Elders (Part 1) – Introduction
Elders. Pastors. Overseers. Bishops. They have been called by many titles. Sometimes, the titles are used interchangeably; sometimes they are distinct. (For the purpose of the blog post, I will assume that elder, pastor, and overseer (bishop) refer to the same person in Scripture. Perhaps, if someone disagrees with this point, they could write a post to that effect. However, defending the position that I am suggesting is beyond the scope of this series.)
Teacher. Administrator. Motivator. CEO. Cheerleader. Officer. Shepherd. Authoritarian. Their functions and responsibilities vary as much as their titles.
Single. Multiple. Senior. First among equals. Equal. The number and relationship between elders is also highly discussed and debated.
The functions and roles of elders usually falls under the umbrella of ecclesiology (the study of the church). These functions and roles have been discussed, debated, and disagreed upon from the earliest writings that followed the New Testament. But, it appears that although pastors/elders/bishops were part of the church from very early in its existence (Acts 11; 14; 15; 16; James 5), the disagreements concerning pastors/elders/bishops were not as important as other disagreements in the early church, because the early creeds and confessions did not include any information about leadership among the church. However, beginning with the Reformation, almost every creed and confession included instructions concerning leadership.
As with many aspects of ecclesiology, the study of Christian leadership usually begins with current practices and beliefs which are then justified or clarified through Scripture. For example, roles such as leadership, teaching, overseeing, shepherding, and administrating are usually included within the roles of elders. Each role is then compared to Scripture and shown to be a function of an elder. However, this is not always the whole story.
As I move through this series, examining the scriptural teachings concerning the characteristics and functions of elders, I also plan to compare them with the characteristics and functions of all believers. Primarily, I hope to examine Scriptures to determine what characteristics, roles, or functions are unique to the leadership among the church. Hopefully, this will be an interesting study that will fuel some thought-provoking discussions.
As I’ve said previously, if you disagree with me, you may voice your disagreements in comments on this blog. I welcome discussion and criticism. I ask only that you attempt to offer your disagreements with the same humility and gentleness that I am attempting to offer my conclusions. Am I always right? No. I recognize this, and so I welcome the input of my brothers and sisters in Christ. I also ask that you take the context of Scripture into account before you offer a proof-text. Context is very important. We can prove anything we want from Scripture if we do not consider the context. However, that would not be beneficial to our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Thank you in advance for your comments, challenges, and encouragement.
—————————————————————————–
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
The bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, oh my!
I’m studying Ignatius of Antioch for a research project in my Theological Foundations seminar. Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch who was killed in Rome around 107 AD. As he was being transported from Antioch to Rome, he penned seven letters: six letters to the churches of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, and one letter to Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna. Within these letters, Ignatius addressed several areas that are typically included within the scope of ecclesiology. Specifically, he discussed the sacraments and place of the bishop, the presbyters (elders), and the deacons within the church of each city.
Within Ignatius’ letters, there are several passages that deal with the bishop. He always uses this title in the singular when referring to the bishop of a church. Here are a few of the passages:
I urge [you], make every effort to do everything in the harmony of God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and the presbyters (elders) [presiding] in the place of the council of apostles, and the deacons who are precious to me having been entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ. (Ignatius to the Mangesians 6:1)
It is necessary, as you are doing, for you to do nothing apart from the bishop, but to be submissive also to the presbyters (elders) as to the apostles of Jesus Christ. (Ignatius to the Trallians 2:2)
Similarly, let all regard (respect) the deacons as Jesus Christ and the bishop as being in the place of the Father, then the presbyters (elders) as the council of God and as the assembly of the apostles. (Ignatius to the Trallians 3:1)
Make every effort to have one eucharist, for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup for the unity of his blood, one altar, as there is one bishop along with the presbyters (elders) and deacons. (Ignatius to the Philippians 4:1)
Let all of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ [followed] the Father, and [follow] the presbyters (elders) as the apostles, then respect the deacons as the commandment of God. (Ignatius to the Smyrneans 8:1)
The reason that these passages are interesting to me is that they are not consistent with some of the other early Christian writings – even those writings from the same time period.
For example, Ignatius wrote one of his letters to Polycarp, who Ignatius recognizes as the Bishop of Smyrna. In his letter to the church at Smyrna, Ignatius tells the church to “follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father.” When writing to Polycarp, Ignatius instructs Polycarp to tell the church in Smyrna the same thing (Ignatius to Polycarp 5:2; 6:1)
However, when Polycarp writes a letter to the church in Philippi only a few years later, Polycarp does not even mention a “bishop”. Instead, Polycarp tells the Philippians to be subject to “the presbyters (elders) and deacons” (Polycarp to the Philippians 5:3).
