Elders
Two years ago, I wrote a seven part series on Elders (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, and part 7). Unfortunately, I think many Christians understand elders/pastors/bishop more from their cultural definitions than from scriptural definitions and examples. Below I’ve re-published the conclusion of this series, along with links to the other posts in the series.
———————————————————————-
In this series, I’ve suggested that Scripture does not hold elders to a higher standard of character, leadership, teaching, shepherding, or oversight. Also, I’ve suggested that Scripture does not add any responsibilities to elders in these areas above the responsibilities of all believers. Instead, I’ve suggested that, according to Scripture, all believers have the same responsibilities in these areas.
Does this mean that elders are unscriptural? Does this mean that elders are unimportant?
No. Elders are both scriptural and important. Scripture teaches that the church in Jerusalem had elders. Scripture teaches that Paul appointed elders in the cities that he visited. Scripture teaches that Paul told Timothy and Titus how to recognize elders. James and Peter both expected elders in the various churches to whom they wrote.
Elders are scriptural and important. When we recognize elders, we should recognize those who best exemplify the character, leadership, teaching, shepherding, and oversight required of all followers of Jesus Christ. When we think of people who are best following Jesus Christ and who are best serving other people, elders are the ones we should think about. When we want to see a flesh-and-blood example of what it means to live for Christ here and now, elders should be our best examples. These are the people who point us toward maturity in Jesus Christ – not toward themselves. When we need help in understanding something, or when we need assistance, or when we need comfort, or when we need exhortation, or even when we need correction, we should think of elders – not because they alone are responsible in these areas, but because we have observed how they live in obedience to Christ in these areas.
Again, this does not mean that elders are more responsible. It means that elders have demonstrated that they are more faithful in obeying Christ the way that all believers should obey Christ. However, elders who recognize that it is important for all followers of Jesus Christ to live this kind of obedient life will not always respond to requests for help from other believers. Instead, they will recognize that it is necessary that other believers have opportunities to demonstrate their character, to lead, to teach, to shepherd, and to oversee. Thus, elders who are interested in maturing all believers toward Christ will often defer an opportunity to serve to other believers, because those elders know that it is more important for the other believers to grow in maturity than it is for the elders themselves to do something, even if the elders might do it better.
In many contexts, people believe that elders lead best when they are visible and vocal. However, this is not necessarily true. Yes, there are times when mature believers (any mature believer, not just elders) should make themselves seen and heard in order to protect the gospel (not to protect our pet doctrines, but to protect the gospel). I have personally never been in one of these situations. I believe that they are rare, but the situation could come up. However, for the most part, I believe that elders demonstrate their maturity and Christlikeness most when they are not seen and not heard but are instead serving in obscurity by leading, teaching, shepherding, and overseeing in ways that demonstrate the humility and gentleness of the Spirit of Christ. If someone must be “in the limelight” – if they must be noticed – if they must be the main speaker – if they must make their opinion known – then it could be that this person is not demonstrating the character of Christ – who humbled himself taking the form of a servant – and reliance upon God, but is instead revealing a character of pride and self-dependence.
I recognize that there are serious implications of my views concerning elders. I hope to discuss many of these implications. However, I also want to give you an opportunity to discuss these implications. So, for the conclusion of this series, I am asking you – my readers – to help us understand the implications. Later, I will publish another post in order to discuss these various implications. Here are my questions for you:
1. Am I missing something in my understanding of elders?
2. What are the implications of this view of elders?
——————————————————————-
Series on Elders
1. Elders (Part 1) – Introduction
2. Elders (Part 2) – Character
3. Elders (Part 3) – Leadership
4. Elders (Part 4) – Teaching
5. Elders (Part 5) – Shepherding
6. Elders (Part 6) – Overseeing
7. Elders (Part 7) – Conclusion
Exercising authority without exercising authority?
According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus taught that his followers should not exercise authority over one another. Instead, they are to serve one another:
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28 ESV)
And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42-45 ESV)
And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.” (Luke 22:25-26 ESV)
In these passages, it seems that Jesus not only prohibited his followers from exercising authority over one another (even the apostles), but he also told us who we should follow (who are our leaders), that is, those who serve.
Today, however, there are many people who conclude that elders (or other leaders in the church) CAN exercise authority over other followers of Jesus. They can make decisions. They can decided what is to be done when the church meets. They can exercise church discipline. They can judge between doctrines.
