Women” and “Spiritually Gifted Women“) In those two posts, I suggested that 1) the NT authors did not limit the spiritual gifts that God gives women, and 2) it is proper to use titles such as apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher, shepherd, leader, etc. to refer to women.
Also, in both posts, I pointed out that God gives spiritual gifts so that the one gifted can serve others. So, it would appear that God does intend for such spiritually gifted women to serve others.
In general, these are not the hotly debated issues when it comes to “women in ministry.” Instead, the heated debates surround questions such as:
Should a woman be an elder (pastor/preacher)?
Should a woman be a Bible study teacher?
Should a woman teach men?
Should a woman be a deacon?
Since the modern church tends to view “pastor” and “preacher” as synonymous with “elder,” I’m combined those into one question. In Scripture, though, a “pastor” is one who shepherds, and I’ve already suggested that it is appropriate to refer to a woman who exercises the spiritual gift of shepherding with that title… if a title has to be used. Similarly, a “preacher” in Scripture is one who proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ to unbelievers. Since we are all called to proclaim the gospel (including women), I see no problem with calling a woman a “preacher.”
Once again, though, the problem is the way that the modern church uses those terms, not with the biblical usage of the terms. Thus, in today’s church, when someone says “preacher,” that person is probably referring to an elder who regularly teaches the church. That person is probably not using the term “preacher” to refer to someone who regularly proclaims the gospel to unbelievers. Thus, we have problems due to our use of words, not due to commands or prohibitions in Scripture.
Once we get past those differences in word usage (that is, the difference between the way we generally use words today and the way the words are used in Scripture), we still must deal with certain passages of Scripture that deal with the context of women serving others. Primarily, those passages are 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Others would include 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9.
I am not going to exegete those passages at this time. That’s not the purpose of this post or this series. Instead, I would like to point out that differences of interpretation in these passages… and, in fact, those different interpretation are not new. Followers of Jesus Christ has disagreed about the meaning of those passages for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
So, I do not intend to present another interpretation – my interpretation is already out there among the myriad of other interpretation. One of them is correct… perhaps.
But, how do we deal with instances where people disagree over the interpretations of these passages and others like them? What do we do when someone limits the role of women more than we think is correct, or when someone gives more freedom to the service of women than we think is correct?
In my denomination, the rule has been to separate from churches who decide that women can serve in more contexts than the denomination allows. In other denominations, it has been the role to allow any interpretation.
So, what do we do? How do we handle these differences when we meet together with other believers?
An imaginary conversation with Jesus about leadership
Me: Jesus, I want to be a church leader.
Jesus: That’s good.
Me: Thanks. I’ve been talking to other people about it, and I’ve gotten some good advice.
Jesus: Such as?
Me: Well, I’ve been told that I should find a leadership position, like a Sunday School teacher, or a ministry director, or something like that, and start getting experience being a leader. Then, I should consider going to seminary, because that’s where I’ll really learn what it means to be a leader. After seminary, I can find a position in a church somewhere and really start leading.
Jesus: Oh? And what do you think about that?
Me: Well, it sounds good. I mean, everyone I talked to did it that way, and it seems to have worked for them. But, I was wondering what you thought.
Jesus: Interesting. I don’t usually get asked this question until after the plan is in motion.
Me: What do you mean?
Jesus: Well, I often get requests from people who are already considered leaders, but I’m not often asked what it means to be a leader in the first place.
Me: Oh. Well, what do you think I should do to be a leader in the church?
Jesus: Serve.
Me: I don’t know much about tennis.
Jesus: No, not tennis. Serve people.
Me: Oh, you mean like “servant leadership”?
Jesus: No, I mean serve people. If I give you an opportunity to serve someone, then do it.
Me: Oh. You’re talking about actually serving people.
Jesus: Yes.
Me: I’m asking you about leadership, though. You know, teaching, making decisions, presenting a vision – your vision, of course – that kind of thing.
Jesus: If that’s what you want, then fine. But, you asked me what I wanted. And, I want you to serve.
Me: What about seminary? Shouldn’t church leaders go to seminary?
Jesus: Seminary – or any other type of education – is fine. It can be very helpful. But, I want you to serve people, whether you go to seminary or not.
Me: But, will people appoint me to a leadership position without a seminary degree?
Jesus: I don’t know. Maybe not. Do you want a leadership position, or do you want to know what I expect of leaders?
Me: Well, I guess I want to know what you expect of leaders.
Jesus: Then, I want you to serve. When I bring someone into your life, I want you to give up your own wants, desires, hopes, even needs in order to take care of them. If they need food, then feed them. If they need something to drink, then give it to them. If they’re sick, then take care of them. I want you to serve.