In the Didache, another document written at about the same time, presbyters (elders) are not mentioned. Instead, the Didache instructs believers to appoint “bishops (plural) and deacons”. In an interesting twist, the Didache associates “bishops and deacons” with “prophets and teachers”, but the two groups do not seem to be synonymous:
Therefore, choose for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men [who are] gentle, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also serve you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore, do not disregard them, for they are honored among you, together with the prophets and teachers. (Didache 15:1-2)
The Didache mentions others types of travelling apostles and prophets (not to be confused with the original apostles of the New Testament nor the prophets of the Old testament) that seem to be distinct from the “bishops and deacons” and also the “prophets and teachers”. (Didache 11-13)
Why is this interesting to me? I think it shows that the early church struggled with some of the same questions that we struggle with today? Questions such as 1) What is the nature of Christian leadership? 2) Are there specific roles within the church that are distinct from gifting? 3) How should leadership within the church structure itself? 4) How should believers interact with those who they have recognized as leaders?
Ignatius seems to have answered these questions differently than Polycarp. And, the Didache seems to be different from both. Interestingly, in most of Ignatius’ letters he spells out what it means to follow the way of Jesus Christ, and he does not include the bishop, the presbyters, nor the deacons in any of those instructions.
I think it would be beneficial for all believers to read the Apostolic Father, as long as they learn to read critically. Before beginning a study of the early Christian writings, we must answer another question (for ourselves): Where will I find authority – in the texts of Scripture or in the early understandings of those texts?
Follow the leader or Simon says?
I’m working on a series about the role and function of elders among a community of believers. I’ve discussed leadership on this blog before, and those posts usually generate great discussions both online and off-line. I hope to begin publishing that series next week, but I may have to push it back another week. As I study, the series keeps expanding.
As I was thinking about the relationship between elders and leading, I thought about two children’s games: “Follow the leader” and “Simon says”.
In the game “Follow the leader”, children follow the actions of a “leader”. If the “leader” walks, then the others walk. If the “leader” runs, the the others run. The “leader” is doing everything as an example for others to “follow”. But, the important point here is that the “leader” is doing – he or she is active. The other children in line follow the example of the “leader’s” actions.
In the game “Simon says”, children follow the directions of a “leader”. If the “leader” says, “Walk”, then the others walk. If the “leader” says, “Run”, then the others run. The “leader” is not active. Instead, the “leader” tells the others what to do. The other children do not follow the example of the “leader’s” actions. Instead, the other children are supposed to follow the commands of the “leader”.
I think many churches are built around “Simon says” type leadership, while Jesus points to “Follow the leader” type leadership. In fact, there is only one “Simon” for the follower of Jesus Christ. And, while Jesus alone possesses the authority to command, he chose to come as a “Follow the leader” type leader.
We need more examples to follow, and less Simons to obey.
A 21st Century Church
Dave Black has painted a beautiful picture of what a twenty-first century church could look like. Notice that in this image of the church, the biblical descriptions and prescriptions are taking into account and implemented. Here is his description:
What, then, might the renewed church of the twenty-first century look like? It will be a serving church. Its organizational structure will be simple, unencumbered by bureaucrats and bureaucracies. Its financial priorities will reflect a commitment to missions, local and global. Capital expenditures will be reduced and the savings earmarked for discipleship. Jobs that are currently salaried positions will be filled by volunteer help or eliminated. Denominations will make drastic reductions in funds spent on publications that are a waste of the church’s money (bulletins, Sunday School quarterlies – the Bible will be used instead – and glossy magazines). Church buildings will be used for primary and secondary Christian education. Believers will gladly work transdenominationally and cooperatively, especially at the local level. The church will proclaim the Good News of the Gospel as its first priority while not neglecting the cultural mandate. A full-fledged lay ministry will replace clericalism. Individual believers will be expected to assume specialized ministries according to their giftedness. Churches will provide regular lay training (with the seminaries assisting them) and build voluntary programs of education into their structures. Worship will no longer be confined to a single time or place. Preoccupation with church buildings will be seen for what it is – idolatry. The church will no longer cling to its prerogatives but take the form of a servant. It will refuse any longer to shun the secular. Trained pastors will become humble assistants to the “ministers†– every member. In this renewed church we will encounter disciples who take the going forth as seriously as they do the gathering. New members will be asked to specify a regular community involvement (neighborhood council, PTA, volunteer library staff, nursing home visitation, etc.) in addition to their commitment to a ministry in the church.