This raises a question for me: How can we exercise authority without exercising authority? In other words, how can elders exercise authority over other followers of Jesus while living according to Jesus’ teaching in this area?
Is it possible to have it both ways? Can I make decisions for someone without exercising authority over that person? Was Jesus only prohibiting certain kinds of authority, but allowing other kinds of authority? Maybe Jesus was allowing good authority, but prohibiting bad authority? If so, how do we decide which authority is good and which authority is bad?
These are honest questions. I don’t understand. I’ve read the books and studied the arguments. I don’t understand how someone is supposed to exercise authority while following Jesus’ instructions in these passages.
Clement on the appointment of elders
For my dissertation, I’m studying many of the writings of the early church fathers. One of the earliest Christians writings (apart from the New Testament) is 1 Clement, which was probably written just before 100 A.D.
In this letter, Clement writes to the church in Corinth because he has heard that the church has decided to “de-appoint” (?) all of their elders. Interestingly, Clement appears to use the words for “elders” (presbuteroi) and “bishops/overseers” (episkopoi) interchangeably, unlike Ignatius who favored a three-tiered hierarchy (one bishop, many presbyters, many deacons) and who wrote his letters about 10-20 years after Clement. (See my post “The bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, oh my!” for more information about the different views of leadership in the early church.)
But, there is an interesting passage in 1 Clement 42:1-4 related to the “appointment” of overseers (or elders, since Clement uses both words). This is my translation (here is another translation):
The apostles proclaimed good news to us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ [was sent] from God, and the apostles [were sent] from Christ. Therefore, both came about in an orderly way according to the will of God. Therefore, after receiving instructions and after being convinced by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and after being confident in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Spirit, they went out proclaiming the good news that the kingdom of God was about to come. Therefore, while proclaiming from area to area and from city to city, they were appointing the first-fruits after testing (approving) them by the Spirit, to be overseers and deacons (servants) of those who were about to believe. (1 Clement 42:1-4)
There is some similarity between this passage and Acts 14:21-23 –
When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:21-23 ESV)
However, there are some differences also. In the 1 Clement passage, Clement seems to write about apostles in general, while Luke writes specifically about Paul and Barnabas in the Acts passage. Clement uses different terms (i.e., the terms for “overseers” and “appointed”) than Luke (i.e., the terms for “elders” and “appointing”). (Note, although both terms are transalted “appoint”, they are different Greek terms.)
So, Clement is probably not quoting from the Acts passage, although he may be commenting on a common recollection or story handed down from others. If this is the case, then perhaps the two passages together (Acts and 1 Clement) demonstrate that the practice of appointing elders/overseers fairly soon after new churches were formed was common during the early period of the church.
In the Acts passage, Paul and Barnabas are appointing elders on the return trip to Antioch at the end of their first missionary journey. Thus, only a few months (or perhaps weeks) had passed since they first proclaimed the good news in some of these cities.
Similarly, in the Clement passage, the apostles (customarily) appointed overseers from the among their “first fruits”, that is, from among the first people to hear and recieve the good news. However, in this passage, sufficient time has passed that the apostles and/or church could recognized that they had been “tested” or “approved” by the Spirit.
Also, in both passages, it seems that elders/overseers were appointed from among the church in a particular city. There is no indication in these passages that elders/overseers were brought in from other cities or regions.
Finally, in both passages, we see that the apostles were cognizant of the fact that it was truly God who “appointed” elders/overseers. In the Clement passage, it was the Spirit who “tested” or “approved” those appointed. While in the Acts passage, Paul and Barnabas “committed them to the Lord” with prayer and fasting.
Thus, while Clement is probably not quoting from Acts, his understanding of how elders/overseers were appointed (or recognized, depending on your perspective) aligns very well with Luke’s account in Acts 14.
Recognizing Elders
For the last several week, the church has been talking about elders. Yesterday, we nominated four more men to be recognized as elders. Over the next few weeks, the church will officially recognize some or all of these men.
How should a church recognize or appoint elders? That’s a good question, isn’t it? There are many different answers to this question, depending perhaps upon your background, tradition, and interpretation of certain passages of Scripture.
I don’t think there is one way for a church to recognize or appoint elders. I don’t think Scripture gives us a specific set of steps or rules to follow in finding elders. However, I do think there are certain guidlines that Scripture gives us.
First, we should recognize that it is actually the Holy Spirit that appoints elders (Acts 20:28). I wrote about this in detail in a post called “The Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” In fact, I would say that this is the most important point in the recognition of elders.