Me: But, that’s not really leading, is it?
Jesus: That’s exactly what I call leading. In fact, the more you serve, the greater the leader you will be.
Me: But, how is that leadership?
Jesus: I want you to serve, and I want others to serve as well. As people see you serve, they will serve. You will lead them in how to serve as you all serve together.
Me: You know, that’s not really what I was talking about.
Jesus: Yes, I know.
Me: The advice that the other people gave me sounds better.
Jesus: Yes, I know.
Me: If I become the other type of leader, people will follow me then too.
Jesus: Yes, I know.
Me: But, you want me – and others – to serve people?
Jesus: Yes.
Me: Are there any good books that will help me understand what you’re talking about?
Jesus: I’ve always been partial to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts,… well, you get the picture.
Me: Yeah, I think I do.
Jesus: Paul is a great example of service. Do you know how much he gave up in order to serve people?
Me: Well, I haven’t really read it that way.
Jesus: Maybe you should try…
Me: I’ll think about it.
Jesus: I hope you do.
Clement on appointed elders
The First Epistle of Clement is a very important early Christian letter. The letter was probably written in the late first or early second century, which makes it one of the earliest Christian writings outside of the New Testament.
Traditionally, the letter is attributed to Clement of Rome, although his name does not appear in the letter. Instead, the letter itself says that it is from “the church of God living in Rome” (1 Clement 1:1). Similarly, the letter is written to “the church of God living in Corinth” (1 Clement 1:1).
So, why did the believers in Rome write to the believers in Corinth? Apparently, some people in the church in Corinth had decided to longer recognize the elders in the church in Corinth. While there are many interesting questions that we could discuss in this letter, I was intrigued by a certain passage dealing with the elders themselves.
In a description very similar to Luke’s own in Acts 14, the letter describes how the apostles helped the churches appoint or recognize elders after they had been “tested” or “approved”. But, what happened after the apostles left the scene? Was there some kind of succession, where one elder or group of elders would then appoint those who would follow them?
This is what the First Epistle of Clement says:
Therefore, we do not deem it right to throw away from service those appointed by them [that is, the apostles] or later by other accountable men along with the approval of the whole church, that is, those who also blamelessly served the flock of Christ with humility, peace, and a disinterested spirit, that is, those who have been well spoken of by all for a long time. (1 Clement 44:3 – author’s translation)
According to this passage, at the time this letter was written, elders had been appointed (or recognized) by the apostles, and later, after the apostles left the area or after the apostles had died, elders were also chosen by “accountable men”. Interestingly, the phrase “along with the approval of the whole church” goes with both “by them [the apostles]” and “later by other accountable men”. Thus, both the apostles and later accountable men only “appointed” or “recognized” elders with the approval of the whole church.
Also notice what these elders are known for: 1) for serving the flock; 2) humility, peace, and a disinterested spirit (this is a difficult term to translate), and 3) a long, long experience with the church such that all have spoken well of them for a long time.
I wonder how elders and churches today would be different if elders were known for these same qualities.
By the way, according to the reasoning of 1 Clement 44:3 there would be reason to unacknowledging someone as an elder (or whatever you want to call it) if that person was not approved by the whole church, if that person was not humble or peaceable, or if that everyone had not spoken well of them for a long time.
Financial and identity challenges to tentmaking
Len at “NextReformation” has written a very interesting post called “missional spirituality – tentmaking.” Of course, by the term “tentmaking,” Len simply refers to elders/pastors who work a secular job, that is, they are not paid by the church to be elders/pastors.
Len makes this very observant statement about “tentmaking”:
The deepest challenges are financial and identity related. Christendom structures do not tend to validate unpaid ministry, and that lack usually impacts the internal sense of identity of leaders. Pastors and teachers without letterhead and business cards may have difficultly not just with those who would otherwise be colleagues, but also with their internal convictions about call and adequacy. But we desperately need pastors, teachers, evangelists, apostles and prophets who are not waiting for permission to pursue their kingdom vocations. The existing system will only rarely legitimize a call that is outside its boundaries. But those boundaries exist more as a legacy of a cultural modality than a biblical one, and they are collapsing.
I can tell you that from my seminary and denominational perspective, Len is exactly right. An elder/pastor who works a secular job for support is viewed differently than an elder/pastor who is paid a salary by the church, even if that salary is extremely small. Now, don’t misunderstand me, I don’t think anyone who is part of the seminary or denomination would make that statement, but it seems evident in actions and attitudes.