What do you think?
Advantages of non-hired, local leaders
Dave Black posted this on his blog today at 6:27 AM:
Three of the four closest Baptist churches to our farm are currently without pastors. Again. In our area most pastors last about 2 years. Then the cycle begins all over again: a pulpit committee starts looking for the ideal new “preacher.” Even though the Bible makes no distinction between “layman” and “minister,” most Baptists do. Thus most of them would never consider choosing more permanent, stable leaders from among their own congregations. But the advantages of non-hired, local leaders are numerous:
- the fact that the pastor/elder is one of the brethren magnifies the sense of brotherhood
- his lack of financial dependence on the group issues in independence of thought and judgment
- it preserves the priesthood of all believers
- the supported minister is subjected to enervating competition bidding for his services
- a professional ministry causes a loss of identification with the people (the pastor is considered a “hireling”)
- the congregation feels tremendous instability due to a frequent change in pastors
- the non-hired pastor is not considered a member of a class separate from the rest of the fellowship
I wonder if rural churches caught up in the viscous cycle of revolving pastors are not just shooting themselves in the foot.
I have learned first-hand that Dave’s “advantages” are real. Are there “disadvantages” as well?
Which group do you want to imitate?
In response to my post “Anabaptist politics and pastoral authority“, Jeff left a very thought-provoking comment. I have been greatly challenged by many of Jeff’s comments. I hope you think carefully about this comment and see which group best describes you.
This is what Jeff said:
I think there are many prideful leaders who follow in the footsteps of Diotrephes. Those who want to be in control of the people and prefering them to be in bondage and hearers only.
There are also many who follow in the footsteps of Moses. He didn’t want the responsibility of leading people. He was the most humble man to walk the earth, but because he had a personal relationship with God and was led by the Spirit he encouraged the people to follow and listen to God. But the irresponsible people put him in bondage by electing him to deal with God and then speaking to them. It was not necessarily Moses’ fault the people didn’t want to take the time to have a personal relationship with the Father and they looked to him instead of to God to lead them. But because of this Moses became pre-occupied with the people and he himself, though being extremely humble, for a moment lost site of his role as a leader, and as a consequence he himself was never allowed to enter into the rest that God prepared.
Then there are those leaders who want to follow in the footsteps of John the baptist who was, as Jesus said, “the greatest man born of a woman.” Someone who simply shows people they need to repent, they stink, they need to take a bath and cleanse themselves of this baggage they’re carrying, and then go seek out, follow, and listen to Jesus.(This is not meant to be a plug for the “Baptist Denomination”)
The conclusion I’ve come to is this…
There are Spirit led people put into bondage by irresponsible “leaders” of the churches.
There are Spirit led leaders who are put into bondage by irresponsible people in the churches.
Then there are those in the wilderness who simply walk with God and point to Christ and say, “seek only Him, follow only Him, and Listen to Him.”
I know, personally, which one I want to imitate.
I think Jeff has astutely recognized three groups within the church. It would be beneficial for all of us to consider where we would fit within Jeff’s three groups. Which group best describes you? Are there other groups?
Anabaptist politics and pastoral authority…
Dave Black has published his fourth aritcle about the Anabaptists: “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Part 4)” In this article, Dave discusses the Anabaptists response to politics and governments. He says:
They [the Anabaptists] taught that the church is not only apolitical but antipolitical in the sense that it regards political power as inevitably idolatrous. The church is to seek the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness. It therefore refuses to confer any value on political power but instead radically questions it. With Constantine’s victory at the Milvian Bridge, however, the church became invested with political power, and it has sought political power ever since. It acquiesced where Jesus resisted: the church accepts all the kingdoms of the earth from Satan. It forges an alliance with the state, which it now seeks to Christianize.
On a different topic, Emily Hunter McGowan has written a guest article for SBCOutpost called “Who Should ‘Have Authority Over a Man’?” She begins by discussing 1 Timothy 2:12, but concludes the article by discussing authority in general. She says:
“Pastoral authority” is invoked in support of all kinds of actions, events, and propositions. In more mundane uses, “pastoral authority” becomes a catchphrase signaling the need to acquire permission from the pastor to take action or make a public statement. Along these lines, you might hear someone say, “I disagree with Pastor Tom about this issue, but I don’t want to undermine his pastoral authority.” More extreme applications, of course, include the forceful silencing of dissent and the legitimization of unfortunate personality worship. In this vein, something like this is more likely: “Don’t you know our pastor has authority over you?”