Also, we should acknowledge that individuals should recognize their own “appointment” as elders, perhaps through a desire to take care of (“oversee”) people (1 Timothy 3:1). While a person may be disobeying God in refusing to be recognized as an elder (since the Holy Spirit actually “appoints” them), the person should be given the right to accept or deny that recognition.
Finally, the church should recognize that the Holy Spirit has appointed someone as an elder in order to care for the church. Church leaders can certainly help with this, but it is also the responsibility of the whole church.
We have known the four men that the church is considering as elders for several years. We have had opportunities to learn from their teaching and to examine their service to others. We know whether or not they practice hospitality and if they are faithful husbands and good fathers.
In fact, we know these men well enough that we know that they are not perfect. We know their strengths and their weaknesses. We know where they are continuing to grow in maturity. We know how God is working in their lives, and we know how God is using them in the lives of other people.
I have been part of churches who have hired pastors before. Usually, the church knows very little about the person that is being recognized or appointed as an elder (pastor). They usually only know whether or not the person can teach (preach) because the person has taught once or twice. They may have an opportunity to ask questions, but they have not had an opportunity to actually observe and learn from the person’s life. The process we are going through now is completely different.
Now, I’m not suggesting that we have all the answers. I’m not suggesting that we won’t make mistakes. We could recognize and appoint someone who the Holy Spirit has not appointed. There are obviously other ways to recognize or appoint an elder other than the process that we’re going through.
So, I’m not encouraging anyone to change the way that they’re currently recognizing their elders and to begin to recognize elders the way we do it.
I do hope, however, that people will begin to think seriously about the people who they recognize or appoint as elders. Do we really know them? Can we recognize how God is already using them? Do we know if they are hospitable or good fathers? Do we know how they react to conflict? Do we know whether or not they are servants?
If we do not know these things about them, then how can we recognize whether or not the Holy Spirit as appointed them as elders?
If we an
Ruling or Leading?
Two years ago on this blog, I was stepping through several passages and phrases that are used in Scripture to describe elders and other Christian leaders. I wrote one post called “Ruling or Leading?” as part of that series. I think the distinction between ruling and leading is a very important distinction. I hope you enjoy this post:
——————————————-
Back in March, I began studying “Leadership, Obedience, and Authority” in the context of the church. I’ve posted a few blogs as I’ve continued this study. This is another post in this extended series.
In the last post of this series, called “Exercising Authority…“, I examined several Greek terms that mean “exercise authority”, or “rule over”, or “be the master of” – in other words, terms that mean “to tell someone else what to do”. These terms are not used in a positive sense in the New Testament. This was my conclusion in that post:
So far, in these passages, there is no indication that one person should exercise authority over another person in a spiritual sense. In fact, it seems like just the opposite is indicated. But, if the apostles were not to exercise authority, and Paul did not exercise authority, and Peter told elders not to exercise authority, then I’m not sure where the command for leaders to exercise authority over other people is coming from. However, I’m still searching Scripture. It is possible that I’ve missed something, or that there are other passages of Scripture where leaders are instructed to exercise authority.
In this post, I want to examine two more Greek verbs that are occasionally translated “rule” in various translations. The verbs are:
Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) – (translated “rule/lead” in 1 Tim 5:17; Rom 12:8) According to the standard Greek lexicon (BDAG) this verb can mean 1) to exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head of, or 2) to have an interest in, show concern for, care for, give aid.
ηγέομαι (hÄ“geomai) – (translated “ruler/leader” in Luke 22:26; Heb 13:7, 17, 24) Again, according to BDAG, this verb can mean 1) to be in a supervisory capacity, lead, guide, or 2) to engage in an intellectual process, think, consider, regard.
Most importantly, in some cases, ηγέομαι (hÄ“geomai) is used in a sense to mean the opposite of a servant: “But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves” (Luke 22:26 ESV). From the context of Luke 22:26, it is clear that Jesus is telling his followers to be “leaders” who act as “servants”. Thus, the extreme range of ηγέομαι (hÄ“geomai) that means the opposite of “servant” cannot be in view here. Would Paul or the author of Hebrews or another believer promote a type of leadership that was condemned by Jesus?
Thus, in English, the word “rule” carries the connotation of making a decision for someone else, exercising authority over someone else, displaying dominance through the exercise of power. Meanwhile, the word “lead” can have similar connotations, but it can also carry a different meaning: “travel in front of”, “go in advance of others”, “guide”.
