Continuing Discussion on Leaders Among the Church
Art from “The Itinerants” is continuing the discussion about leaders among the church in his post “Leadership by Position or Loving Servants?” Art discusses the difference between leading from a position (or because someone holds a particular position) and leading from service in order to serve as an example.
He begins with the common phrase “respect the office, even if you don’t respect the person.” (Can any believer lead if they are not respected as a person?)
Art writes (among many other things):
Leadership being service to others and not decision making for others is really a profound distinction. It highlights the qualitative difference between leadership within the church and leadership in the world.
Fundamentally, among the saints there is no authoritarian power over others based on position. There is only a resultant, voluntary influence based on a historical relationship through service and sacrificial example through maturity. No one can “command†respect and obedience because they ARE an elder (etc.). Instead, they may appeal to their acts of past and ongoing love and sacrifice for you–which we see Paul doing on occasion.
Like Art says, the difference between leading from position and leading from service is a huge distinction and a very important one. If we are not leading “based on a historical relationship through service and sacrificial example through maturity” then I would say that we are not leading the way that Scripture describes.
How are you leading? What about the ones you follow?
Why would he thank God for that?
I was very exciting and grateful to read Eric’s (from “A Pilgrim’s Progress“) post called “Thankful for a Little Work.” You see, Eric has been out of work for a few weeks since he resigned from his position as a professional pastor.
(I was glad to hear from Eric personally that he continues to pastor/shepherd people even though he is not employed in the office of a pastor. Perhaps he will write about this eventually… hint hint.)
So, Eric has been looking for work for a few weeks. As everyone knows, this is a difficult economy to be looking for work. But, Eric found work! He says:
I’m happy to say that I now have a little work to do. The Lord has provided some janitorial work for me in the evenings at a local daycare facility. Basically I sweep and mop a cafeteria, kitchen, hallway, and bathrooms for 3.5 hours per night. It is nothing special by the world’s standards, but it is real work. The pay is not much (certainly not enough to support a family), but it is something that will help.
Wait… Eric is HAPPY for a part-time job as a janitor? And, he thanks God for PROVIDING this job for him?
Yes. And, I thank God for Eric and his example. You may not agree with Eric’s conclusion that paid, professional pastors are not scriptural, but you have to admire the fact that he is living according to his convictions, and not just talking about them.
Pastoral worries
So, I’m an elder in our church – one of five elders, actually. I pastor, meaning that I care for people. Of course, many, many people who are part of our church pastor people. It’s hard to disciple without pastoring…. and we should all be discipling, right?
I’m not a professional pastor. I do not draw a salary because I am an elder or because I pastor. I do not “preach a sermon” every week. In fact, once again, many, many people who are part of our church take part in teaching. It’s hard to disciple without teaching… and we should all be discipling, right?
Lately, I’ve been paying attention to some of the comments (on Facebook or blogs or twitter) from other pastors. I’ve noticed a few things that cause pastors to worry… things that I don’t worry about because of our context.
For example, I don’t worry about getting fired because I say the wrong thing or because I take a stand on the wrong topic. (Even if I’m wrong.) I can’t be fired, because I was never hired. People follow me because they’ve decided that I’m a good example of one who is following Jesus Christ. We have many good examples who are part of our church.
I also don’t worry about what I’m going to “preach” each week. Even when it is my turn to teach or lead the discussion, “sermon preparation” is not even in view. Instead, we teach or discuss based on what we are all studying together. Imagine sitting around and talking about a certain topic or Scripture passage with a group of your friends, and then you have a good idea of what our times of teaching are like.
I don’t worry about getting someone to “fill in” for me when I’m sick or when I’m out of town. Why? Because I’m not the only one studying and “preparing” for our church meeting. I know that if I’m not present (as if my presence is necessary) there will be many others who can teach and lead the discussion.
I don’t worry about money and budget issues. Besides paying no salaries, we also fund no “ministries.” Oh, we use our money to minister to people, but not in the sense of needing to have a certain amount of money in order for some program to continue. If, for some reason, we do not have to money to rent the place where we’re currently meeting, we’ll simply find another place. We don’t let money rule what we do or don’t do.
Because of many of the above, I don’t worry about how many people meet with us each Sunday. I don’t have to worry about filling the pews (or chairs). I don’t have to worry about recruiting people to fill ministry program slots. I don’t have to worry about how much money people give.
Instead, I can focus all of my time and energy on people… caring for people… serving people… discipling people… teaching people… sharing my life with people.
What should a new pastor do?
Four years ago, I wrote a post called “What should a new pastor do?” It’s a short post, but it presents pastors/elders/overseers in a way that I’ve rarely seen them presented. I’d love to have your input.