To be clear, in my criticism I do not take away from the responsibility of our local church pastors to shepherd our congregations. The apostles left us careful instructions regarding the need for us to recognize, honor, imitate, and submit to our leaders (1 Thess 5:12-13; 1 Tim 5:17; Heb 13:7, 17), as well as details regarding the characteristics that qualify and disqualify leaders from service (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).
Yet, if you survey the teaching of the NT epistles on the matter of elders, overseers, leaders, or shepherds, you will find no mention of “authority” or “exercising authority over” anyone. In fact, 1 Peter 5:3 contains explicit instruction for shepherds to oversee the people “not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.”
These are the same conclusions that I’ve reached, as discussed in my posts “Exercising Authority“, “Ruling or Leading?“, and “Obey and Submit? (Hebrews 13:17)“.
A comment on leadership…
Once again, I’m going to base a post on a comment by Jeff. (No, Jeff, you do not get royalties.) As far as I’m concerned, this comment that Jeff left on my post called “Obey and Submit? (Hebrews 13:17)” was too good to leave in the comments:
I absolutely think that every denomination, church function, potluck or whatever organized by us needs to have someone in a position of authority controlling it or it will not function properly. It would be chaotic.
Every ship needs a captain to steer it. Every plane needs a pilot to fly it. Every machine needs someone to run, service, and maintain it. Every play needs a writer and director to produce it. Etc., Etc., Etc..
Everything we’ve created with our awesome abilities needs us, to a certain extent, to manipulate it or it wont function as it was supposed to. Everything we’ve made needs our direction to organize, control, direct and/or guide it or it wont work. Again, it would be utter chaos.
In the same vein, everything not man-made could function just fine without our exercising authority and control over it.
So…what does this say about OUR churches?
Jeff, I appreciate this comment, and I hope you will consider starting your own blog.
A.D. Clarke on Leadership…
A.D. Clarke wrote the article on “Leadership” in the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Speaking of NT leaders, he says:
The context of leadership significantly affects the way in which that leadership is rightly exercised. Whilst being described as a labourer (1 Cor. 15:10; 16:15-16), the godly leader is nonetheless to equip (Eph. 4:11-13), care for (1 Thess. 2:7, 1 Tim. 3:5), guide (1 Cor. 4:15), and mobilize God’s people that they in turn may serve. It should be noted that, whereas commanding or ruling is fundamental to the task of the monarch (1 Kgs. 3:9), the military leader (Matt. 8:9), and the secular leader (Rom. 13:1-7), it has a comparatively small place in the role of the church leader. Consequently, whilst believers are to obey and be subject to their church leaders (1 Cor. 16:16; Heb. 13:17), the NT says little about church leaders demanding or exacting obedience from believers.
It is interesting that Clarke includes many Scripture references in this paragraph. However, when describing the leaders role to “mobilize” other believers, he does not include a reference. Similarly, he does not include any references to the “little” that Scripture says about “church leaders demanding or exacting obedience from believers”.
On the other hand, Clarke includes at least one of many scriptural references to leaders among believers who are laborers, who care for the people, and who guide the people. This is very similar to what I am learning about leaders as I study Scripture.
Leaders in Scripture are not those who direct the activities of a group of people. Instead, leaders in Scripture are those who serve others and provide a mature example of how to follow Christ. Shepherding, caring for, watching over, etc. are ways that leaders help others grow in maturity toward Christ, not decision making activities.
The Spirit provides all believers with everything necessary to make the decisions that they need to make in life. There is no need for another person to make decisions for them. They do not need a mediator to help them understand God’s will. They have the only mediator they will ever need.
As I was reading through Clarke’s descriptions of leaders in Scripture, I appreciated the fact that he drew a hard line between secular leaders and leaders among the church. Unfortunately, too many times, I see believers blurring those lines. Jesus said that if you want to know who to follow, then look around for those who are serving others and follow them.
Obey and Submit? (Hebrews 13:17)
In my continuing study of the role of leaders among followers of Christ, I’ve come to a verse (Hebrews 13:17) that many use to teach that pastors or elders should exercise authority over a church. (For more posts in this series, see “Leadership, Obedience, and Authority…“, “Leaders and Servants…“, “What does a bishop oversee?“, “What does a non-bishop oversee?“, “Exercising Authority…“, and “Ruling or Leading?“)
To summarize what I have found so far, Jesus begins by teaching that those who follow him will not lead in the same way the world leads. In particular, they will not lead by exercising authority. Instead, they will serve others. Believers will know who to follow – the servants, not those who attempt to exercise authority. Those who lead (pastors/elders for example) should concern themselves with the church – people – and not organizations. The Holy Spirit has given them the responsibility of watching over God’s flock, but he has also given this same responsibility to all believers (Heb 12:14-15). However, “leaders” should be examples to others in how to care for other people.