So, while both “rule” and “lead” are possible glosses for the two Greek verbs, and since the idea of “ruling” or “exercising authority” is always cast in a negative in the context of the relationship between one believer and another believer, it would seem that “lead” in the since of “walking ahead of” or “guiding” would be a better English translation. This would also explain Peter’s insistence that elders “shepherd” by being “examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2-3).
There are a few other passages that can help us understand how the New Testament authors used this verbs in the context of the church. For example, in 1 Timothy 3:5, the Greek verb Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) is paralleled with another verb, επιμελέομαι (epimeleomai):
“For if someone does not know how to manage (Ï€Ïοίστημι) his own household, how will he care for (επιμελέομαι) God’s church?” (ESV)
In this verse, Paul uses the verb Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) to describe someone’s relationship to their family, while he uses the verb επιμελέομαι (epimeleomai) to describe that person’s relationship to the church. While Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) can carry a range of meanings from “rule” to “lead” (as has already been described), the verb επιμελέομαι (epimeleomai) does not have the same range of meanings. In this case, it seems that Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) is used with the secondary meaning of “care for” not “rule”.
Thus, when the New Testament is looked at as a whole, and when relationships between believers are examined, it seems that believers are never instructed to “rule” one another, but that one believer may be called on to “lead” another believer or a group of believers. The concept of a Christian “ruler” who makes decisions for other believers, or who directs the lives of other believers, or who tells other believers what to do is not found in the pages of the New Testament. Instead, the New Testament authors call mature believers to lead by being examples to and serving other believers. Followers of Jesus Christ have only one ruler. He is the living, breathing, ready, able, wise, knowing, powerful, present, and authoritative chief shepherd. And, no one can serve two masters.
Uncle Lionel and the church as family
Lionel at “The Gospel in 3-D” has written an excellent post called “The Church As Family: How Church Leadership is Affected By How You View The Church.” Lionel says that if we view the church as a family, it will affect how we treat one another, and it will affect how we view leadership among the church. He presents a wonderful illustration using his relationship with his nephew:
I remember my grandmother raising my nephew and I was like his big brother. We were both adopted and I was given the responsibility to helping with potty training, feeding him, carrying him, changing him, talking him for walks, playing with him in the park, and protecting him from harm, I was also given some delegated discipling power; however, the real discipline rested in the hands of the only authority in the house, my grandmother…
As I got older my nephew got older. I stopped taking him to the restroom because he could go by himself, I stopped reading to him because he had learned to read on his own, I stopped taking him to the park because he was big enough to ride his bike and protect himself, I stopped walking him to the school bus, I stopped picking out his clothes, I even became less involved in his decision making. Day by day, he matured and my role became less involved. Day by day, I saw him grow up into maturity and my influence became more of an example and less hands on…
I wonder if I were still putting diapers on my 19 year old nephew what people would think. I wonder if people saw me rocking him to sleep today, what they would think, I wonder if I brushed his teeth for him tonight what others would think?
I think this is exactly how more mature believers should help less mature believers walk with Christ. I’m guessing that while Lionel’s nephew was growing, there were times when Lionel allows his nephew to do some things by himself that Lionel could have done better. I’m assuming that there were times when Lionel’s nephew made mistakes that Lionel himself would not have made. But, this was all necessary for the nephew to grow and mature.
In the same way, mature believers need to allow less mature believers to do or say things that the more mature believers may have done or said better. Less mature believers need to be given room to make mistakes. This is the way growth happens. If this is not allowed, then those less mature believers will not mature.
Instead, leaders will always be brushing their teeth for them. But, unfortunately, I think this is what many within the church expect today.
Teaching and the responsibility of elders
In this series, I’m examining the relationships between leaders (elders) and teaching. Primarily, I hope to answer the following questions, “Does Scripture say that an elder’s primary responsibility is teaching?” and “Does Scripture say that the primary corporate teacher in the church is an elder (elders)?”
In one of my previous posts (“Teaching and the spiritual gift of teaching“), I concluded that there is a difference between teaching and the spiritual gift of teaching, just as there is a difference between giving and the spiritual gift of giving and just as there is a different between exhortation and the spiritual gift of exhortation. In the next post, (“Teaching and the responsibility of all believers“) I concluded that all believers have the responsibility of teaching. In the final post, I will examine teaching and the responsibility of elders.