——————————–
Before commenting on ETS, I wanted to bring up an issue that was recently introduced by Matthew McDill. Someone asked him the following question: “What should a pastor do during the first year of a new pastorate?”
As Matthew correctly recognizes, this question assumes that a new pastor is also new to a church. However, there is another assumption included in this question: a person should do something different once they are pastor. According to 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1, a person should only be recognized as an elder/overseer if that person is already functioning in a pastoral role. Caring for people and leading as an example are requirements for those who oversee the people of God (Acts 20; 1 Peter 5). If a church recognizes that God is already using one of its members in a pastoral role, then there is nothing new for that person to do. They should continue to live for God as they have been doing.
There is another assumption found in the question. The question assumes that a pastor’s duties include institutional administrative responsibilities. In other words, now that a person is a pastor, he has organizational resposibilities. But, is this assumption scriptural or traditional? Should a church (or pastor) assume that a pastor should administer the organization? I have previously suggested that Scripture does not place administrative responsibilites on the elder. If this is correct then, once again, there is nothing new required of a “pastor.”
What do you think?
Paid to Serve
Eric at “A Pilgrim’s Progress” has written an interesting post called “Robbed of Joy.” He is writing about paid pastoral ministry, which he has recently stepped away from.
Eric is concerned about being robbed of the joy that comes through serving. He writes:
When I serve those in the church as a salaried pastor, the deeds I do may be good ones (I certainly hope so). Despite this, I do not experience the same joy that I do when I’m not paid. I cannot explain it. It may be completely subjective on my part. Regardless, I know that service within the church – as a salaried pastor – loses joy precisely because of the salary.
So, who is robbing me of the joy of serving? Is it God? No. Is it the church? No. In fact, the church has been generous to us. So who is it? This may sound a bit self-centered, but I believe I’m robbing myself of joy by receiving a salary. By accepting payment for service, ministry then becomes a job/duty rather than a joy.
This is one of the reasons I am stepping down as a salaried pastor.
I’m tired of robbing myself of the joy that comes from serving brothers and sisters in Christ.
Now, I’ll be completely honest here. I have never been in a paid (salaried) pastoral position. I have never experienced what Eric is describing. I can give testimony about the other side of things – serving without being paid.
But, I’ve often wondered about paying people to serve. Is this really service? I don’t know.
What do you think? (I’d love to hear from those who are in paid pastoral positions as well.)
Church Polity – From Experience
This is the final post my series on church polity. (See my posts “Introduction,” “Episcopal,” “Presbyterian,” “Congregational,” “Scriptural Evidence,” “The Problem,” and “Moving Forward.”) In this final post, I’m going to explain how we moved from congregational polity, to a desire to seek unity before making a decision as a church.
When we first started meeting together as a church (about six years ago), we were congregational. Whenever we needed to make a decision, we voted. Now, you must understand, even in those early days we made very few decisions as a church. We did not have staff or programs, and we did not own much property. But, occasionally, something came along that required us to make a decision as a group, so we voted on it, and whatever the majority wanted became the decision of the church.
We were already acquainted with one another for the most part. But, as we continued to meet together, and as many of us began to focus on community and fellowship, we truly began to get to know one another, to care about one another, to give to and to serve and to help one another.
Soon, we found that we were not happy when our vote meant that others were “losing.” The majority won… that means that some of our brothers and sisters in Christ “lost.” These are people that we would often sacrifice ourselves for. But, when it came to making decisions, we were still focused on our own interests.
I remember one time in particular when we were trying to decide where to meet. Our landlords had doubled our rent, and we did not want to spend that much money on a meeting place. God was using our money for much more important things than a place to meet. So, we found two possible locations. (You should know that everyone in the church said that they would be happy with either location.) Some people preferred one location, and some people preferred the other location. We voted. Of course, one “side” won and the other “side” lost. A brother from the “winning” side approached me almost in tears. He said (and I’m paraphrasing) that he realized that he had voted in a way that showed he was looking out for his own interests instead of the interests of others – even his brothers and sisters.
One of my fellow elders at the time was Maël from “The Adventures of Maël & Cindy.” He recently posted a quote that captures what we were learning (this is from his post “Majority rule in the church? – A. H. Strong“):
Should not the majority rule in a Baptist church? No, not a bare majority, when there are opposing convictions on the part of a large minority. What should rule is the mind of the Spirit. What indicates his mind is the gradual unification of conviction and opinion on the part of the whole body in support of some definite plan, so that the whole church moves together.
I think Strong has it right here. Disagreement within the church does not call for “majority rule,” it calls for waiting on God to bring unity.