Now, what about Hebrews 13:17 –
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17 ESV)
The structure of this verse is as follows:
Command – (obey… and submit)
Reason (for the command) – (for they are keeping watch…)
Purpose – (Let them do this with joy…)
Reason (for the purpose) – (for that would be of no advantage…)
Let’s begin by examining the two commands: Obey and submit. The Greek verbs translated “obey” and “submit” by the ESV are πείθεσθε (present passive imperative 2nd person plural from πείθω – peithÅ) and ὑπείκετε (present active imperative 2nd person plural from ὑπείκω – hypeikÅ).
In many translations, the verb πείθω (peithÅ) in Heb 13:17 is translated “obey”. According to BDAG, the standard Greek lexicon, in the present tense and passive voice (as in this verse), πείθω (peithÅ) means “to be won over as the result of persuasion” with the following possible groups of glosses: 1) be persuaded, believe, 2) obey, follow, 3) take someone’s advice. In English, it is clear that “obey” is the strongest of these glosses. According to BDAG, there are four instances of this usage in the New Testament (excluding Heb 13:17). Let’s look at each occurrence:
…but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey urighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. (Romans 2:8 ESV)
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? (Galatians 3:1 NKJ – Majority Text only)
You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? (Galatians 5:7 ESV)
If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. (James 3:3 ESV)
According to BDAG, πείθω (peithÅ) can be translated “follow” or “obey” in each of these passages, although the ESV and other translations have chosen to use “obey” as the gloss in each passage. In a couple of the verses, it seems that “follow” would be a much better choice. For example, the Galatians were running, but stopped “following” the truth. Also, the use of the verb “guide” in James 3:3 suggests that “follow” may be a better verb than obey. In fact, in each case “follow” would have the same connotation.
However, when we get to Hebrews 13:17, we now have a completely different context. Believers are now no longer “obeying” the truth or the gospel, they are now “obeying” other people. In this situation, and with the previous understanding that believers are never told to exercise authority over other believers, “follow” seems to be the better translation. Thus, believers are commanded to “follow” those who are leading them.
Next, the verb ὑπείκω (hypeikÅ) – “yeild, give way, submit” – is found only in Heb 13:17 in the New Testament and in 4 Maccabees 6:35 in the Septuagint. However, it seems to be synonymous with ὑποτάσσω (hypotassÅ), so we should not be surprised to find that believers are to “submit” to other believers (Eph 5:21). It is interesting to note that in this verse believers are told to submit, but the “leaders” are not instruct to force or make anyone submit. This is very similar to Eph 5:21-33 in relation to husbands and wives. Submission to others believers is shown as something that is offered to another person, not something that is required by another person.
Hebrews 13:17 gives a reason for believers to follow and to submit to those who are leading them: “for they are keeping watch over your souls”. This is synonymous with instruction for leaders to shepherd the flock (people) of God by watching over them (1 Peter 5:2). Of course, this should be a reminder to both leaders and those who are following that leaders should recognize that their primary responsibility is toward people, not toward organizations and structures. Similarly, just as all believers will give an account before God, Christian “leaders” will give an account for the way they lead people toward maturity in Christ. They will not give an account as to whether or not someone follows. Those following will give an account for this.
Next, this verse gives a purpose of following and submitting: in order that they (the leaders) may do this with joy not by groaning. Apparently, leading should be joyful, not hard work. There is then a reason given for this purpose: “for this is of no advantage to you”. There is advantage to us in following and submitting to those who are leading us toward maturity in Christ. There is no advantage to us when we cause them grief.
The last part of this verse reminds us that as the body of Christ, everyone relies on one another, as we all rely on God. Leaders do not stand outside the body. Instead, the health and maturity of the body depends on both the leaders and those following to submit to the work of the Spirit in each other’s lives. This type of mutual submission leads to joy for leaders and also profits those following.
So, it is possible to translate the beginning of Hebrews 13:17 as “Obey those who rule over you”. But, if this is what the author of Hebrews meant, then he is teaching something that is opposed to the teaching of Jesus. If instead, he meant this phrase in a different – but perfectly valid – way (i.e. “Follow those who lead you”) then his teaching falls into place with Jesus’ command that believers will not exercise authority over one another, but will instead follow those who serve.