First, if we agree that elders are believers and followers of Jesus Christ, then they already have the responsibility of teaching, per my previous post. Several questions remain however: 1) Do elders have more scriptural responsibility to teach? 2) Is the primary function of elders to teach? 3) Is the elder (elders) the primary teacher of the church according to Scripture?
Next, let’s look at the scriptural connections between elders and teaching. 1 Timothy 3:2 is one of the most direct connections between Christian leaders and teaching (here the leader is called a bishop or overseer or caretaker). In this passage, Paul says that the elder should be “able to teach”. The description does not mean that the elder has to have the gift of teaching, or that the elder primarily teaches. Instead, assuming that all believers have the responsibility to teach, the elder has shown that he can and does carry out that responsibility.
In a similar passage in Titus, Paul does not say that elders should be able to teach, but are those who are faithful to what they have been taught (Titus 1:9). In this case, Paul does not emphasize that the elder teaches, but that the elder faithfully lives according to what he has been taught. If faithfulness includes teaching (which I believe it does), then this means that the elder also teaches.
In 1 Timothy 5:17, Paul exhorts his readers (through Timothy) to doubly honor those elders who lead well and work hard in the word and in teaching. Thus, we should honor those elders who lead and teach well, as we should honor anyone who leads and teaches well (for example, see 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 where Paul says to highly esteem anyone who works hard, leads, and admonishes – elders are not mentioned in this passage, though they would certainly be included if they are doing those things).
In this passages, Paul does not command elders to teach, nor does he say that teaching is the primary function of elders, nor does he say that elders are the primary teachers of the church. Instead, elders are to teach (as are other believers), elders who teach should be honored (as should others who teach).
Notice, however, that these passage are not directed at elders. Instead, they are directed at others in order to help them recognize who should be elders.
There are two passages in Scripture which are directed to elders. In Acts 20, Paul calls for the elders from Ephesus and speaks to them together. He reminds them of how he taught from house to house (20:20). He instructs them:
Pay careful attention 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 his own blood. (Acts 20:28 ESV)
So, Paul’s specific instruction to elders here is “to care for the church” (to pastor or shepherd the church). Paul does not include “teaching” in his instruction, although he obviously expects them to follow his example of teaching which he gave in Acts 20:20.
Similarly, in 1 Peter 5:1-3, Peter also directly addresses elders. He also commands them to “shepherd” or “care for” the church (called “the flock of God” by Peter). Following this command, he lists several contrasting descriptions of how elders are to care for the flock (i.e. not by compulsion but willingly). Teaching is not included in Peter’s direct address to elders either.
So, according to Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5, the primary responsibility of elders is to care for (“shepherd”) the church. While it could be argued that shepherding and teaching are the same thing, Ephesians 4:11 seems to distinguish between them, though there may be some relationship between the two. The reason that Paul wants the elders to care for the church is that he knows that others will attempt to lead them away from Christ. Teaching would certainly be necessary to care for the church, but not only teaching. Many other functions are necessary for the type of care that Paul commands.
In Ephesians 4:11, the spiritual gift of teaching (and spiritually-gifted teachers) is included among other gifted individuals (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors). While these could be elders – and while pastors/teachers are sometimes equated with elders – there is nothing in the passage to limit the spiritually gifted pastors/teachers to elders. In fact, the passage indicates that all gifted pastors/teachers (whether they are elders or not) are given by Christ to the church in order to equip the church to do the work of service.
In conclusion, we’ve seen that teaching is distinct from the spiritual gift of teaching. We’ve also seen that all believers are responsible for teaching, even though all believers do not have the spiritual gift of teaching. We’ve seen that elders (being believers and followers of Jesus themselves) should teach, and they should not be recognized as elders until they demonstrate their obedience in carrying out this responsibility (which, by the way, assumes that they are teaching before they are recognized as elders). We’ve also seen that both Paul and Peter command elders to care for (or “shepherd”) the church. While this may include teaching, it is not synonymous with teaching.
So, to answer our questions: 1) Should elders teach? Yes, all followers of Jesus should teach. 2) Is the primary function of elders teaching? No, their primary function is caring for people. 3) Should elders be the primary teachers in the church? That would depend upon whether or not the elders have the spiritual gift of teaching. But, by accepting the responsibility of being recognized as an elder, elders also accept the responsibility of caring for (or “shepherding”) the church (yes, even if they are not spiritually gifted “shepherds”).