Guess what? That’s hard to do. Our society and culture is all about making decisions and then acting on those decisions. God does not always work on our time table. (In fact, I’ve found that he often doesn’t.)
While I can’t go into specifics, there have been times when the church was faced with two options. Some people favored Option A, and some people favored Option B. So we prayed and waited. We talked about it more, and there was still disunity.
Sometimes, through our prayer and waiting, God has moved in a way that made either Option A or Option B obviously the right choice to everyone.
Other times, God has removed either Option A or Option B.
Still other times, God has presented Option C at a later date.
But, if we had not waited… if we had followed either Option A or Option B (based on majority rule or the decision of leaders), many times we would have missed what God had planned.
It’s hard to wait for unity. It’s against our human nature – especially as Americans. But I can’t think of another way for the church to walk together in unity.
————————————————–
Church Polity Series
Church Polity – Moving Forward
This is the seventh post my series on church polity. (See my posts “Introduction,” “Episcopal,” “Presbyterian,” and “Congregational” for introductions to the three major types of church polity. Then, in my post, “Scriptural Evidence,” I said that there was no direct scriptural evidence explaining how the church made decisions, and in my post “The Problem,” I suggest that the main problem is limited exegesis and ignoring some data when it comes to decision making in the NT.) In this post, I’m going to suggest a way to move forward.
First, I want to point out that as a follower of Jesus Christ, I should be able to live, fellowship, and work a church who follows either of the three major types of church polity. Why? Because I (and you) should be willing to submit to others (including those who think they should have authority because of their position and including those who vote with a majority for their own decision).
There is one caveat though. If God is calling someone in a certain direction, and the church (either leader(s) or majority) decide against it, the individual must follow God. Certainly, the person should carefully consider the desires of the group. There may be wisdom in their decision. However, there are times when leader(s) or majority can choose against the will of God for an individual.
As an example, I know a few people (2 couples, actually) who desired to serve in their neighborhood. They asked their church leaders for support (prayer, encouragement, etc.). The leaders refused. The two couples spent some time deciding if they still thought this was God’s desire for them. They decided it was, so they continued, asking others for support.
However, there is another way (besides episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational polity) that churches can make decisions. As far as I can tell, this way takes into account all of the scriptural information.
A church can choose to wait until they all agree before making a decision. When there is disagreement, they can continue to pray, discuss, listen, and wait until they can all agree on the decision.
Usually, this option is not considered because it is impractical for most churches.
But, as far as I can tell, it allows the mature brothers and sisters (leaders) to take part in the decision making process, even speaking (as James did in Acts 15) and offering their “judgment.” It also takes into account the necessity – yes, necessity – of the church seeking the will of God together and seeking unity and agreement. It allows any within the church to submit to others, perhaps even choosing to “champion” the opinion of another brother or sister (even if their opinion would be different).
Finally, and most importantly, it helps the church think seriously about which decisions are really important and which decisions are not important. From what I can tell, most decisions that churches make (and argue about, and split over, and get hurt feelings because of) are decisions that don’t actually have to be made, or decisions in which either option would be equally important (or unimportant) in kingdom priorities.
I hope you (my readers) choose to interact with this option. It is not easy, and it is often impractical (in an organizational sense). What do you think? Why would it not work? Why would it work?
(In the final post of this series, I’m going to share a few experiences of waiting for unity and agreement before making a decision.)
————————————————–
Church Polity Series
Church Polity – The Problem
This post continues my series on church polity. (See my posts “Introduction,” “Episcopal,” “Presbyterian,” and “Congregational” for introductions to the three major types of church polity. Then, in my previous post, “Scriptural Evidence,” I said that there was no direct scriptural evidence explaining how the church made decisions.) In this post, I was to point out a major problem with all three type of church polity.
What is that major problem? Selected and limited exegesis. In the case of each of the three types of church polity (episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational), support is demonstrated in certain scriptural passages, while other passages are ignored or explained away.
Furthermore, fact that believers never exercise authority over other believers in Scripture is completely ignored. Also, Scripture never shows some believers making decisions for other believers. The functioning of bishops, elders, pastors, leaders, evangelists, prophets, deacons, leaders, etc. are never shown to include decision-making or the exercise of authority. All of this (yes, evidence from silence… but very silent in the face of many decision that must be made by churches in the NT) must be ignored to support either episcopal or presbyterian governments. Similarly, the fact that we never see churches voting in Scripture must be ignored by those who support congregational polity.
Like I said, churches in the New Testament are faced with many problems – theological, ethical, social, moral, etc. Yet, in spite of this, no authors spell out the type of “government” the church should have in order to solve these problems. None. Not Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Not Paul. Not even Peter. Neither James nor Jude tell us what type of polity the church should have.