I guess, using this terminology, I am a tentmaker… and by choice. Interestingly, I think Paul would be surprised that we use the term “tentmaker.” That was his profession. It wasn’t anything special.
Answers to Questions
I wrote the post “Answers to Questions” about three years ago in response to my first blogiversary post. I thought it would be interesting to re-post it. I’d love to hear your thoughts on my “answers.”
——————————————–
Last week, I celebrated my first anniversary of blogging. In my blogiversary post, I listed some of the questions that I have been researching – questions that I asked a year ago in a post called “Questions“:
- What is the church (essence, nature, purpose, etc.)?
- When does a group of people become a church?
- Is one church dependent, independent, or interdependent on other groups?
- What is the purpose of the gathering of the church?
- How are the various spiritual gifts exercised in the meeting of the church?
- What is the nature of church leadership?
- How should church leaders interact with others in the church?
My friend Ed – also known as tenjuices, one of the many members of the blogless tribe, though we are trying to convert him – asked me (in the comments of the blogiversary post) if I had any answers to my questions. I promised that I would share the answers that I have discovered so far. These are not full answers, but summaries. My study is continuing. I would love to hear how others would answer these questions. One thing about these questions/answers. I do not study for the academic value. I study to know how to live in a way that pleases God. So, I have tried to implement many of these “answers” in the way that I live. These are my answers… so far:
1. What is the church (essence, nature, purpose, etc.)?
This is a huge question. In fact, I have tossed around the idea of making this the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation. I don’t think I’m going to, because the topic is probably even too big for that.
The church is the people of God. Period. God gathers his people regularly. This is important to me. The church is not the people who choose to gather together. The church will gather together, but the church cannot be defined by its meetings.
The church exists to bring glory to God and to demonstrate God’s glory. This happens in many ways. When the church is gathered, the church brings glory to God by building up one another toward maturity in Christ.
2. When does a group of people become a church?
Again, this is another tough question. I do not know exactly “when” a group becomes a church. I do not believe that a group of people can decide for themselves to be a church. Either God brings them together or He does not. I do believe that believers should treat one another (and non-believers) the same at all times.
3. Is one church dependent, independent, or interdependent on other groups?
I find very little indication in Scripture that churches are independent. Churches depend on God and, therefore, should depend on one another because God works through different parts of His church to strengthen the church. I prefer the term “interdependent” to describe how churches should relate to one another. Churches are interdependent because all believers are dependent on God and are part of the same family.
4. What is the purpose of the gathering of the church?
Okay. This is one question that I think I can answer – though some may disagree. The church gathers together in order to edify (build up) one another toward maturity in Christ.
5. How are the various spiritual gifts exercised in the meeting of the church?
This is also something that I have studied. I think 1 Corinthians 12-14 – taken together, not just a verse here or there – is important to answering this question. 1) Realize that all gifts are given by the Spirit for the mutual benefit of others. 2) Recognize that the church needs every gift that God has provided through every believer. 3) Act as if those believers and gifts who seem less necessary are actually more important. 4) Say and do everything motivated by love for God and love for one another. 5) When the church is gathered, believers should only exercise those gifts that build up the church. 6) Give preference in exercising gifts to another person. 7) Allow the entire church the opportunity to exercise their gifts.
6. What is the nature of church leadership?
According to Jesus, leaders are servants. Leaders should be known as servants of all, not decision makers or power brokers. Believers should follow those who are good examples of following Christ and who serve others.
7. How should church leaders interact with others in the church?
Leaders are believers. They are part of the church and should be treated like all other parts of the church. They are not more important nor less important. They have responsibilities like the other believers in the church have responsibilities.
Summary
I enjoy asking questions. Sometimes, just asking the question is an important first step. You may not agree with some of these answers. First, I would love to hear how you would answer the questions. In your answer, I hope that you will give a scriptural defense. I know that I have not quoted Scripture here, but that is only for brevity. I try to build all of my answers (and questions) from Scripture. Second, please be gentle and patient with me and with others as we seek to understand what God is teaching about the church.
Also, perhaps you have other questions about the church. I hope you will share those with us as well.
How church leaders were different from synagogue leaders
There were, however, differences [between church leaders and synagogue leaders]. Our Christian documents give no evidence of some of the dignitaries who were occasionally reported at the synagogues. There is no senior elder = gerousiarches, nor any equivalent by another title. The levitical priests, who had only vestigial identity in the synagogues, have none in the churches. The inner circle of authority, the notables = archontes, have not carried over. Nor have the various minor officers mentioned [in the synagogues]. (James Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, 340)