Should elders teach? Yes. Should other believers teach? Yes. Aren’t there certain contexts where Scripture says elders should teach? No, Scripture does not make that distinction. Isn’t it okay for only elders to teach? Not if we follow Scripture and allow (and encourage) all believers to teach.
Now, a good follow-up study would be to consider various methods and types of teaching that we see in Scripture. Perhaps it would be encouraging to other believers if we recognize that a 5 minute teaching can be just as important and helpful as a 30-45 minute teaching, or that a discussion can be just as important and helpful as a monologue.
—————————-
Short series on teaching and the spiritual gift of teaching:
No Senior/Teaching Pastor?
My friend Maël from “The Adventures of Maël & Cindy” is writing a series concerning whether or not the “senior pastor” role is biblical. His first post is called “The Senior Pastor – Introduction“. Look through his blog for the other posts.
I do not intend to discuss his premise or his arguments. I’ll just say for the moment that I agree with him that a separate “senior pastor” or “teaching pastor” role is not biblical. Instead, I want to discuss something related.
After reviewing the literature on the topic, Maël lists four options:
- The first view is the most common one: the senior pastor is the leader (some may even say ‘head’ or ‘under-shepherd’) of the congregation. The other pastors, usually called associate pastors or ministers with specific designations, help him in the work of his ministry. He is the main shepherd of the flock and the main preacher for the congregation… He might seek advice from the other pastors and be very open to their thoughts and suggestions, but ultimately ‘the buck stops with him’. Throughout this series, this view of the role of a senior pastor will be referred to as the ‘traditional’ view.
- The second view is similar to the first one: the senior pastor is still the leader of the congregation with associate pastors helping him in the work of his ministry. He is still the main shepherd of the flock and the main preacher for the congregation. However, in view number two, unlike in the traditional view, when there is room for pastoral decision making and vision casting, his vote counts as only one among equally weighted votes with the other pastors… This view will be referred to as the ‘leader of leaders’ view…
- The third view is called by Strauch the ‘first among equals’ view. Strauch pictures the difference between the senior pastor and the other pastors as being one of function, not title. The senior pastor is “the natural leader, the chief speaker, the man of action;” he challenges, energizes, strengthens, and ignites the group. In this view there is the sense that this leader is the leader because of his personality and outgoing attitude. He is probably the most outspoken of the pastors and possibly the main teacher also, but he is not officially designated the senior pastor. Note that the difference between views two and three can be very subtle. While it seems that the outworking of both views is similar, the fundamental difference is in the need to officially name this separate office and the implications which develop because of it.
- The fourth view is one void of a human senior pastor altogether. In this view, all the pastors are equal in the eyes of the people and equal in practice. Some advocates of this view will purport that Jesus Christ is the rightful senior pastor of any congregation.
While Maël doesn’t name this last view, I’m going to call it the “no senior pastor view”.
Now, my questions. Have you been part of churches with any of these structures? What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of each of these views? How do you think the “no senior pastor view” would work?
Mentoring leaders
So, I’m considered a leader by the church. I’ve been recognized as an elder. While I often teach, I try to lead through serving. I try to encourage people to follow my example by serving others. Obviously, I’m not a perfect servant – I’m often self-centered. I’m learning to serve, and I’m trying to help others learn to serve.
I think it is important for me to teach, so I teach. However, I do not think my ability to teach makes me a leader, nor does an ability to teach make me qualified to be leader. I know that some people follow me because of my ability to teach. I try to encourage those people to follow by serving.
I also think it is important to be educated. I’m pursuing a PhD in biblical theology. I do not think being educated makes me a leader, nor does it qualify me to be a leader. Some people may be following me because of my education and studies. I try to encourage those people follow by serving.
This last week, I had a good conversation with a brother who likes working with young people. He said that he liked to encourage them to be leaders. I asked him what he meant by being a leader. I encouraged him to think about service. In other words, encourage people to serve and encourage people to follow those who are serving. This seems to be Jesus’ focus when he talks about leadership.
I’m learning to think of service instead of other things that are often called leadership. It’s not an easy way to think or live. I don’t want to follow servants, because if I follow servants then I will be serving others myself.
When you think of leaders
When you think of leaders – that is, leaders within the church – what do you think about first? Do you think about their ability to speak and teach? Do you think about their ability to motivate or persuade? Do you think about their zeal or passion? Do you think about their organizational or managerial skills? Do you think about their training or education? Do you think about the way they serve others?
Do you follow who those who speak well, those who are able to motivate, those who are passionate, those who can organize, those who are educated, or those who serve others?