So far, in order to support any type of church polity, we must ignore the fact that there is no direct evidence, ignore passages that indicate indirectly other forms of church polity, and ignore the fact that polity is not important in any of the writings of the New Testament.
But, there is one more thing that we must ignore exegetically. We must ignore what Scripture says about all believers; things like the fact that all believers are indwelled by the Holy Spirit or all believers have the mind of Christ. We must ignore the fact that believers are to submit to one another. (I would assume this includes leaders? Even bishops? Even the presbyters?) We must ignore that believers are to consider others (and the opinions and desires of others) as more important than themselves. (I would assume this would include the majority versus the minority.)
How do we combine all of these things and still come to a conclusion on church polity? How can we have leaders without decision making? How can we have unity when we disagree? Where do we go from here? Don’t we need a polity or governance? Won’t everything fall apart if we don’t have a system in place?
————————————————–
Church Polity Series
Speaking at a Pastors Breakfast
When you read this, I’ll be returning from (or have already returned from) speaking to a group of pastors at an associational breakfast. I was invited to speak by one of the pastors after he read some of my blog posts about elders in the New Testament. Specifically, I was asked to speak on some aspect of shepherding in the New Testament.
I decided to speak on “Serving as Leading,” primarily from Luke 22:24-27.
I’m excited about speaking to this group for several reasons. While I know that these pastors probably disagree with me about many things, we share the most important thing in common: We are brothers in Jesus Christ, with God as our Father, and are mutually indwelled by the Holy Spirit. I’m expecting to learn from and be encouraged by them.
Also, two dear brothers are traveling with me to the breakfast meeting, which is about 1 1/2 hours from our house. So, besides the time at the breakfast, we’ll have three hours (while traveling) to talk and laugh and share. It should be a great time together!
Church Polity – Scriptural Evidence
So far in the series, I have introduced the three primary types of church polity. (See my posts “Introduction,” “Episcopal,” “Presbyterian,” and “Congregational.”) In this post, I’m going to investigate some of the scriptural evidence concerning church polity.
As a reminder, church polity refers both to the structure and the decision-making responsibility of the church. The primary differences in the three main forms of church governance relate to who has final authority: either one person (episcopal), a group of leaders (presbyterian), or the majority of the congregation (congregational).
When it comes to church decision making in Scripture, some point to Old Testament texts such as Jethro’s advice to Moses in Exodus 18:17-23. Others refer to the prophets, priests, or kings of ancient Israel.
In the Gospels, several statements of Jesus are often consulted concerning polity and decision-making, such as Matthew 20:25-28 (or Mark 10:42-46 or Luke 22:25-27) and Matthew 23:8-12.
However, the primary evidence for decision-making in the church comes from Acts and the Epistles. For example, in Acts 1:15-26, Luke tells the story of choosing Matthias to take Judas’ place. We are told that they “threw lots” to decide between Matthia and Joseph/Barsabbas/Justus. However, we are not told who among the 120 (Acts 1:15) “put forward” those two men.
In Acts 6:1-6, the church has to make another decision. This time, they have to decide who will take care of food distribution among the Greek widows. The church (or some of them?) bring the problem to the apostles, but the apostles give the problem back to the church to solve. The church (somehow) chooses seven men to distribute food for the widows. However, again, we are not told how these particular men were chosen.
In Acts 15:1-22, Luke tells about the meeting in Jerusalem. The key verse, which is used by proponents of each of the three forms of church polity, is Acts 15:22 –
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers… (Acts 15:22 ESV)
Those who support an episcopal form of polity point out that the church was simply following James’ “judgment.” Those who support a presbyterian form of polity point out the role of “the apostles and the elders.” Those who support congregational polity point out that “the whole church” approved the decision. Again, we not specifically told how this decision was made.
Other scriptural evidence is similar to the three examples above. We are not told precisely how Paul and Barnabas “appointed” elder in Acts 14:23. We do not know what process was used to decide whether or not to “deliver… to Satan” the man who was sleeping with his step-mother (1 Corinthians 5:1-5) or what process was used to decide whether or not to receive him back into fellowship with the church (2 Corinthians 2:6-8).
We are not told specifically how Titus was to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5)Â – by himself, with others? In fact, even with the discussion of elders/bishops/overseers/deacons/leaders/etc., we are never told how these people relate to the decision-making activities of the church. (For examples, see Acts 20:28-35, 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, 1 Peter 5:1-3, among other passages.)
In fact, there is very little direct evidence in Scripture explaining how the church made decisions.
————————————————–